Bangalore District Court
Deviramma vs Deepanjalli.S on 16 April, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
KABC020267232019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
Dated : This the 16th day of April 2024
Present : SRI. YATHISHA.R.
B.A.L.,L.L.B., ,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.6453/2019, MVC.6454/2019, MVC 6455/2019,
MVC 6456/2019 & 6936/2019
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Deviramma,
In W/o Late Chikkatimmegowda,
MVC.6453/2019 Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.793, 15th cross,
2nd stage, K.S. Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
Permanent Address:
No.218, Indavalu village,
Mandya Taluk & District.
(By Sri.H.L.Chandrashekar Adv.)
SCCH-14 2 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
2. Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
S/o Late Karisiddegowda,
Aged about 66 years,
3. Nagamma,
W/o Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
Aged about 58 years,
No.2 & 3 are presently residing at
No.218, Hebbakawadi village,
Lokasara post, Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District.
Vs. (By Sri. S. Jayanna, Adv.)
Respondent/s 1. Deepanjali S, Major,
W/o Shanthappa,
No.375, Ramanna Layout,
Near Ramanjaneya Kalyana
Mantapa, Byrati Kothanur,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(RC owner of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA01MR5374)
(By Sri.B.M.Mohan Kumar, Adv.)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
(Insurer of the Car bearing Reg. No.
KA01MR5374)
Policy
No.3001/169256039/00/000 valid
from 17.04.2019 to 16.04.2020.
(By Sri.L.S. Renukappa Adv.)
SCCH-14 3 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
3. The Managing Director,
KSRTC, K.H. Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru560 027.
RC owner of the KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA11F0426
(By Sri. M.S. Basavaraju,Adv. )
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Deviramma,
In W/o Late Chikkatimmegowda,
MVC.6454/2019 Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.793, 15th cross,
2nd stage, K.S. Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
Permanent Address:
No.218, Indavalu village,
Mandya Taluk & District.
(By Sri.H.L.Chandrashekar Adv.)
2. Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
S/o Late Karisiddegowda,
Aged about 66 years,
3. Nagamma,
W/o Kempaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
No.2 & 3 are presently residing at
No.218, Hebbakawadi village,
Lokasara post, Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District.
Vs. (By Sri. S. Jayanna Adv.)
Respondent/s 1. Deepanjali S., Major,
W/o Shanthappa,
No.375, Ramanna Layout,
Near Ramanjaneya Kalyana
SCCH-14 4 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
Mantapa, Byrati Kothanur,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(RC owner of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA01MR5374)
(By Sri.B.M.Mohan Kumar, Adv.)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
CO. Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
(Insurer of the Car bearing Reg. No.
KA01MR5374)
Policy
No.3001/169256039/00/000 valid
from 17.04.2019 to 16.04.2020.
(By Sri.L.S. Renukappa Adv.)
3. The Managing Director,
KSRTC, K.H. Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru560 027.
RC owner of the KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA11F0426
(By Sri. M.S. Basavaraju,Adv. )
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Deviramma,
In W/o Late Chikkatimmegowda,
MVC.6455/2019 Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.793, 15th cross,
2nd stage, K.S. Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
Permanent Address:
No.218, Indavalu village,
Mandya Taluk & District.
SCCH-14 5 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
(By Sri. H.L. Chandrashekar,
Adv.)
2. Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
S/o Late Karisiddegowda,
Aged about 66 years,
3. Nagamma,
W/o Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
Aged about 58 years,
No.2 & 3 are presently residing at
No.218, Hebbakawadi village,
Lokasara post, Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District.
Vs.
Respondent/s (By Sri. S. Jayanna Adv.)
1. Deepanjali S., Major,
W/o Shanthappa,
No.375, Ramanna Layout,
Near Ramanjaneya Kalyana
Mantapa, Byrati Kothanur,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(RC owner of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA01MR5374)
(By Sri.B.M.Mohan Kumar, Adv.)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
CO. Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
(Insurer of the Car bearing Reg. No.
KA01MR5374)
Policy
SCCH-14 6 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
No.3001/169256039/00/000 valid
from 17.04.2019 to 16.04.2020.
(By Sri.L.S. Renukappa Adv.)
3. The Managing Director,
KSRTC, K.H. Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru560 027.
RC owner of the KSRTC bus
bearing No.KA11F0426
Petitioners : (By Sri. M.S. Basavaraju,Adv. )
In
MVC.6456/2019 1. Smt. Deviramma,
W/o Late Chikkatimmegowda,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.793, 15th cross,
2nd stage, K.S. Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
Permanent Address:
No.218, Indavalu village,
Mandya Taluk & District.
(By Sri. H.L. Chandrashekar,
Adv.)
2. Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
S/o Late Karisiddegowda,
Aged about 66 years,
3. Nagamma,
W/o Kempaiah @ Kempegowda,
V/s
Aged about 58 years,
No.2 & 3 are presently residing at
No.218, Hebbakawadi village,
Lokasara post, Kothathi Hobli,
Mandya Taluk & District.
Respondent/s
SCCH-14 7 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
(By Sri. S. Jayanna Adv.)
1. Deepanjali S., Major,
W/o Shanthappa,
No.375, Ramanna Layout,
Near Ramanjaneya Kalyana
Mantapa, Byrati Kothanur,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(RC owner of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA01MR5374)
(By Sri.B.M.Mohan Kumar, Adv.)
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
CO. Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
(Insurer of the Car bearing Reg. No.
KA01MR5374)
Policy
No.3001/169256039/00/000 valid
from 17.04.2019 to 16.04.2020.
(By Sri.L.S. Renukappa Adv.)
3. The Managing Director,
KSRTC, K.H. Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru560 027.
RC owner of the KSRTC bus
Petitioner in bearing No.KA11F0426
MVC.6936/2019 (By Sri. M.S. Basavaraju,Adv. )
S.B. Basavaraju,
S/o Basavaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
SCCH-14 8 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
R/at Sadholalu village,
Kasaba Hobli, Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
Respondent/s
(By Sri.H.L.Chandrashekar Adv.)
1. Deepanjali S., Major,
W/o Shanthappa,
No.375, Ramanna Layout,
Near Ramanjaneya Kalyana
Mantapa, Byrati Kothanur,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(RC owner of the Car bearing Reg.
No.KA01MR5374)
(By Sri.B.M.Mohan Kumar, Adv.)
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance CO. Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickenson road,
Bengaluru - 560 042.
(Insurer of the Car bearing Reg. No.
KA01MR5374)
Policy
No.3001/169256039/00/000 valid
from 17.04.2019 to 16.04.2020.
(By Sri.L.S. Renukappa Adv.)
SCCH-14 9 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
:JUDGMENT:
Petition No.6453/2019 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ from the respondents on account of death of one Ravi.H.K S/o Kempaiah @ Kempegowda in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 27.07.2019.
Petition No.6454/2019 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.40,00,000/ from the respondents on account of death of one Smt.Manjula w/o late Ravi H.K in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 27.07.2019.
Petition No.6455/2019 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.30,00,000/ from the respondents on account of death of one Sukanya D/o late Ravi H.K in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 27.07.2019.
Petition No.6456/2019 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.30,00,000/ from the respondents on account of death of one Sagar, S/o late Ravi H.K in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 27.07.2019.
Petition No.6936/2019 is preferred under Section 166 of the SCCH-14 10 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ from the respondents on account of injury sustained by the petitioner in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 27.07.2019.
2. The cause of action for all the petitions was same. As such, the petition No.6454/2019 to 6456/2019 and MVC.6936/2019 were clubbed in petition No.6453/2019 for common disposal/common trial.
3. According to the petitioners in the respective petitions, the petitioner in MVC.6936/2019 was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA11V7949 with Mr.Sampath Kumar as his pillion rider. They were going on BengaluruMysore road towards Mysore on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. When the said motor cycle reached near Balaji Convention hall near Gejjalagere Colony, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, the driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA01MR5374 driven the same at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind the motor cycle and dashed to the motor cycle. Thereafter, the said car proceeded further and dashed against one swift car bearing No.KA01MG8249. As a result, the driver of swift car lost his control over the car and dashed SCCH-14 11 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 to the road divider and thereafter jumped and crossed towards the other side of the road i.e., MysoreBengaluru.
4. A KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA11F0426 was proceeding on its path from MysoreBengaluru. To the said bus, the Swift car bearing No.KA01MG8249 dashed and as a result, the driver of said car and the inmates died on spot. Due to the impact to his motor cycle, the petitioner and his pillion rider fell on road and have sustained injuries all over the body. According to this petitioner, accident occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of car bearing No.KA01MR5374 against whom the case has been registered before Maddur Traffic police station and the IO has also submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, 304[A] of IPC. The petitioner herein claims compensation of a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondents, as a result of injury sustained by him.
5. The petitions bearing No.6453/2019, 6454/2019, 6455/2019 and 6456/2019 were initially preferred by one Smt.Deviramma as a sole petitioner wherein 5 respondents were arrayed. Subsequently, by virtue of the orders passed on an SCCH-14 12 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 interlocutory application, the respondent No.4 and 5 got transposed themselves as petitioner No.2 and 3.
6. The averments made in the above mentioned petitions reads as hereunder:
According to the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is the mother in law of Sri.Ravi.H.K, grand mother of Sukanya and Sagar, mother of Smt.Manjula. The said Ravi.H.K, Manjula, Sukanya and Sagar have succumbed as a result of injuries sustained by them in a RTA occurred on 27.07.2019. The petitioner No.2 and 3 are parents of late Ravi H.K and in laws of late Manjula and grand parents of Late Sagar and Sukanya.
7. According to the petitioner No.1, she was depending on her daughter Smt.Manjula and her soninlaw Ravi, as she resided with them. As a result of sad demise of her daughter, soninlaw and grand children, she has left alone and she being the legal representative of the deceased Ravi.H.K and her daughter, she is entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs.50 lakhs, 30 lakhs, 30 lakhs and 40 lakhs respectively from the respondents as claimed in the respective petitions.
SCCH-14 13 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
8. As it is noted above that earlier the petitioner No.2 and 3 were arrayed as Respondent No.4 and 5, they have contested all the petitions filing respective statement of objections. Wherein, they have admitted their relationship with the deceased Ravi.H.K, Manjula, Sukanya and Sagar. They have also admitted their relationship with the petitioner No.1.
9. However according to them, the petitioner No.1 Deviramma is not entitled to claim any quantum of compensation much less claimed by her in respective petitions. They have also stated that only with an intention to keep these petitioners away from getting compensation, they were made as respondent No.4 and 5. They have admitted the averments regarding the age, avocation and income of the deceased Ravi.H.K. They have also sought for grant of compensation to them.
10. In the objection filed by the petitioner No.2 and 3 in the petition bearing No.6453/2019, they have admitted the relationship. They have contended that said Ravi.H.K was earning a sum of Rs.60,000/ p.m. and not Rs.15,000/p.m. as stated in the petition filed by Deviramma.
SCCH-14 14 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
11. They have contended that Deviramma was not residing with late Ravi.H.K and Manjula at the time of accident and, she is not dependent on them. As such, she is not entitled for any compensation. It is also contended that the respondent No.1 to 3 may be directed to pay compensation of sum of Rs.70 lakhs to them under the different heads. They have also sought for dismissal of the petition preferred by Smt.Deviramma.
12. In the objection filed by the petitioner No.2 and 3 to the petition bearing No.6456/2019, they have admitted their relationship with the deceased Sagar. However, according to them, after procedure of Post mortem body was handed over to them and they have performed the funeral and obsequies of the deceased having spent a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ and that Smt.Deviramma has not spent any money in that regard.
13. The averments made in the petition filed by Deviramma regarding allegation of negligence on the part of driver of car bearing NO.KA01MR5374 has been admitted. They have sought for dismissal of the petition filed by Deviramma and to grant compensation of a sum of Rs.30 lakhs along with interest to them. SCCH-14 15 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
14. Upon service of notice, the respondent No.1 to 3 in all the petitions made appearance through their respective learned advocate and have contested the petitions by filing their respective statement of objections. In the objections filed by the respondent No.1 to all the petitions, the entire averments made in the petitions have been denied. According to her, her car bearing No.KA01MR5374 was duly insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. She also contended that the driver of said car had possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same.
15. She contends that on 27.07.2019, the driver of offending car i.e., KA01MR5374 was driving the same in a cautious manner by following all the traffic rules and regulations. She states that the rider of two wheeler bearing No.KA11V7949 was riding the same in a rash and negligent manner, came on a wrong side of the adjacent vehicle i.e., KA01MG8249 which was also proceeding in a high speed, in order to avoid possible accident, the driver of maruthi swift car bearing No. KA01MG8249 suddenly took extreme right and they have lost control over the car, same crossed the road SCCH-14 16 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 divider and dashed against KSRTC bus bearing No.KA11F0426.
16. She further contends that as a rider of two wheeler and the driver of maruthi swift car were riding and driving the said vehicles in a rash and negligent manner, accident occurred on account of negligence on their part. However, the rider of two wheeler, relatives of the deceased have in collusion foisted the maruthi Baleno car herein with an intention to make wrongful gain from the respondent No.1.
17. She further contends that as the policy of the offending car in question was in force, if this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident occurred as a result of negligence of the driver of offending maruthi car, the respondent No.2 shall be made liable to pay any such compensation and no liability would be saddled on respondent No.1. With all these contentions, the respondent No.1 prays for dismissal of the petitions against her.
18. Respondent No.2 in the statement of objections filed in respect of all the petitions has contended that the owner of the offending vehicle or the jurisdictional police concerned have not complied the mandates of Motor Vehicles Act as neither of them SCCH-14 17 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 have informed the respondent No.2 regarding the occurrence of alleged accident.
19. This respondent contends that the alleged accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of KA11V7949 motor cycle and KA01MG8249 by their respective rider and driver. As the rider of motor cycle without observing the traffic rules suddenly changed the line from left to right and in that process, the driver of maruthi swift car bearing No.KA01MG8249 lost his control over the car and to avoid the rider of motor cycle he dashed to the insured vehicle and thereafter dashed to the road divider then jumped to another side of the road and dashed to the KSRTC bus which was proceeding on its path towards Bengaluru. As such, the accident in question occurred as a result of negligence on the part of rider of KA11V7949 and the driver of KA01MG8249.
20. According to this respondent, the driver of car bearing No.KA01MR5374 which is insured with this respondent had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the same on the date of accident. As there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent herein is not liable to pay any compensation SCCH-14 18 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 to any of the petitioners much less the quantum claimed by them in the respective petitions. Accordingly, this respondent prays for dismissal of all the petitions against it.
21. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.3 in respect of the petitions, it is contended that the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA11F0426 was driving the bus towards Bengaluru by observing all the traffic rules and regulations. That, there is no negligence on his part in the occurrence of alleged accident. Inspite of the same, he has been made as a party to the proceedings which is not necessary.
22. According to this respondent, the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of car bearing KA01MR5374 by its driver. The said driver having driven the same in rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed from behind to a motor cycle bearing No.KA11V7949 and thereafter dashed to the car bearing No.KA01MG8249. As a result, the driver of KA01 MG8249 lost control over his vehicle, jumped the road median and car came on the path in which KSRTC bus was moving and thereafter dashed to the bus. Such being the case, there is no SCCH-14 19 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 negligence on the part of driver of bus in occurrence of accident. However, to overcome their liabilities and to make unrich claim of compensation, this respondent has been made unnecessarily a party to the proceedings. The averments made in the petitions have been denied as false and baseless. With all these contentions respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of all the petitions against it.
23. Based on the pleadings and the materials made available on record by respective parties to the petitions, my learned predecessorinoffice has framed following Issues in respect of each petition.
ISSUES IN MVC No.6453/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she is the legal representative of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that Ravi H.K.S/o Kempaiah @ Kempegowda died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., Balaji Convention Hall, near Gejjalgere colony, Bengaluru - Mysore road, SCCH-14 20 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Maddur Taluk, Mandya arising due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA01MR5374?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What Order or Award?
Having considered the rival claims placed on hand by the respective parties, it appears just and necessary to this Tribunal to frame an additional issue and to recast the issue No.3. By exercising inherent powers conferred by the statute, additional issue No.1 is framed as hereunder:
Additional Issue No.1:
1. Whether the petitioner No.2 and 3
proved that they are the legal
representatives of the deceased?
Recast Issue No.3:
SCCH-14 21 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
Whether all the petitioners are entitled for compensation or not ? Who is entitled, how much and from whom?
ISSUES IN MVC No.6454/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she is the legal representative of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that Manjula W/o Ravi H.K. died due to injuries sustained by her in an accident occurred on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., Balaji Convention Hall, near Gejjalgere colony, Bengaluru - Mysore road, Maddur Taluk, Mandya arising due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA01MR5374?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What Order or Award?SCCH-14 22 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019 Having considered the rival claims placed on hand by the respective parties, it appears just and necessary to this Tribunal to frame an additional issue and to recast the issue No.3. By exercising inherent powers conferred by the statute, additional issue No.1 is framed as hereunder:
Additional Issue No.1:
1. Whether the petitioner No.2 and 3 proved that they are the legal representatives of the deceased?
Recast Issue No.3:
Whether all the petitioners are entitled for compensation or not ? Who is entitled, how much and from whom?
ISSUES IN MVC No.6455/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she is the legal representative of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that Sukanya D/o Ravi H.K died due to injuries sustained by her in an accident occurred on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., Balaji Convention Hall, near Gejjalgere colony, SCCH-14 23 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Bengaluru - Mysore road, Maddur Taluk, Mandya arising due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA01MR5374?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What Order or Award?
Having considered the rival claims placed on hand by the respective parties, it appears just and necessary to this Tribunal to frame an additional issue and to recast the issue No.3. By exercising inherent powers conferred by the statute, additional issue No.1 is framed as hereunder:
Additional Issue No.1:
1. Whether the petitioner No.2 and 3 proved that they are the legal representatives of the deceased?
Recast Issue No.3:
SCCH-14 24 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019 Whether all the petitioners are entitled for compensation or not? Who is entitled, how much and from whom?
ISSUES IN MVC No.6456/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she is the legal representative of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that Sagar S/o Ravi H.K died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., Balaji Convention Hall, near Gejjalgere colony, Bengaluru - Mysore road, Maddur Taluk, Mandya arising due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA01MR5374?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What Order or Award?SCCH-14 25 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019 Having considered the rival claims placed on hand by the respective parties, it appears just and necessary to this Tribunal to frame an additional issue and to recast the issue No.3. By exercising inherent powers conferred by the statute, additional issue No.1 is framed as hereunder:
Additional Issue No.1:
1. Whether the petitioner No.2 and 3 proved that they are the legal representatives of the deceased?
Recast Issue No.3:
Whether all the petitioners are entitled for compensation or not ? Who is entitled, how much and from whom?
ISSUES IN MVC No.6936/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m., Balaji Convention Hall, near Gejjalgere colony, Bengaluru - Mysore road, SCCH-14 26 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, in an accident arising due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing Reg. No.KA01MR5374?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
24. In order to prove their petitions, petitioner No.1 in MVC.6453/2019 got examined herself as PW.1. She deposed by way of affidavit filed by her in lieu of her oral examination in chief.
Through her, documents at Ex. P.1 to 18 are got marked. She has been cross examined at length by learned advocate for respondent No.2 and learned advocate for respondent No.3 and by learned advocate for petitioner No.2 and 3. Ex.P.1 is the true copy of FIR along with complaint. Ex.P.2 is the true copy of spot panchanama with spot sketch. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of inquest panchanama of deceased Ravi. Ex.P.4 is the true copy of PM report of deceased Ravi. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of IMV report. Ex.P.6 is the true copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.7 is the notarised copy of Aadhar card of PW.1. SCCH-14 27 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019 Ex.P.8 is the notarised copy of DL of deceased Ravi. Ex.P.9 is the notarised copy of voters ID card of Ravi. Ex.P.10 is the true copy of inquest of deceased Manjula. Ex.P.11 is the true copy of PM of deceased Manjula. Ex.P.12 is the notarised copy of Election ID card of deceased Manjula. Ex.P.13 is the notarised copy of Inquest of deceased Sukanya. Ex.P.14 is the true copy of PM report of deceased Sukanya. Ex.P.15 is the notarised copy of the school ID card of the deceased Sukanya. Ex.P.16 is the true copy of Inquest panchanama of deceased Sagar. Ex.P.17 is the true copy of PM of deceased Sagar. Ex.P.18 is the true copy of school ID card of deceased Sagar.
25. Petitioner in MVC.6936/2019 deposed as PW.2 by way of affidavit filed by him in lieu of his oral examination in chief which reiterates the averments made in the petition. Through him documents at Ex.P.19 to 22 are got marked. PW.2 has been cross examined at length by learned advocate for respondent No.2 and by learned advocate for respondent No.3. Inspite of granting of sufficient opportunities to the respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 did not choose to utilise the same, cross examination of PW.2 by respondent No.1 is treated as nil. Ex.P.19 is the notarised copy SCCH-14 28 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 of Aadhar card of PW.2. Ex.P.20 is the discharge summary. Ex.P.21 is the true copy of wound certificate of PW.2. Ex.P.22 is the outpatient record.
26. Petitioner No.3 in petitions MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 deposed herself as PW.3 by way of affidavit filed by her in lieu of her oral examination in chief. She also deposed on behalf of her husband i.e., petitioner No.2 in the above mentioned petitions. Through PW.3 documents at Ex. P.23 to 37 are got marked. PW.3 has been cross examined at length by the learned advocate for respondent No.2 and for respondent No.3. Inspite of granting of sufficient opportunities to the respondent No.1, as the respondent No.1 did not choose to cross examine this witness, cross examination of this witness by respondent No.1 is treated as nil.
27. Ex.P.23 is the notarised copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ravi. Ex.P.24 is the notarised copy of Aadhar card of PW.3. Ex.P.25 is the notarised copy of Aadhar card of Kempaiah. Ex.P.26 is the notarised copy of TC of the deceased Ravi. Ex.P.27 is the notarised copy of Marriage registration certificate of Ravi and Manjula. Ex.P.28 is the notarised copy of SSLC marks card of deceased SCCH-14 29 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Manjula. Ex.P.29 is the notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased Manjula. Ex.P.30 is the notarized copy of birth certificate of deceased Sukanya. Ex.P.31 is the notarised copy of Aadhar card of Sukanya. Ex.P.32 is the notarized copy of progress card of Sukanya of the academic year 20162017. Ex.P.33 is the notarized copy of progress card of Sukanya of the academic year 20182019. Ex.P.34 is the notarized copy of birth certificate of Sagar. Ex. P.35 is the notarized copy of Aadhar card of Sagar. Ex.P.36 is the notarized copy of certificate of Sagar. Ex.P.37 is the RTC of the year 2021 2022 pertaining to the property bearing survey No.138/10B of Chikkamulagudu village, Mallavalli Taluk.
28. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 got examined it's Legal Manager as RW.1. RW.1 deposed by way of affidavit filed by him in lieu of his oral examination in chief. RW.1 has been cross examined at length by the learned advocate for petitioner No.1 to 3 and by the learned advocate for respondent No.3. Inspite of granting of sufficient opportunities to the respondent No.1, same was not utilised by the respondent No.1. As such, cross examination of RW.1 through respondent No.1 is treated as nil. SCCH-14 30 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
29. Respondent No.3 got examined one Mr.Prasanna Kumar i.e., driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA11F0426 as RW.2. RW.2 deposed by way of affidavit filed by him in lieu of his oral examination. RW.2 has been cross examined at length by the learned advocate for respondent No.2 and by learned advocate for petitioner No.2 and 3. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunities, neither the petitioner No.1 nor the respondent No.1 have not chosen to cross examine RW.2. As such, cross examination of RW.2 by petitioner No.1 and by respondent No.1 has been treated as nil. None of the documents have been marked on behalf of the respondents.
30. Heard arguments of respective learned advocates. In support of his submission, learned advocate for respondent No.3 relied upon the following decisions.
1. (2005) 6 SCC 172 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.Prem Bai Patel and others.
2. 2007 ACJ 1284 in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Meena Variyal and others.
3. (2014) 13 SCC 254 in the case of Lachoo SCCH-14 31 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Ram and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation.
4. (2007) 13 SCC 476 in the case of Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Premlata Shukla and others.
5. MFA.6330/2013 C/w MFA.10547/2013 in the case of M/s. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Mrs.Marilyn Philip and others.
6. MFA.6621/2008 in the case of BMTC Vs. H.N.Govinda Raju and others.
31. I have carefully considered the oral as well as documentary evidence made available by the respective parties. I have also carefully gone through the decisions referred by the respondent No.3.
32. Learned advocate for the petitioners of the respective petitions vehemently argued that the petitioners have proved their case with supportive evidence both oral and documentary. As such it is prayed to grant the relieves prayed for by them in the respective petitions.
33. On the other hand, the learned advocate for respondent No.2 has argued that there is no negligence on the part of driver of SCCH-14 32 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 offending vehicle in question which was insured with this respondent. As such, there is no contribution of said driver in occurrence of accident. He further argued that in order to claim the compensation from this respondent, the police officials have manipulated the documents to support the claim of petitioners. He also argued that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of two wheeler, the driver of swift car in which the deceased were proceeding and the same may be taken into consideration.
34. Learned advocate for respondent No.3 vehemently argued that though there is no nexus between the accident to the respondent No.3, the respondent No.3 has been falsely implicated in this petition just to make unlawful gain from the respondent No.3. He submits that if the principles laid down by the respective courts in the decisions referred by the respondent No.3 is applied to the petitions under consideration, all the petitions against this respondent deserves to be dismissed.
35. Learned advocate for petitioner No.2 and 3 vehemently argued that the petitioner No.1 being the mother in law of deceased Ravi and the mother of deceased Manjula, she is not entitled to SCCH-14 33 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 claim any compensation as she is not a dependant either on Ravi or on Manjula. It is also argued that petitioner No.2 and 3 being the parents of the deceased Ravi and in laws of deceased Manjula, they are entitled for the compensation from the respondents. With these submission, it is prayed that the claim of the petitioner in all the petitions may be dismissed and the relief as prayed for by these petitioners may be granted.
36. Having heard the respective learned advocates and upon consideration of the entire materials placed on hand, I proceed to answer issues as hereunder:
37. My answer to the Issues in MVC.6453/2019 are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Recast Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
38. My answer to the Issues in MVC.6454/2019 are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Recast Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
SCCH-14 34 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
for the following :
39. My answer to the Issues in MVC.6455/2019 are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Recast Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following : :
40. My answer to the Issues in MVC.6456/2019 are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Recast Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
41. My answer to the Issues in MVC No.6936/2019 are as under :
Issue No. 1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
REASONS
42. Issue No.1 in MVC.6936/2019 and Issue No.2 in MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019: In the above paragraphs, I have already narrated in brief SCCH-14 35 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 regarding the averments made by the respective petitioners in their petitions. I have also narrated in nutshell regarding the respective contentions raised by the respondents to the said petitions. Hence, verbatim repetition of the same appears not necessary. From the records, it is clear that there is no dispute of the fact of occurrence of accident on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. near Balaji Convention hall near Gejjalegere Colony, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, on BangaloreMysore road. It is clear from the records that there is no dispute of the fact that there is involvement of one two wheeler bearing No.KA11V 7949, two cars bearing respective registration Nos.KA01MR 5374, KA01MG8249 and a bus bearing No.KA11F0426 in the accident. The police record i.e., IMV report would justify the fact of involvement of these vehicles in the accident.
43. It is to be noted that the petitioner No.1 and petitioners No.2. and 3 have got their divergent claims in respect of the petitions. According to the petitioner No.1, she SCCH-14 36 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 being the legal representative of deceased Ravi and deceased Manjula she is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents. However, the petitioner No.2 and 3 have denied the claim of petitioner No.1 by stating that petitioner No.1 will not fall within the purview of legal representative of deceased Ravi or deceased Manjula. As such, she is not entitled for any compensation from the respondents.
44. Respondent No.1 and 2 and respondent No.3 have come up with distinct defence. According to the respondent No.1, the alleged accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.KA01MG8249 by its driver due to negligent riding of two wheeler bearing No.KA11 V7949 by its rider. Whereas, respondent No.3 contends that there is no fault on the part of driver of KSRTC bus in the occurrence of accident. As such, respondent No.3 has not contributed to the accident.
45. Keeping in mind the above mentioned rival SCCH-14 37 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 contentions raised by the respective parties, it assumes importance to refer the entire oral and documentary evidence carefully. There is no dispute from the parties of the fact that in connection with the incident a criminal case has been registered before Maddur Traffic police station in Cr.No.114/2019 based on the first information provided by the petitioner of MVC.6936/2019. The document Ex. P.1 and P.2 would justify this aspect. The prime document i.e., Ex. P.6 charge sheet submitted to the jurisdictional Court by the Investigating Officer concerned reveals the fact that after thorough investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer, he has found that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.KA01MR5374 by it's driver and during investigation, it was not found that there is any negligence on the part of either of rider of motor cycle, driver of KA01MG8249 and the driver of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA11F0426. On bare perusal of Ex. P.6, it discloses that SCCH-14 38 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 the driver of car bearing No.KA01MR5374 has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC. Admittedly, till date, the said charge sheet has remained unchallenged.
46. During the cross examination of PW.2, suggestions have been made to the witness regarding the narration of occurrence of accident and the negligence. Witness withstood such evidence which he deposed during his examination in chief and categorically stated that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of car bearing No.KA01 MR5374 by its driver. During his cross examination done by learned advocate for respondent No.3, PW.2 admits that there is no nexus between the driver of KSRTC to the accident.
47. It is also pertinent to refer the cross examination of PW.1. Wherein, PW.1 denies the suggestion made to her by the learned advocate for respondent No.2 that accident did not occurred as a result of negligence on the part of driver of KA SCCH-14 39 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 01MR5374. In addition to this, there is a categorical admission given by PW.1 during her cross examination made by learned advocate for respondent No.3 that accident occurred as a result of the fact that the driver of car bearing No.KA01MR 5374 had driven the same in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle and thereafter hit one more car in which the deceased were proceeding as a result swift car crossed the divider and thereafter dashed against the KSRTC bus. There is also admission of the fact that the accident did not occurred on the fault of driver of KSRTC Bus.
48. During her cross examination done by the learned advocate for respondent No.3, PW.3 has categorically admitted that the cause of occurrence of accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of Baleno car by its driver. If the oral evidence deposed by the respective witnesses is considered along with documentary evidence, it is clear that the documentary evidence corroborates the fact that accident SCCH-14 40 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 occurred as a result of negligence of the driver of car bearing No.KA01MR5374. It is also pertinent to note that there is no dispute from either of the parties of the fact that the motor cycle and other two cars involved in the accident were proceeding towards Mysore and KSRTC bus was proceeding towards Bengaluru from Mysore. If this factor is considered along with the spot sketch and spot Mahazar, it becomes clear that the case of the petitioners that the driver of car bearing No.KA01MR5374 having driven the same in rash and negligent manner dashed from behind to the motor cycle and thereafter dashed to the car bearing No.KA01MG8249 and due to the impact from the car bearing No.KA01MR5374, the driver of car bearing No.KA01MG8249 lost control of his vehicle and thereafter crossed the divider and moved the car to the path in which KSRTC bus was proceeding. This fact also justify that due to the impact to the hind portion of the motor cycle from the car bearing No.KA01MR5374, the rider of SCCH-14 41 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 motor cycle lost control of the same and he along with his pillion rider fell down to the road and have sustained injuries.
49. The case papers clearly reveal the fact that there exists a median/divider in between the path where the KSRTC bus was moving on one way and the other vehicles were moving on the other way. Papers also disclose the fact that in divider herbs and shrubs were grown. It is not the case of either the petitioners or of any respondents that KSRTC bus driver having changed his path came to the path in which two wheeler and the cars were moving. Such being the case, it shall be presumed that the driver of KSRTC bus was moving on his path and all of a sudden, the car bearing No.KA01MG8249 having crossed the median dashed to the said bus. When admittedly the bus was moving on its path, no prudent man can anticipate that some car might come in his way/path thereby crossing the median from the other part of the road. Such being the case, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no contribution of SCCH-14 42 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 negligence from the part of the driver of KSRTC Bus in occurrence of accident.
50. In addition to the above observations, it is also pertinent to note that admittedly the two wheeler and car bearing registration No.KA01MG8249 were proceeding ahead of the offending Baleno car bearing No.KA01MR5374. If such is the situation, unless an external force is applied to any object from any portion, the object will be in its own path or same will be in the same position. If this scientific principle is applied to the situation which is under consideration, though there are allegations against the rider of two wheeler and the driver of swift car that all of a sudden they have changed their way and came to the extreme right, there is no substantive piece of evidence to justify such contention. In the absence of same, it is quite obvious to arrive at a conclusion that when the two wheeler which was proceeding ahead of Baleno car was hit from behind by the driver of Baleno car, the same resulted in the SCCH-14 43 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 rider and pillion rider of the bike falling down along with the bike and it can also be presumed that after hitting the two wheeler, the driver of offending Baleno car dashed against the swift car from behind which resulted in the driver of the swift car loosing his control over the car. It is needless to mention that whenever any external force is applied to any object or to any person for that matter, the object and the person tends to change the path and tends to move from the place of impact/where the force has been applied. All these factors constitutes that there are sufficient materials brought before this Tribunal by respective petitioners to show that accident in question occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of car bearing Regn.No.KA01MR5374 by it's driver and Tribunal is of the view that there appears no contributory negligence on the part of either the rider of two wheeler, the driver of swift car and the driver of KSRTC bus in question.
51. Upon the careful consideration of IMV report, it SCCH-14 44 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 discloses the fact that two wheeler, other two cars have sustained such damages which could be ascertained that in case if there is an impact to the motor cycle from its behind and if there is an impact to the car (swift) from its behind, there are chances of motor cycle and swift car sustaining such damages.
Moreover, the IMV report clearly discloses the fact that all the vehicles were in such a condition that there were no mechanical defects found on any vehicles at the time of occurance of accident/inspection.
52. There is no dispute of the fact that the respondents have got examined their witnesses as RW.1 and 2. If careful consideration is given to the evidence deposed by them, it is clear that during his cross examination done by the learned advocate for petitioner No.1, RW.1 categorically admits that, as on the date of accident, the policy in respect of offending car bearing No.KA01MR5374 was in force. He also deposed that he is not aware of the fact that due to the impact made to car SCCH-14 45 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 bearing No.KA01MG8249 by car bearing No.KA01MR5374, car bearing No.KA1MG8249 crossed the divider and caused the accident.
53. During his cross examination, though several suggestions were made to the witness RW.2, as even the driver of KSRTC bus contributed to the accident, same has been categorically denied by RW.2. Moreover, he admits that IO concerned has submitted charge sheet against the driver of Baleno car in question. All these factors collectively constitute and lead this Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion that with the aid of oral and documentary evidence placed on hand by the respective petitioners, they have proved the fact that the accident which occurred on 27.07.2019 at about 12.30 p.m. near Balaji Convention hall near Gejjelagere colony of Maddur Taluk, Mandya District, on BangaloreMysore road, as a result of rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver bearing No.KA01MR5374 which in turn resulted in causing the SCCH-14 46 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 injuries to PW.2, Ravi.H.K, his wife Manjula, Sukanya and Sagar. The petitioners have also proved that as a result of said incident, due to the injuries sustained by Ravi.H.K., Manjula, Sukanya and Sagar they have succumbed. The said incident resulted in causing disablement to PW.2 also stands proved. Accordingly, Issue No.1 in MVC.6936/2019 and Issue No.2 in MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 are answered in the 'Affirmative'.
54. Issue No.1, Additional Issue No.1 and Recast issue No.3 in MVC.6453/2019 : All these issues are interconnected to one another. Hence, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts.
55. According to the petitioner No.1 in this petition, she is the legal representative of the deceased Ravi.H.K and Manjula. Whereas, the petitioner No.2 and 3 who were earlier respondent SCCH-14 47 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 No.4 and 5 have contended that the petitioner No.1 cannot become a legal representative of either the deceased Ravi or deceased Manjula and that the petitioner No.2 and 3 being the parents of deceased Ravi and in laws of deceased Manjula are their legal representatives. In order to prove this issue, petitioner No.1 placed reliance on the documents Ex.P.7 to 9, 15 and 18. If careful consideration is given to these documents, it is clear that none of the document discloses the fact that at the time of incident, the petitioner No.1 resided with the deceased Ravi and deceased Manjula. At this juncture, it also assumes importance to refer the cross examination of PW.1. Wherein, she has categorically admitted that she is residing with her elder daughter. Apart from that it is to be noted that petitioner No.1 is the mother in law of the deceased Ravi and mother of deceased Manjula and maternal grandmother of deceased Sukanya and Sagar. Whereas, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the parents of deceased Ravi.H.K and paternal grand SCCH-14 48 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 parents of Sagar and Sukanya. Upon consideration of the fact that Manjula was residing at her matrimonial home after her marriage along with her matrimonial family, the petitioner No.1 cannot be considered as a legal representative of deceased Manjula. On the other hand, the petitioner No.2 and 3 being the parents of deceased Ravi are considered as legal representative of Ravi as they would fall within ambit of ClassI legal heirs. In addition to this, though there is no dispute regarding the fact that petitioner No.1 is also a maternal grand mother of the deceased Sukanya and Sagar, the petitioner No.2 and 3 acquires the status of grandparents as they are the paternal grand parents of deceased Sagar and Sukanya. With these observations, I proceed to answer that the petitioner No.1 has failed to prove that she is the legal representative of the deceased and petitioner No.2 and 3 are considered as legal representatives of the deceased.
56. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as SCCH-14 49 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 31 years and his avocation is shown as cable operator and bill collector and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard, petitioners have not produced any supportive documents to show the avocation and income of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, since the accident has been occurred in the year 2019, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e. 14,000/ p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
57. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Ravi.H.K as 31 years at the time of the accident. As per Aadhar card of the deceased Ravi.H.K i.e., Ex.P.23, his date of birth was 12031987. The alleged accident occurred on 27072019. That means, as on the date of accident, the deceased was 32 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased Ravi.H.K to be taken at 32 years for the purpose of Assessment of compensation.
SCCH-14 50 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
58. As in the above paragraphs it is noted that the petitioner No.1 cannot be considered as a legal representative of deceased, she is not entitled to claim compensation under any of the heads. The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled to compensation under the following heads.
59. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners No.2 and 3 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:
60. The deceased has left behind him, his parents I.e, the petitioner No.2 and 3. Hence, they are considered as his dependents. The petitioner No.1 being the motherinlaw of the deceased, she is entitled for consortium. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision SCCH-14 51 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 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 consortium should be Rupees 40,000/ and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/".In Civil Appeal No.24102412 of 2023 between Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Bhagat Singh Ravat and others with SLP(C) Nos.11851186/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "Having said so, learned counsel for the respondent points out that this amount so determined by us is liable to be enhanced by a percentage of 10 per cent every 3 years as opined in para 61 (viii) of the Judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) which reads as under: 61(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/ Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid SCCH-14 52 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased Ravi.H.K the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/ each towards loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/collectively towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/ collectively towards funeral expenses. Petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/ towards loss of consortium.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
61. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased Ravi. They have lost their son's love and care. Petitioner No.1 being the motherinlaw of the deceased she lost his love and care. Bearing in mind the relationship of the said Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/collectively to petitioner No.2 SCCH-14 53 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 and 3 and sum of Rs.20,000/ to petitioner No.1 under this head would be just and reasonable. Hence, same is awarded.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
62. The Petitioners No.2 and 3 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/ collectively under this head would be just and reasonable. Hence, same is awarded.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDANCY:
63. 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.14,000/ 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 SCCH-14 54 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, 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
SCCH-14 55 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
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 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 SCCH-14 56 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 addition should be 40% below the age of 40 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.14,000/ comes to Rs.5,600/. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,600/ p.m. (Rs.14,000/ + Rs.5,600/). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 16. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the number of dependent of family member is 2 to 3, 1/3 rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
64. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses in Rs.19,600/ it comes to Rs.13,067/ (19,600/ - 6,533) and multiplier applied is 16 which comes to Rs.25,08,864/ (13,067 x 12 = 1,56,804/, Rs.1,56,804/ x 16 = SCCH-14 57 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Rs.25,08,864/). Thus, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.25,08,864/ towards loss of dependency.
65. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium awarded Rs. 88,000/ to petitioner No.2 & 3
2. Loss of consortium awarded Rs. 44,000/ to petitioner No.1
3. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/ awarded to petitioner No.2 and 3
4. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 20,000/ awarded to petitioner No.1
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/
6. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/
7. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/ of dead body
8. Loss of Dependency Rs.25,08,864/ Total Rs.27,53,864/ Thus, totally the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are awarded compensation of Rs.27,53,864/ which is rounded off to SCCH-14 58 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Rs.27,53,900/. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are awarded Rs.26,89,900/ and the petitioner No.1 is awarded a sum of Rs.64,000/ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
66. Issue No.1, Additional Issue No.1 and Recast issue No.3 in MVC.6454/2019 : All these issues are interconnected to one another. Hence, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts.
67. According to the petitioner No.1 in this petition, she is the legal representative of the deceased Manjula. There is no denial of this fact by the petitioner No.2 and 3. In order to prove her relationship with the deceased Manjula, PW.1 has deposed oral evidence. Wherein, it is evident that the deceased Manjula was one of her daughter along with 4 other daughters of PW.1. The statement of Smt.Kavitha and Sri.Rajesh SCCH-14 59 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 produced attached to Ex. P.10 would also justify the fact that deceased Manjula was a daughter of PW.1 and wife of late Ravi.H.K. Keeping this fact in mind, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner No.1 has proved that she is the legal representative of deceased Manjula and has proved the issue No.1.
68. Upon consideration of the fact that Manjula was residing at her matrimonial home after her marriage along with her matrimonial family, the petitioner No.1 cannot claim compensation for the death of her daughter Manjula. However, she is held to be entitled for award of compensation under the head parental consortium only. On the other hand, the petitioner No.2 and 3 being the in laws of deceased Manjula cannot claim compensation as her legal representatives and they are also not entitled for any compensation. With these observations, I proceed to answer that the petitioner No.1 has proved that she is the legal representative of the deceased SCCH-14 60 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Manjula and petitioner No.2 and 3 are not considered as legal representative of the deceased.
69. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 30 years and her avocation is shown as tailor and was earning a sum of Rs.18,000/ per month. In this regard, petitioner No.1 has not produced any supportive documents to show the avocation and income of the deceased. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, since the accident has been occurred in the year 2019, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e. 14,000/ p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
70. Further, the Petitioner No.1 stated the age of the deceased Manjula as 30 years at the time of the accident. As per Ex. P.28 i.e., the notarized copy of SSLC marks card of deceased Manjula, her date of birth is shown as 02.06.1988. The alleged accident was occurred on 27072019. That means, SCCH-14 61 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased was 31 years. Hence, the age of the deceased Manjula to be taken at 31 years for the purpose of Assessment of compensation.
71. As in the above paragraphs it is noted that the petitioner No.1 only to be considered as a legal representative of deceased, the petitioner No.2 and 3 are not entitled to claim compensation under any of the heads. The petitioner No.1 is entitled to compensation under the following heads.
72. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner No.1 is 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:
73. The deceased has left behind her, her mother i.e, the SCCH-14 62 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 petitioner No.1. Hence, she is entitled for compensation as a parental consortium. She left behind her inlaws i.e., petitioner No.2 and 3. As such, they are also entitle for consortium. 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 consortium should be Rupees 40,000/ and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/".In Civil Appeal No.24102412 of 2023 between Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Bhagat Singh Ravat and others with SLP(C) Nos.11851186/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "Having said so, learned counsel for the respondent points out that this amount so determined by us is liable to be enhanced by a percentage of 10 per cent every 3 years as opined in para 61 (viii) of the SCCH-14 63 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Judgment in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) which reads as under: 61(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/ Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/ respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the Petitioner No.1 as the mother of the deceased Manjula, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/ towards loss of consortium and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.44,000/ each towards loss of consortium. Petitioner No.1 is entitled for sum of Rupees 16,500/ towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/ towards funeral expenses.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
74. Petitioner No.1 being the mother of the deceased SCCH-14 64 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Manjula, has lost her daughter's love and care. Petitioner No.2 and 3 being the inlaws of the deceased, they have lost her love and affection. Bearing in mind the relationship of the said Petitioner No.1 with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ under this head to the petitioner No.1 is just and reasonable. In addition, awarding Rs.10,000/ each to petitionr No.2 and 3 under this head would be just and reasonable. Hence, same is awarded.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
75. The Petitioner No.1 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. Hence, same is awarded.
76. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER NO.1 to 3 ARE ENTITLED:
SCCH-14 65 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
1. Loss of consortium awarded Rs. 44,000/ to petitioner No.1 2 Loss of consortium awarded Rs. 88,000/ to petitioner No.2 and 3
3. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/ awarded to petitioner No.1 Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 20,000/ awarded to petitioner No.2 & 3
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/
5. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/
6. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/ of dead body Total Rs.2,45,000/ Thus, out of compensation awarded of sum of Rs.2,45,000/, the Petitioner No.1 is awarded compensation of Rs.1,37,000/ and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,000/ collectively with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization. The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled to 50% SCCH-14 66 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 each of the amount awarded to them collectively.
77. Issue No.1, Additional Issue No.1 and Recast issue No.3 in MVC.6455/2019 : All these issues are interconnected to one another. Hence, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts.
78. According to the petitioner No.1 in this petition, she is the legal representative of the deceased Sukanya. Whereas, the petitioner No.2 and 3 who were earlier respondent No.4 and 5 have contended that the petitioner No.1 cannot become a legal representative of the deceased Sukanya and that the petitioner No.2 and 3 being the paternal grandparents of the deceased Sukanya they are the legal representatives. In order to prove this issue, petitioner No.1 placed reliance on the documents Ex.P.7 to 9, 15 and 18. If careful consideration is given to these documents, it is clear that none of the document discloses the fact that at the time of incident, the petitioner No.1 resided with SCCH-14 67 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 the deceased Sukanya. At this juncture, it also assumes importance to refer the cross examination of PW.1. Wherein, she has categorically admitted that she is residing with her elder daughter. Apart from that it is to be noted that petitioner No.1 is the maternal grandmother of the deceased Sukanya. Whereas, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the paternal grand parents of deceased Sukanya. In addition to this, though there is no dispute regarding the fact that petitioner No.1 is also a grand mother to the deceased Sukanya, the petitioner No.2 and 3 acquires the status of grandparents as they are the paternal grand parents of deceased Sukanya. With these observations, I proceed to answer that the petitioner No.1 has failed to prove that she is the legal representative of the deceased and petitioner No.2 and 3 are considered as legal representatives of the deceased.
79. According to PW.1 and PW.3 at the time of accident, their grand daughter was aged 9 years old and she was a SCCH-14 68 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 student of 2nd standard. Since the age of the granddaughter of the Petitioner was just 8 years, question of considering her income does not arise. The Petitioners have proved that the said accident was due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of said offending vehicle. Under the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
80. As per the Aadhar card marked at Ex.P.31, date of birth of the deceased is shown as 06042011 and the accident took place on 27072019. Hence, the age of the deceased is 8 years at the time of accident.
81. At this juncture, it appears necessary to refer the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, MFA.No.201380/2018 (MV) dated 05.04.2022 between The IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. Mohamed Sab and others. In the said case also, the deceased boy was aged 8 years and the Hon'ble High Court has affirmed the SCCH-14 69 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 compensation granted by the Tribunal by relying on the decision reported in Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 1 SCC
244. But it has directed insurer to pay compensation to the Petitioner and recover the same from the insured.
82. In this case also, the deceased girl is aged 8 years and by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 1 SCC 244, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 and the petitioner No.1 being the grand parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation at Rs.5,15,000/.
83. Thus, out of the compensation awarded of Rs.5,15,000/, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are collectively awarded compensation of Rs.4,95,000/ and the petitioner No.1 being the maternal grandmother of the deceased, she is entitled for sum of Rs.10,000/ each towards loss of love and affection and towards consortium (in total Rs.20,000/) with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
SCCH-14 70 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
84. Issue No.1, Additional Issue No.1 and Recast issue No.3 in MVC.6456/2019 : All these issues are inter connected to one another. Hence, they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of the facts.
85. According to the petitioner No.1 in this petition, she is the legal representative of the deceased Sagar Whereas, the petitioner No.2 and 3 who were earlier respondent No.4 and 5 have contended that the petitioner No.1 cannot become a legal representative of the deceased Sagar and that the petitioner No.2 and 3 being the paternal grand parents of deceased Sagar they are the legal representatives. In order to prove this issue, petitioner No.1 placed reliance on the documents Ex.P.7 to 9, 15 and 18. If careful consideration is given to these documents, it is clear that none of the document discloses the fact that at the time of incident, the petitioner No.1 resided with the deceased Sagar. At this juncture, it also assumes SCCH-14 71 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 importance to refer the cross examination of PW.1. Wherein, she has categorically admitted that she is residing with her elder daughter. Apart from that it is to be noted that petitioner No.1 is the maternal grandmother of the deceased Sagar. Whereas, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the paternal grandparents of the deceased Sagar. In addition to this, though there is no dispute regarding the fact that petitioner No.1 is also a grandmother of the deceased Sagar, the petitioner No.2 and 3 acquires the status of grandparents as they are the paternal grandparents of deceased Sagar. With these observations, I proceed to answer that the petitioner No.1 has failed to prove that she is the legal representative of the deceased and petitioner No.2 and 3 are considered as legal representative of the deceased.
86. According to PW.1 and PW.3 at the time of accident, their grand son was aged 5 years old and he was a student. Since the age of the grand son of the Petitioners was just 5 SCCH-14 72 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 years, question of considering his income does not arise. The Petitioners have proved that the said accident was due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of said offending vehicle. Under the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for just and reasonable compensation.
87. As per the Aadhar card marked at Ex.P.35, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 08022014 and the accident took place on 27072019. Hence, the age of the deceased is 5 years at the time of accident.
88. At this juncture, it appears necessary to refer the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, MFA.No.201380/2018 (MV) dated 05.04.2022 between The IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. Mohamed Sab and others. In the said case also, the deceased boy was aged 8 years and the Hon'ble High Court has affirmed the compensation granted by the Tribunal by relying on the SCCH-14 73 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 decision reported in Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 1 SCC
244. But it has directed insurer to pay compensation to the Petitioner and recover the same from the insured.
89. In this case, the deceased boy is aged 5 years and by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2014) 1 SCC 244, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 and the petitioner No.1 being the grand parents of the deceased are entitled for compensation at Rs.5,15,000/.
90. Thus, out of the compensation awarded of Rs.5,15,000/, the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are collectively awarded compensation of Rs.4,95,000/ and the petitioner No.1 being the maternal grandmother of the deceased, she is entitled for sum of Rs.10,000/ each towards loss of love and affection and towards consortium (in total Rs.20,000/) with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
91. Issue No.2 in MVC.6936/2019: As the Petitioner has SCCH-14 74 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
92. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 40 years. The Petitioner has produced Aadhar card at Ex.P.19 to prove his age. As per Aadhar card, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 20071979. The accident took place on 22.01.2020. Hence, the age of the petitioner as 41 years is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of quantum of compensation.
93. Further, the Petitioner has averred that he was an agriculturist and milk vendor and was earning Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard, he has not produced any document to substantiate the same. No supportive documents are furnished to show that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was earning Rs.20,000/p.m. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that, since the accident has been occurred in the year 2019, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority SCCH-14 75 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 i.e. 14,000/ p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
94. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
95. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P21 and other medical records reveal that in the accident the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1.A/w + Right parietal region.
2.A/w + left ankle 2 x1 cm. Fresh Mild head injury The Doctor has opined that injury No.1 and 2 are simple in nature.
96. The Petitioner has produced Discharge summary at Ex.P.20 which shows that Petitioner was admitted on 27.02.2019 and got discharged on 29.02.2019.
97. In order to prove the gravity of the injuries, the SCCH-14 76 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Petitioner is expected to produce documents. But, the documents produced by the Petitioner shows that he had sustained simple injuries. The evidence shows, the Petitioner was admitted in the hospital for three days.
98. It is not the case of the Petitioner that he has suffered any permanent disability. Admittedly, the Petitioner is aged about 41 years. In the absence of fracture or other physical disability and considering the simple injuries sustained by the Petitioner and the expenses incurred for medical expenses, pain and sufferings, food and nourishment, this Tribunal is of the opinion that awarding global compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ would be just and proper. Hence, same is awarded.
99. Regarding Liability in all the cases : As already discussed above, in this case the driver of the offending car bearing No.KA01MR5374. Therefore, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the respective petitioners as awarded. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in MVC.6453/2019, SCCH-14 77 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 6454/2019, 6455/2019, 6456/2019 and issue No.2 in MVC.6936/2019 as "Partly in the Affirmative".
100. Issue No.4 in MVC.6453/2019, 6454/2019, 6455/2019, 6456/2019 and issue No.3 in MVC.6936/2019 : In view of my findings on respective Issues of all the petitions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER IN MVC.6453/2019 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the
Petitioners against the Respondent No.3
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.27,53,900/ along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% SCCH-14 78 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
Out of which, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.64,000/ with rate of interest as awarded. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,89,900/ in total and individually they are entitled 50% of the amount with rate of interest as awarded.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner 2 and 3, 50% each of the respective share of award amount is ordered SCCH-14 79 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 to be paid to the Petitioner No.2 and 3 by way of Epayment after proper identification and the remaining 50% each of their respective share of award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.2 and 3 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years.
The entire amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 is ordered to be paid to the petitioner No.1 by way of Epayment after proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ .
ORDER IN MVC.6454/2019 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the
Petitioners against the Respondent No.3
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is SCCH-14 80 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 hereby dismissed.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/ along with cost 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.
Out of which, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,37,000/ with rate of interest as awarded. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,08,000/ in total and individually they are entitled to 50% each of the amount with rate of interest as awarded.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.SCCH-14 81 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019 After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, the entire amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 3 are ordered to be paid to the petitioner No.1 to 3 by way of Epayment after proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ .
ORDER IN MVC.6455/2019 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the
Petitioners against the Respondent No.3
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,15,000/ along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the SCCH-14 82 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 date of deposit of the Award amount.
Out of which, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/ with rate of interest as awarded. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,95,000/ in total and individually they are entitled to 50% each of the amount with rate of interest as awarded.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, the entire amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 3 are ordered to be paid to the petitioner No.1 to 3 by way of Epayment after proper identification.SCCH-14 83 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019 The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ .
ORDER IN MVC.6456/2019 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the
Petitioners against the Respondent No.3
under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,15,000/ along with cost 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.
Out of which, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/ with rate of interest as awarded. Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,95,000/ in total and individually they SCCH-14 84 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 are entitled to 50% each of the amount with rate of interest as awarded.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, the entire amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 3 are ordered to be paid to the petitioner No.1 to 3 by way of Epayment after proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ .
ORDER IN MVC.6936/2019 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby SCCH-14 85 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ along with cost 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.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, the entire amount awarded to the petitioner is ordered to be paid to the petitioner by way of Epayment after proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ . Draw Award accordingly.
SCCH-14 86 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019
& MVC.6936/2019
Keep the Original Judgment in
MVC.6453/2019 and the copy of the
Judgment is kept in MVC.6454/2019,
MVC.6455/2019, MVC.6456/2019 and
MVC.6936/2019.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 16th day of April 2024) (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Deviramma P.W.2 : S.B.Basavaraju P.W.3 : Smt.Nagamma Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners : Ex.P1 True copy of FIR along with complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot Panchanama along with sketch map Ex.P3 True copy of Inquest Panchanama of deceased Ravi SCCH-14 87 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Ex.P4 True copy of P.M. report of deceased Ravi Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Notarized copy of my Aadhar Card Ex.P8 Notarized copy of DL of the deceased Ravi Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Election ID card of deceased Ravi Ex.P10 True copy of Inquest Panchanama of deceased Manjula Ex.P11 True copy of P.M. report of the deceased Manjula Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Election ID Card of the deceased Manjula (compared with the original and returned back) Ex.P13 True copy of Inquest Panchanama of the deceased Sukanya Ex.P14 True copy of P.M. report of deceased Sukanya Ex.P15 Notarized copy of School ID Card of the deceased Sukanya (compared with the original and returned back) Ex.P16 True copy of Inquest Panchanama of the deceased Sagar Ex.P17 True copy of P.M. report of the deceased Sagar Ex.P18 Notarized copy of School ID Card of the deceased Sagar (compared with the original and returned back) Ex.P19 Notarized copy of Aadhar card Ex.P20 Discharge summary Ex.P21 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P22 Outpatient record Ex.P23 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of deceased Ravi.
Ex.P24 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of PW.3. Ex.P25 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of Kempaiah. Ex.P26 Notarised copy of TC of the deceased Ravi Ex.P27 Notarised copy of Marriage registration certificate of Ravi and Manjula SCCH-14 88 MVC.6453/2019 to 6456/2019 & MVC.6936/2019 Ex.P28 Notarised copy of SSLC marks card of deceased Manjula Ex.P29 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased Manjula. Ex.P30 Notarized copy of birth certificate of deceased Sukanya Ex.P31 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of Sukanya. Ex.P32 Notarized copy of progress card of Sukanya of the academic year 20162017 Ex.P33 Notarized copy of progress card of Sukanya of the academic year 20182019 Ex.P34 Notarized copy of birth certificate of Sagar Ex.P35 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of Sagar Ex.P36 Notarized copy of certificate of Sagar Ex.P37 RTC of the year 20212022 pertaining to the property bearing survey No.138/10B of Chikkamulagudu village, Mallavalli Taluk.
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Naveena.S RW.2 : Prasanna Kumar.J.C
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
NIL (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
YATHISHA R
YATHISHA
R Date:
2024.04.30
13:42:28
+0530