Bangalore District Court
Rajanna vs Parvathy B on 6 November, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.1860/2023
KABC020086572023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 06th day of November, 2024
Present : SRI. D.RAMESH.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.1860/2023
Petitioners: 1.Sri.Rajanna,
S/o Mudlagiriyappa,
Aged about 57 years,
2.Smt.Muttamma,
W/o Rajanna,
Aged about 50 years.
Both are residing at:
Maralakunte, Bangalore Rural,
Nelamangala Tq,Maralkunte
Maralakunte,
Bangalore Rural - 562 111.
(By Sri.R.Chandrashekar, Adv)
SCCH-14 2 MVC.1860/2023
Vs
Respondents : 1. Parvathy,
W/o S.N.Balasumbramaniyam,
R/a No.1, AGA Garden Food Godown
Road at Halli Layout, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(By Sri.M.Ravindranath. Adv)
2.The General Manager,
Liberty General Insurance Ltd.,
No.21/15, The Land Mark, 4th Floor,
Near Trinity Metro, MG Road,
Bangalore -560001.
(By Sri.Kiran Pujar,Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioners against Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Maruthi M.R. S/o Rajanna M in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 28-11-2022 at about 4.00 p.m., the deceased Maruthi.M.R was riding his Splender Plus motor cycle bearing SCCH-14 3 MVC.1860/2023 No.KA-52-Q-4079 along with pillion rider from Doddabelavangala towards Dabaspet. When they reached near constructing toll Hulikunte, Appakaranahalli gate, Doddaballapura-Dabaspete NH-207, at that time, the driver of tipper lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-0875 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler from back side. Due to the said accident, Maruthi.M.R and pillion rider fell down and the lorry ran over the body of both of them, they sustained grievous injuries succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself.
Prior to the accident, said Maruthi.M.R was hale and healthy and he was working as flower decorator and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Entire family of the deceased was depending on the income of the deceased. The cause of death is due to accidental injuries. The said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AD-0875. The Respondent No.1 is the owner and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the SCCH-14 4 MVC.1860/2023 offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AD-0875. Therefore, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and filed their detailed objections.
Respondent No.1 in the Objection Statement to the main petition denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper lorry. Further, he contended that the driver of tipper lorry had valid and effective driving licence and the lorry also had permit to ply on the road. The said lorry was insured with the respondent No.2 and it was in force as on the date of accident. On these grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
Respondent No.2 in the Objection Statement to the main petition denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent SCCH-14 5 MVC.1860/2023 driving of the driver of the offending tipper lorry. Further, it admits the issuance of insurance policy to the tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AD-0875. Further it contended that the rider of the motor cycle was not having valid and effective driving licence and the accident took place due to his negligence and also contended that the deceased was not wearing helmet. Further it contended that the driver of lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties i.e, owner and insurer of motor cycle. On these grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, my Learned Predecessor has framed the following Issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that their son Maruthi.M.R. was died in the Road Traffic Accident which occurred on 28.11.2022 at about 4.00 p.m. near newly constructing toll, SCCH-14 6 MVC.1860/2023 Apakaranahalli gate, Doddaballapura Dabas Pete, NH-207 main road, Hulikunte, arising due to rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AD-0875?
2.Whether the petitioners further prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Maruthi.M.R?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What award or order ?
5. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 17 and got examined a witness as PW.2 and got marked 2 documents as per Ex.P.18 and 19 and closed their side evidence. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and closed their side evidence. Respondent No.1 has not led any evidence.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied SCCH-14 7 MVC.1860/2023 upon the following citations.
1. SLP(C) No.3511 of 2020 between Hans Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and another date of disposal :20.08.2024.
2. MFA No.7404/2014 (MV-D) between Smt.Mariyamma and others Vs. Sri.Suyambulingam.V and another date of disposal :06.02.2022.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. I have perused the depositions, documents exhibited, decisions relied by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and materials available on record.
8. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order for the following :
SCCH-14 8 MVC.1860/2023
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is the case of the Petitioners that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-
AD-0875 and in the said accident, Maruthi.M.R had succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
10. On the other hand, the Respondents have denied the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tipper lorry.
11. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.2 got examined herself as P.W.1 and she has filed her chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and re-iterated the petition averments.
12. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P17. Ex.P-1 and 2 are the True copy of FIR and complaint, which show that the Doddabelavangala Police have registered the case against the driver of tipper lorry SCCH-14 9 MVC.1860/2023 bearing No.KA-01-AD-0875 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P3 and 4 are the Spot Mahazar and Sketch, which show that the concerned police have drawn the Mahazar at the spot in the presence of panchas and prepared the sketch. Ex.P.5 is the IMV Report, which shows that accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle. Ex. P.6 is the inquest. Ex.P.7 is the notice issued u/s 133 of IMV Act. Ex.P.8 is the reply to notice. Ex.P.9 is the PM Report, which shows that the cause of death is traumatic brain injury as a result of road traffic accident. Ex.P.10 is the true copy of the Charge-sheet which shows that the I.O of Doddabelavangala Police Station has submitted Charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC.
13. Ex.P.11, 13 and 15 are the notarised copies of Aadhar cards of Petitioners and the deceased. Ex.P.12 is the notarized copy of ITI Certificate of deceased. Ex. P.14 and 16 are the notarised copies of PAN cards petitioners. Ex.P.17 is SCCH-14 10 MVC.1860/2023 notarized copy of RC smart card of bike bearing No.KA52 Q 4079.
14. PW1 is subjected for cross examination by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. During her cross examination she has denied all the suggestions made by the counsel for respondent No.2.
15. Further PW.1 got examined an eyewitness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.18 and 19 i.e., true copy of statement of PW.2 U/s161 Cr.P.C., and notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.2. During his cross examination he has admitted that he has not received any notice or summons to give evidence. He has also admitted the suggestion that he was not present at the time of spot mahazar and denied the other suggestions made by the counsel for respondent No.2.
16. The counsel for Respondent No.2 has examined its Area Manager as RW.1 and got marked policy at Ex.R.1. During his cross examination he has admitted that they have SCCH-14 11 MVC.1860/2023 not issued any notice against the owner of offending vehicle and they have not challenged the charge sheet.
17. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that Ex.P.5 - IMV report shows that front left side of two wheeler is damaged, therefore, it shows that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the bike.
18. It is pertinent to note that spot sketch prepared by the police at the time of spot mahazar is produced at Ex.P.4 and the spot mahaar is produced at Ex.P.3. These two documents constitute basis for assessing in contributory negligence can be attributed on the part of the deceased or not. A careful perusal of Ex.P.3 and 4 show that it is 4 lane high way is divided by median 8 ft. width. The deceased was moving towards Dabaspete at the left side of the road. The offending tipper lorry came behind the deceased two wheeler and hit against the said bike from backside. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence of the deceased. It cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased SCCH-14 12 MVC.1860/2023 only because the damages caused to the front side of the bike.
19. Moreover, the charge sheet is the material document, which is not challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by the Petitioner No.2 and the documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the Petitioners have proved that the said accident has occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-0875 and in the said accident, the son of PW1 had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Issue No. 2 and 3:
20. Both these issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts.
21. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No.1 is SCCH-14 13 MVC.1860/2023 the father of the deceased and Petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased Maruthi.M.R, In order to prove this fact, PW.1 has produced Ex.P.11, 13 and P.15 i.e., Aadhar Card of deceased Maruthi.M.R. and the Aadhar cards of the Petitioners. Upon going through the said documents, it clearly show that the Petitioner No.1 is the father and Petitioner No.2 is mother of the deceased Maruthi.M.R. Hence, the petitioners have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Maruthi.M.R. Therefore, the Petitioners are considered as the dependents on the deceased Maruthi.M.R.
22. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 29 years and his avocation is shown as flower decorator and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, petitioners have not produced any documents to prove his avocation and income. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the notional income to be assessed.
SCCH-14 14 MVC.1860/2023
23. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently argued that the guidelines of the State Legal Service Authority are applicable only for the settlement of cases before the Lok Aadalath. The minimum wages fixed in the Minimum Wages Act to be considered while assessing the compensation by the MACT. In this regard he has relied upon the decision in the case of Hans raj (Supra). Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court at para 6 held that " In view of the foregoing, it is to conclude that henceforth, the guidelines, if any, issued by the State Legal Services Authority of the High Court would apply as guiding factor in the cases where the proof of income is not available and ordinarily to decide cases in Lok Adalath. Such guidelines are not binding either on the High Court or on MACT to determine just and fair compensation. The courts are at liberty to decide the amount of compensation while appreciating the evidence so brought on record and what is just and reasonable in the facts. In absence of such evidence, the guidelines of the legal service authority may be relied upon but only for guidance. SCCH-14 15 MVC.1860/2023
24. He also relied upon the decision in the case of Smt.Mariyamma (supra). Wherein Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at para 33 held that "the guidelines issued by Karnataka legal service authority regarding notional income for the purpose of settlement of the cases before the Lok Adalath may be adopted. Such guidelines cannot take the place of statutory guidelines and therefore it would be proper to rely on the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act."
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hans Raj (supra) has not stated that wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act shall be considered by the Tribunal. In fact it is held that in the absence of proof of income the guidelines of legal services authority may be relied. But in the case of Mariyamma(supra) Hon'ble High Court held that wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act shall be considered by the Tribunal.
26. At this stage, it is profitable to refer another judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.101144/2020 SCCH-14 16 MVC.1860/2023 (MV-I) on 05.07.2023 between Ananda V/s Arjun & another. Wherein, at para no.9(b) held that " In the absence of any cogent material on record, it is for the courts and tribunals to assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by Karnataka State Legal Service Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence any material produced by the claimant to prove his income it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- for month and the same is assessed as the monthly of the injured claimant".
27. It is Pivotal to note that subordinate courts are governed under Article 141 of Indian Constitution which deals with law of precedents. The decision relied by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is rendered by Division Bench, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 06.12.2022. Another judgment relied by this court is rendered by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 05.07.2023. As per the principles laid down by the constitutional courts in Catena of decisions, it SCCH-14 17 MVC.1860/2023 would be culled out that in two decisions taking contrary by the division bench, then the recent one will prevail over the previous one. Hence, the decision relied by this court decided on 05.07.2023 is recent one and binding on this court.
28. Therefore, considering the ratio of the recent decision this Tribunal consider the notional income fixed by the Karnataka State legal service authority. Since the accident has occurred in the year 2022, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka legal service authority i.e., Rs.15,500/-p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
29. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Maruthi.M.R as 29 years at the time of the accident. As per Aadhar card of the deceased Maruthi.M.R i.e., Ex.P.11, the date of birth of Maruthi.M.R was shown as 28.08.1994. The alleged accident was occurred on 28.11.2022. It means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Maruthi.M.R was SCCH-14 18 MVC.1860/2023 28 years and 3 months. Hence, the age of the deceased Maruthi.M.R to be taken at 28 years for the purpose of Assessment of compensation.
30. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
31. The deceased has left behind him, his father and mother. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are considered as dependents. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "Loss of estate has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 15,000/-, loss of SCCH-14 19 MVC.1860/2023 consortium should be Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/-".The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the Petitioner No.1 is the father and Petitioner No.2 is mother of the deceased Maruthi.M.R, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
32. Petitioner No.1 is the father and he lost his son's love and care in his old age and Petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased and she lost her son's love and care. Bearing in mind the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable. SCCH-14 20 MVC.1860/2023
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
33. The Petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. Hence, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDANCY:
34. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was notionally fixed at Rs.15,500/- p.m. At this juncture, I would like to go through the decision reported in :
1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, TamilNadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, SCCH-14 21 MVC.1860/2023 contract worker in a company - High Court did not consider future prospects while computing compensation - Whether claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
- Held : - yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles
of assessment Future prospects Deceased
aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance
company that principle of addition on
account of future prospects is not applicable
where income of the deceased is
determined by guesswork, High Court
disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes: there cannot be distinction SCCH-14 22 MVC.1860/2023 where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork : executing Court directed to respondent compute entitlement of claimants by adding 40 per cent of income for future prospect and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses".
The decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "In case of self employed or fixed salary, the addition should be 40% below the age of 40 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.15,500/- comes to Rs.6,200/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.21,700/- p.m. (Rs.15,500-00 + Rs.6200-00). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation SCCH-14 23 MVC.1860/2023 and another) the multiplier applicable is 17. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that if the deceased is bachelor half of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
After deducting half of the amount towards his personal expenses in Rs.21,700/- it comes to Rs.10,850/- (21700-00 - 10,850-00) and multiplier applied is 17 which comes to Rs.22,13,400/- (10,850 x 12 x 17). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.22,13,400/- towards loss of dependency.
35. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 88,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/-
of dead body SCCH-14 24 MVC.1860/2023
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.22,13,400/-
Total Rs.23,94,400/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.23,94,400/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
36. Regarding Liability : As already discussed in the Issue No.2, in this case the driver of the offending tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AD-0875 was charge-sheeted. Further, there is no dispute about the validity of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the "Affirmative" and Issue No.3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
37. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I am of the SCCH-14 25 MVC.1860/2023 opinion that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,94,400/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.23,94,400/- along with costs and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
However, Respondent No.2 being the insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount as stated supra SCCH-14 26 MVC.1860/2023 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of this award.
Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 40% to the Petitioner No.1.
2) 60% to the Petitioner No.2 After being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.2, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% each of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively by way of E-payment after their proper identification and the remaining 25% each of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of their choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
SCCH-14 27 MVC.1860/2023Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 06th day of November, 2024) (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Muttamma P.W.2 : Siddaraju Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Inquest Ex.P7 True copy of notice issued U/sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P8 True copy of reply issued in respect of Ex.P7 Ex.P9 True copy of PM report Ex.P10 True copy of Charge sheet SCCH-14 28 MVC.1860/2023 Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P12 Notarized copy of ITI Certificate Ex.P13 Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P14 Notarized copy of PAN card Ex.P15 Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P16 Notarized copy of PAN card Ex.P17 Notarized copy of RC smart card of vehicle bearing KA-52-Q-4079 Ex.P18 True Copy of statement of PW-2
Ex. P.19 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW-2 Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 - Santosh B.L Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents : Ex.R.1 - True copy of policy (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.