Bangalore District Court
Is Not Maintainable In The Eye Of Law. ... vs No.1 & 3 Not Filed Written Statement on 8 March, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH -2016
(SCCH-25)
Present:Sri.DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY
M.A., LL.M.
XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, Bengaluru.
MVC No.2594 & 2596 & 2597/2001
PETITONERS:
In MVC:2594/2001 1. G.Nivedita
D/o.late K.P.Guruprasad
Aged about 06years,Minor
R/by her paternal grand mother
P.Sakambari, aged 69 years
W/o. Late K.V.Padmanabhan
2. P.Sakambari
Aged 69 years
W/o. late K.V.Padmanabhan
Both r/o.No.2079, Ground floor
8th 'A'Main, 'E' Block, 2nd stage
Rajajinagara
Bangalore 560 010
In MVC: 2596/2001 1. G.Nivedita
D/o.late K.P.Guruprasad
Aged about 06years,Minor
A Minor R/by her paternal
Grand mother
P.Sakambari, aged 69 years
W/o. Late K.V.Padmanabhan
2 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25
2. P.Sakambari
Aged 69 years
W/o. late K.V.Padmanabhan
Both r/o.No.2079, Ground floor
8th 'A'Main, 'E' Block, 2nd stage
Rajajinagara
Bangalore 560 010
In MVC.2597/2001 P.Sakambari
Aged 69 years
W/o. late K.V.Padmanabhan
R/o.No.2079, Ground floor
8th 'A'Main, 'E' Block, 2nd stage
Rajajinagara
Bangalore 560 010
V/S
RESPONDENTS 1. Smt.Husha Kamal, Major
In all the cases: by age
W/o.Kamaludeen
1/27, New Mosque street
Kovalam
Chennai 603 112
(Owner of TN-01-F-4393)
Van
2. United India Insurance
company Ltd., 01-Nyniappa,
Naicken street,
Chennai 600 003
By its Manager
(Insurer of TN-01-F-4393)
Van
3 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25
3. C.Alagappa
Major by age
No.16, Madurai Veeran
Koil street
T.Nagar
Chennai 600 017
(Owner of TAH-6285 Car)
4. Regional Manager
United India Insurance
company Ltd., No.25,
Shankarnarayana Building,
MG Road, Bangalore-01
Policy issued at
United India Insurance
company Ltd., Appaswamy
Towers
Pandy Bazar, Chennai.
.........
JUDGMENT
These two claims have arisen out of a common accident. All the petitions are filed under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation.
2. The brief fact of the petitioners in all the cases is as follows:
On 03.01.1998 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased Asha Guru Prasad and her husband deceased K.P.Guruprasad and 4 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 their daughter Nivedita and Guruprasad mother P.Sakambari injured were proceeding in the Car TAH 6285 from Chennai side towards Mahabalipuram when the car reached near RMV Theater East cost road, at that time the driver of the Van bearing Reg.No.TN-01-F-4393 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life came from opposite direction and there was a head on collusion between the two vehicles, resulted in fatal injuries. Due to impact K.P.Guruprasad succumbed to the fatal injuries on the spot and Asha Guruprasad succumbed to the fatal injuries on the next day at Malar Hospital, Madras, and P.Sakambari sustained injuries. The said accident taken place due to composite negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident.
Asha Guruprasad of MVC.2594/2001 was aged about 36 years, working as Scientific officer at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and earning an amount of Rs.13,000/- per month and odd. She has contributed her income to her family. Due to the death of Asha Guruprasad, her minor daughter 5 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 Nivedita and her mother-in-law are facing lot of mental shock, financial loss and prayed for compensation.
Dr.K.P.Guruprasad of MVC.2596/2001 aged about 43 years and was working as Joint Director, CPRI, Bangalore and earning an amount of Rs.18,782/- per month plus perks etc. Due to death of K.P.Guruprasad his minor daughter Nivedita and his mother are facing lot of mental shock, financial loss and prayed for compensation.
P.Sakambari of MVC.2597/2001 aged 69 years and was a house-hold, she sustained injury, took treatment, spent huge amount, she cannot stand, sit, walk, work.
The Kelambakam Traffic police filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their crime No.399/08 punishable under section 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC.
Respondent No.1 is the owner of Van TN-01-F-4393 Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Van TN-01-F-4393, Respondent No.3 is the RC holder of Car No.TAH-6285 and Respondent No.4 is the insurer of Car No.TAH-6285 all are 6 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
3. Respondent No.2 & 4 are the insurer of Van as well as the Car appeared through their counsel and filed written statement wherein stated that, the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither the police nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the driver of the Van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and caused the accident. The Respondent no.1 is a RC Holder, The Respondent no.2 is the insurer of the Van. The policy was in existence of Van, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Van, therefore the respondent no.1 & 2 are not liable to pay compensation in respect of Van.
The driver of the Car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endanger to human life and caused the accident, thereby Asha & Guruprasad were sustained fatal injury and succumbed and Sakambari sustained injury, underwent the treatment. The RC Holder respondent no.3 got Act Policy to the Car, the policy was in existence as on the date 7 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 of the accident. But the respondent no.3 has not paid the additional premium in regard to the third party liability. Therefore the respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation and respondent no.4 is not liable to pay compensation and there is no premium paid in regard to third party liability and disputed the age, income, avocation and expenses and prayed for dismiss the petition with cost.
Respondent No.1 & 3 not filed written statement.
4. Based on the said pleadings in all the cases issues have been framed are as follows:
MVC: 2594/2001,2596/2001 & 2597/2001
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, on 03.10.1998 at about 10.30 a.m on Chennai Mahabalipuram road near RMV Theatre, East Coast road drivers of vehicles Mahendra Van No.TN-01-F-
4303 and driver of the Car bearing NO.TAH-6285 drove their respective vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and dashed each other and caused composite negligence and thereby the Asha and her husband Guruprasad sustained fatal injury and succumbed and Sakambari sustained injury as alleged in the petition?
8 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?
3. What order or award?
5. Petitioner Sakambari has examined herself as PW.1 in MVC. No.2597/2001 and also examined as next friend of petitioner as PW.1 in MVC.No.2594/2001 & 2596/2001 and got marked 13 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.13. Whereas the Respondent No.2 & 4 are one and the same insurance company and they have examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3 and closed their side. Respondent no.1 & 3 not lead any evidence.
6. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
7. My findings on the above issues in all the cases are as follows:
Issue Issue
Case No. Issue No.3
No.1 No.2
MVC
2594/2001
In the In the As per the
.MVC
Affirmative Affirmative Final order
2596/2001
MVC. 2597/2001
9 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 in all the cases:
The learned counsel for the petitioner absent. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent 2 & 4 argued the case and submitted that the driver of the Van was not cause for the accident. The driver of the Car caused the accident. The car have with ACT POLICY. Therefore the respondent no.2 & 4 are not liable to pay compensation. The passenger of the car are hire passenger. They have not paid the extra premium and prayed for rejection of the application.
In support of their arguments relied the following decisions.-
1. SCC 2006 (4) 404
2. ACJ 207 page 1676
3. ACJ 2013 page 321
4. ACJ 2013 page 199.
and prayed for rejection of the application. 10 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25 PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, On 03.01.1998 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased Asha Guru Prasad and her husband deceased K.P.Guruprasad and their daughter Nivedita and Guruprasad mother P.Sakambari injured were proceeding in the Car TAH 6285 from Chennai side towards Mahabalipuram when the car reached near RMV Theater East cost road, at that time the driver of the Van bearing Reg.No.TN-01-F-4393 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life came from opposite direction and there was a head on collusion between the two vehicles, resulted in fatal injuries. Due to impact K.P.Guruprasad succumbed to the fatal injuries on the spot and Asha Guruprasad succumbed to the fatal injuries on the next day at Malar Hospital, Madras, and P.Sakambari sustained injuries. The said accident taken place due to composite negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles involved in the accident.
Asha Guruprasad of MVC.2594/2001 was aged about 36 years, working as Scientific officer at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and earning an amount of Rs.13,000/- per 11 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 month and odd. She has contributed her income to her family. Due to the death of Asha Guruprasad, her minor daughter Nivedita and her mother-in-law are facing lot of mental shock, financial loss and prayed for compensation.
Dr.K.P.Guruprasad of MVC.2596/2001 aged about 43 years and was working as Joint Director, CPRI, Bangalore and earning an amount of Rs.18,782/- per month plus perks etc. Due to death of K.P.Guruprasad his minor daughter Nivedita and his mother are facing lot of mental shock, financial loss and prayed for compensation.
P.Sakambari of MVC.2597/2001 aged 69 years and was a house-hold, she sustained injury, took treatment, spent huge amount, she cannot stand, sit, walk, work.
The Kelambakam Traffic police filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their crime No.399/08 punishable under section 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC.
Respondent No.1 is the owner of Van TN-01-F-4393 Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Van TN-01-F-4393, Respondent No.3 is the RC holder of Car No.TAH-6285 and 12 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 Respondent No.4 is the insurer of Car No.TAH-6285 all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
In support of their evidence filed 13 documents under ExP.1 to P.13.
9.Respondent No.2 & 4 are the insurer of Van as well as the Car examined one witness. He stated in his examination in chief that, the application filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is false that, the driver of the Van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and caused the accident. The Respondent no.1 is a RC Holder, The Respondent no.2 is the insurer of the Van. The policy was in existence of Van, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Van, therefore the respondent no.1 & 2 are not liable to pay compensation in respect of Van.
The driver of the Car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endanger to human life and caused the accident, thereby Asha & Guruprasad were sustained fatal injury and succumbed and Sakambari sustained injury, 13 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 underwent the treatment. The RC Holder respondent no.3 got Act Policy to the Car, the policy was in existence as on the date of the accident. But the respondent no.3 has not paid the additional premium in regard to the third party liability. Therefore the respondent no.3 is liable to pay compensation and respondent no.4 is not liable to pay compensation and there is no premium paid in regard to third party liability and disputed the age, income, avocation and expenses and prayed for dismiss the petition with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3.
10. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners and respondents Ex.P.1 is the FIR Exs.P.2 mahazar, Ex.P.3 final report, Ex.P.4 Spot sketch, Ex.P.5 IMV report, Ex.P.6 discharge summary Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 PM reports of Asha and Guruprasad reveals that, charge sheet is against the driver of the offending Car. The deceased Asha and Guruprasad were sustained the injuries in a RTA. Due to fatal injury they were succumbed. There is no evidence adduced by the petitioner as well as the respondent as ordered by the 14 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to show that the driver of the Van was also contributed in his negligence cause for accident. It is thus the driver of the Car was drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endanger to human life and caused the accident. The Asha succumbed during treatment, and Guruprasad succumbed on the spot and Sakambari sustained the injuries. Accordingly I have answered issue No.1 in all the cases are in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.2 in MVC No.2594/2001:
PW.1 further stated that, the petitioner no.1 is the daughter and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The deceased aged about 36 years, working as Scientific officer at Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore and earning an amount of Rs.13,000/- per month and odd. She has contributed her income to her family. Due to the death of Asha Guruprasad, her minor daughter Nivedita and her mother-in- law are facing lot of mental shock and agony as well as financial loss and prayed for compensation. 15 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25 Respondent No.1& 3 are RC Holders. Respondent No.2 & 4 are the insurers, policy were in existence and prayed for compensation.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 13 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.13.
12. Whereas the respondent No.2 & 4 examined its official as RW.1. RW.1 stated in his examination in chief that the charge sheeted driver of the car bearing No.TAH-6285 by attributing entire negligence on the part of the driver of the said car . There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Van bearing No.TN-01-F-4393. The 1st respondent who is the owner of the Car is not liable to pay compensation. When the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay compensation the question of indemnifying the respondent no.1 does not arise. Further stated that the car bearing No. TAH-6285 is covered by ACT Policy. The occupant of the Car since no extra premium has been paid in respect of occupants of the car i.e to the persons who are traveling in the said Car. Admittedly the petitioners and deceased were traveling in the said car are not covered under the Act policy. So the respondent no.4 is not liable to 16 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 pay compensation. The respondent no.3 is the RC Holder of the car is liable to pay compensation as because Respondent no.3 carrying the passenger for hire in a private car and prayed for dismiss the petition against respondent no.2 & 4.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3.
13. On perusal of the PM report Ex.P.7 reveals deceased Asha was aged about 36 years. Ex.P.10 reveal that, the income of the deceased was Rs.13,630/- per month. Petitioner no.1 is the daughter and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law. As per Sarala Verma's case as well as Rajesh case, the age of 36 years multiplier would be 15, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the deceased. 1/3rd of her income has to be deducted for her personal expenses, and remaining 2/3rd amount is contributed to her family. As such Rs.13,630 x 12 x 15x 2/3 = Rs.16,35,600/- is awarded under the heads of loss of dependency. The deceased Asha was aged about 36 years working as a Scientist. she has future prospects. Hence 25% of loss dependency i.e. Rs.13,630 x 12 x 15x 2/3 = 17 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 Rs.16,35,600/- x 25% = 4,08,900/- is awarded under the heads of loss of future prospects. Another Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transportation of dead body. Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Another an amount of Rs.13,630 x 12 x 15x 2/3 = Rs.16,35,600/- x 5% = 81,780/-is awarded under the heads of loss of estate. So the Petitioners are entitled total compensation as follows:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.16,35,600/-
2. Loss of future prospects : Rs. 4,08,900/-
3. Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
4. Transportation of dead body : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of love and Affection : Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Loss of estate : Rs. 81,780/-
Total Rs.22,61,280/-
Respondent No.1 is the owner of Van TN-01-F-4393
Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Van TN-01-F-4393,
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder of Car No.TAH-6285 and Respondent No.4 is the insurer of Car No.TAH-6285 and policy were in existence. Charge sheet is against the driver of 18 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 the offending Car. Deceased was traveling in a Private Car as a gratuitous passengers, insurance policy in respect of the car is a ACT policy, it does not cover risk of gratuitous passengers.
The driver of the Van is not cause for the accident. Therefore the respondent no.3 who is the RC Holder of the car is liable to pay compensation with interest. Petitioner no.1 is the daughter of the deceased, petitioner no.2 is the mother in law of the deceased. As per the Hindu law the petitioner no.1 is the class-I heir. She is entitle for entire compensation. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC 2594/2001 is in the affirmative.
14.Issue No.2 in MVC No.2596/2001:
PW.1 further stated that, the petitioner no.1 is the daughter and petitioner no.2 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased aged about 43 years, working as Joint Director of CPRI, Bangalore and earning an amount of Rs.18,782/- per month and odd. He has contributed his income to his family. Due to the death of Guruprasad, his minor daughter Nivedita and his mother are facing lot of mental shock and agony as well as financial loss and prayed for compensation. 19 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25
15. Respondent No.1& 3 are RC Holders. Respondent No.2 & 4 are the insurers, policy were in existence and prayed for compensation.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 13 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.13.
Whereas the respondent No.2 & 4 examined its official as RW.1. RW.1 stated in his examination in chief that the charge sheeted driver of the car bearing No.TAH-6285 by attributing entire negligence on the part of the driver of the said car . There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Van bearing No.TN-01-F-4393. The 1st respondent who is the owner of the Car is not liable to pay compensation. When the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay compensation the question of indemnifying the respondent no.1 does not arise. Further stated that the car bearing TAH-6285 is covered by ACT Policy. The occupant of the car since no extra premium has been paid in respect of occupants of the car i.e to the persons who are traveling in the said car. Admittedly the petitioners and deceased were traveling in the said car are not covered under the Act policy. So the respondent no.4 is not liable to 20 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 pay compensation. The respondent no.3 is the RC Holder of the car is liable to pay compensation as because Respondent no.3 carrying the passenger for hire in a private car and prayed for dismiss the petition against respondent no.2 & 4.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3.
16. On perusal of the PM report Ex.P.8 reveals deceased Guruprasad was aged about 43 years. Ex.P.9 reveal that, the income of the deceased was Rs.18,782/- per month. Petitioner no.1 is the daughter and petitioner no.2 is the mother. As per Sarala Verma's case as well as Rajesh case, the age of 43 years multiplier would be 14, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the deceased. 1/3rd of her income has to be deducted for his personal expenses, and remaining 2/3rd amount is contributed to his family. As such Rs.18,782 x 12 x 14x 2/3 = Rs.21,03,584/- is awarded under the heads of loss of dependency. The deceased Guruprasad was aged about 43 years working as Joint Director, CPRI, Bangalore. He has future prospects. Hence 25% of loss dependency i.e. Rs.18,782 x 12 x 14x 2/3 = Rs.21,03,584/- x 20% = 4,20,716/- is 21 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 awarded under the heads of loss of future prospects. Another Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. Rs.10,000/- is awarded for transportation of dead body. Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Another an amount of Rs.18,782 x 12 x 14x 2/3 = Rs.21,03,584/- x 5% = 1,05,179/-is awarded under the heads of loss of estate. So the Petitioners are entitled total compensation as follows:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.21,03,584/-
2. Loss of future prospects : Rs. 4,20,716/-
3. Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
4. Transportation of dead body : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of love and Affection : Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Loss of estate : Rs. 1,05,179/-
Total Rs.27,64,479/-
Respondent No.1 is the owner of Van TN-01-F-4393
Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Van TN-01-F-4393,
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder of Car No.TAH-6285 and Respondent No.4 is the insurer of Car No.TAH -6285 and policy were in existence. Charge sheet is against the driver of 22 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 the offending Car. Deceased was traveling in a private Car as a gratuitous passengers, insurance policy in respect of the car is a ACT policy, it does not cover risk of gratuitous passengers.
The driver of the Van is not cause for the accident. Therefore the respondent no.3 who is the RC Holder of the car is liable to pay compensation with interest. Petitioner no.1 is the daughter of the deceased, petitioner no.2 is the mother of the deceased. As per the Hindu law the petitioner no.1 & 2 are the class-I heirs. They are entitle for compensation with interest. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC 2596/2001 is in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2 in MVC No.2597 /2001:
PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, as on the date of the accident she was aged about 69 years and was a house wife and earning an amount of Rs.1,250/- per month. Due to accident she sustained injury, took treatment, she cannot stand, sit, walk, work and earn an amount of Rs.1,250/- per month.
Respondents are RC Holders and Insurers all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 23 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25 In support of their oral evidence they have filed 13 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.13. She has not examined the doctor.
18.Whereas the respondent No.2 & 4 examined its official as RW.1. RW.1 stated in his examination in chief that the charge sheeted driver of the car bearing No.TAH-6285 by attributing entire negligence on the part of the driver of the said car . There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Van bearing No.TN-01-F-4393. The 1st respondent who is the owner of the Car is not liable to pay compensation. When the respondent no.1 is not liable to pay compensation the question of indemnifying the respondent no.1 does not arise. Further stated that the car bearing TAH-6285 is covered by ACT Policy. The occupant of the car since no extra premium has been paid in respect of occupants of the car i.e to the persons who are traveling in the said car. Admittedly the petitioners and deceased were traveling in the said car are not covered under the ACT policy. So the respondent no.4 is not liable to pay compensation. The respondent no.3 is the RC Holder of the car is liable to pay compensation as because Respondent 24 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 no.3 carrying the passenger for hire in a private car and prayed for dismiss the petition against respondent no.2 & 4.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3 documents under Exs.R.1 to R.3.
19. On perusal of the Ex.P.6 Discharge summary reveals that, she has sustained fracture of left tibia, fracture of left humerous, interlocking nail done she was admitted on 10.10.1998 and discharged on 16.10.98. She has not furnished the medical bill. She has not examined the doctor. Considering the oral and documentary evidence and injury sustained by her, the tribunal is awarded Global compensation of Rs.65,000/- towards the pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of income, conveyance and food and nourishment etc., Respondent No.1 is the owner of Van TN-01-F-4393 Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Van TN-01-F-4393, Respondent No.3 is the RC holder of Car No.TAH-6285 and Respondent No.4 is the insurer of Car No.TAH -6285 and 25 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 policy were in existence. Charge sheet is against the driver of the offending Car. Deceased was traveling in a private Car as a gratuitous passengers, insurance policy in respect of the car is a ACT policy, it does not cover risk of gratuitous passengers. The driver of the Van is not cause for the accident. Therefore the respondent no.3 who is the RC Holder of the car is liable to pay compensation with interest. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC 2597/2001 is in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.3 in all the cases:
In view of answering issue no.1 and 2, as above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition/s filed under section 166 of M.V.Act is hereby allowed.
The petitioner in MVC No.:2594 /2001 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.22,61,280/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent No3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Respondent no.3 RC Holder of the Car order to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of award.26 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25 On deposit, Rs.15,00,000/- deposit in the name of the Petitioner no.1 for a period of 5 years in any N/S bank and remaining amount- shall be released in the name of the Petitioner no.1 after obtaining vouchers, receipts and proper identification as per finance rules.
*** The petitioner in MVC No.:2596/2001 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.27,64,479/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Respondent no.3 RC Holder of the Car order to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of award.
On deposit, Rs.15,00,000/- deposit in the name of the Petitioner no.1 for a period of 5 years in any N/S bank and out of remaining amount- Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released in the name of the Petitioner no.2 and rest of the amount shall be released in favour of petitioner no.1 after obtaining vouchers, receipts and proper identification as per finance rules.
*** 27 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001 SCCH-25 The Petitioner in MVC No.2597/2013 is entitled Global compensation an amount of Rs.65,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a., Respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Respondent no.3 RC Holder of the Car order to deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of award.
On deposit entire amount shall be paid to the Petitioner through account payee cheque after obtaining vouchers, receipts and proper identification as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/- in each case Draw award separate accordingly.
The original of this judgment is kept in MVC: 2594/2001and the signed copies of judgment kept in MVC: 2596/2001 & 2597/2001.
(Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of March 2016).
(DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXI Addl.C.M.M.& Member MACT, Bangalore.28 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25 ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 Sakambari List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.1(a) English translated version of ExP.1
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) English translated version of ExP.2
Ex.P.3 Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.3(a) English translated version of ExP.3
Ex.P.4 Sketch
Ex.P.4(a) English translated version of ExP.4
Ex.P.5 IMV report
Ex.P.6 Discharge summary
Ex.P.7 Post mortem report of deceased
Asha Guruprasad
Ex.P.8 Post mortem report of deceased Guruprasad
Ex.P.9 Salary certificate of deceased Guruprasad
Ex.P.10 Salary certificate of deceased
Asha Guruprasad
Ex.P.11 Affidavit of translator of Ex.P.1 to P.4
Ex.P.12&13 Copies of orders in G & W No.12/2001
29 MVC NO.2594, 2596 & 2597/2001
SCCH-25
List of Witnesses examined for respondent/s:
RW.1 M.Muralidhar List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Authorisation letter of RW1
Ex.R.2 Copy of insurance policy of Car TAH-6285
Ex.R.3 Copy of insurance policy of TN -01-F-4393
(DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY)
XXI Addl. C.M.M.,& Member MACT,
Bengaluru.