Bangalore District Court
In M.V.C.No. 4312 Of 2013 vs In All Cases on 31 January, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, SCCH-4
DATED THIS THE 31st JANUARY 2015
PRESENT:
Smt.J.P.ARCHANA,B.Com.,LL.B.,
XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-4, Bangalore.
M.V.C.Nos. 4312, 4313, 4314, 4315, 4316, 4317 & 4318 OF
2013
Petitioners in M.V.C.No. 4312 of 2013:-
1. Smt. Umadevi @ Uma,
W/o. J.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 27 years.
2. R.Rashmi,
D/o. Late J.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 8 years.
3. R.Ranjitha,
D/o. Late J.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 6 years.
4. R.Varsha,
D/o. Late J.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 4 years.
(The petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 are
Minors, represented by their
Mother and natural guardian
Smt.Umadevi, Petitioner No.1)
All are residing at No.68/A,
1st Main Road, 6th Cross,
Subhedarpalya, Bangalore.
5. Venkatamma,
W/o. Late Jayaram,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.127, N.H.Colony,
Bangalore.
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4313 of 2013:-
1. N.S. Gururaju,
S/o. H.Y.Siddalingappa,
Aged about 38 years
2. Bhagya,
W/o. N.S.Gururaju,
Aged about 33 years.
Both are residing at
5th Cross, Attilakkamma Road,
Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4314 of 2013:-
1. N.S. Gururaju,
S/o. H.Y.Siddalingappa,
Aged about 38 years
2. Bhagya,
W/o. N.S.Gururaju,
Aged about 33 years.
Both are residing at
5th Cross, Attilakkamma Road,
Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4315 of 2013:-
1. S.Yallappa,
S/o. G.T. Siddalingappa,
Aged about 40 years
2. Lakshmamma,
W/o. S.Yellappa,
Aged about 35 years
3. Kiran @ Kiran Kumar,
S/o. Yallappa,
Aged about 15 years,
Since minor represented by his
Father and natural guardian,
i.e. petitioner No.1
All are residing at
No.78/2/9, near Kuvempu College,
Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4316 of 2013:-
Kiran @ Kiran Kumar,
S/o. Yallappa,
Aged about 15 years,
Since minor represented by his
Father and natural guardian
Sri. Yallappa,
Residing at
No.78/2/9, near Kuvempu College,
Mallasandra, T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 057
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4317 of 2013:-
Manoj @ Madan,
S/o. Shiva,
Aged about 15 years,
Since minor Rep. by his father
and natural guardian Shiva,
R/at No.92/2,
T.C.H. College Road,
Nagawara, Bangalore - 560 045
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4318 of 2013:-
Srikanth, S/o. Ramaiah,
Aged about 25 years, No.51,
Thimmasandra, Kasaba Hobli,
Doddaballapura,
Bangalore Rural District
Presently residing at:
No.9, Mallasandra Main Road,
5th Cross, T.Dasarahalli,
Bangalore - 560 027
(By Sri. H.A.S. Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondent in all cases:-
The Managing Director,
K.S.R.T.C Depot,
Bangalore Central Office,
Bangalore - 560 027
(R.C.Owner of the K.S.R.T.C
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-17-
F-1095)
(By Sri. A.L.M., Advocate)
COMMON JUDGEMENT
M.V.C. Nos. 4312, 4313, 4314, 4315 of 2013 are filed by
the respective petitioners u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, for grant of compensation on account of death of
J.Ramakrishna, N.G.Manoj, N.G.Madan, Ravikumar D.Y
respectively in a road traffic accident. as the legal
representatives and dependents of the respective deceased
persons.
MVC Nos.4316, 4317 and 4318 of 2013 are filed by the
petitioners u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for grant
of compensation on account of injuries sustained by them in a
road traffic accident.
Since all these cases are arising out of the same accident
and the respondent is one and the same, they are clubbed
together and common evidence is recorded and taken together
for the purpose of passing common judgment.
2. The common contentions of the petitioners in all cases are
as under:
That on 25.04.2013 at about 08.45 p.m the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.4316, 4317, 4318 of 2013 and the deceased
J.Ramakrishna, N.G.Manoj, N.G.Madan, Ravikumar D.Y in
MVC No.4312, 4313, 4314, 4315 of 2013 respectively were
going to Sri. Sigandhuru Chowdeshwari temple in a Qualis car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AA-1229 and the same was driven by
the deceased J. Ramakrishna on the extreme left side on
Tumkur-Tiptur road slowly and while proceeding reached
near Nirmala Dhaba, at that time suddenly the driver of the
KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-17-F-1095 came from Tiptur
side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
said quails car and caused the accident, as a result of which
the driver of Qualis Ramakrishna succumbed to the fatal
injuries on the spot and Madan, Manoj and Ravikumar
succumbed to fatal injuries after taking first aid treatment at
Government Hospital, Tiptur and other petitioners in MVC
Nos.4316 of 2013 to 4318 of 2013 sustained grievious
injuries.
It is also contended in MVC No.4312 of 2013 that
deceased Ramakrishna was running pork shop and apart from
that he was doing agricultural operation in his own 16 guntas
of land and earning Rs.50,000/-p.m. Due to the death of
Ramakrishna petitioners lost the love and affection and
earning member of the family. Therefore, they pray to award
compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.
It is also contended in MVC No.4313 of 2013 that
deceased Manoj was aged about 16 years and was a brilliant
student of 9th standard and used to participate in curricular
activities. Due to untimely death of the deceased the
petitioner life has become dark and miserable and depressed.
In future the petitioners will not get any child since underwent
operation. Hence petitioners prayed to award compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
It is also contended in MVC No.4314 of 2013 that
deceased Madan, was aged about 13 years and was a brilliant
student of 5th standard and used to participate in curricular
activities. Due to untimely death of the deceased the
petitioners life has become dark and miserable and depressed.
In future the petitioners will not get any child since underwent
operation. Hence petitioners prayed to award compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
It is also contended in MVC No.4315 of 2013 that
deceased Ravikumar was aged about 17 years and was a
brilliant student of 10th standard and used to participate in
curricular activities. Due to untimely death of the deceased
the petitioners life has become dark and miserable and
depressed. Hence petitioners prayed to award compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/-.
It is also contended that, petitioner in MVC No.4316 of
2013 was aged about 15 years and was a brilliant student and
used to participate in co-curricular activities. On account of
the said injuries, the petitioner could not concentrate on his
studies and in future he cannot participate in co-curricular
activities. That petitioner is suffering from disability and
discomfort. Hence petitioner pray to award compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/-.
It is also contended that petitioner in MVC No.4317 of
2013 was aged about 15 years, was a brilliant student and
used to participate in co-curricular activities. On account of
the said injuries, the petitioner could not concentrate on his
studies and in future the petitioner cannot participate in co-
curricular activities. That petitioner is suffering from disability
and discomfort. Hence petitioner pray to award compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/-.
It is also contended that petitioner in MVC No.4318 of
2013 was aged about 25 years and was running hotel
business under the name and style of M/s. Sri Venkateshwara
Hotel (Non-Veg.) and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- p.m.
On account of the said injuries he has sustained loss of
income. That petitioner is suffering from disability and
discomfort. Hence petitioner pray to award compensation of
Rs.12,50,000/-.
3. Upon service of notices in all the cases, respondent
appeared through its counsel and filed written statement,
wherein denied the entire petition averments. Further the
respondent contended that, the complainant has given false
case against the driver of the KSRTC bus and Tiptur Police
have registered false case against him for the offence
punishable u/s. 279. 337, 338 and 304(a) of IPC. That, the
KSRTC bus driver drove the same cautiously observing all the
traffic rules and regulations, but the driver of the Qualis
bearing No.KA-05-AA-1229 drove the same negligently and
has contributed to the accident. That, the KSRTC bus driver
is not at all responsible for the said accident. But as per the
enquiry of the respondent Corporation the bus driver was
driving the bus slowly and cautiously from Tiptur towards
Bangalore and the Qualis car without observing traffic rules
and norms came in a high speed and suddenly dashed the bus
by applying break. That the car driver lost control over the
vehicle and dashed against the KSRTC bus. Hence on these
ground prayed to dismiss the above petitions.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal has
framed the following:
ISSUES
In MVC No.4312 to 4315/2013:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
J.Ramakrishna, N.G.Manoj, N.G.Madan,
Ravikumar D.Y succumbed to the injuries in
a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on
25.04.2013 at about 08.45 p.m near Nirmala
Dhaba, on Tumkur-Tiptur road which was
due to rash and negligent driving of KSRTC
bus bearing Reg.No.Ka-17-F-1095?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What Order?
MVC Nos.4316/2013 to 4318/2013:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they met
with an RTA that occurred on 25.04.2013 at
about 08.45 pm near Nirmala Dhaba, on
Tumkur-Tiptur road which was due to rash
and negligent driving of KSRTC bus bearing
Reg.No.KA-17-F-1095?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?
3. What Order?
5. After framing issues in all cases, in support of petitioner's
case, petitioner No.1 in MVC 4312/2013, got herself examined
as PW-1, petitioner No.1 in MVC 4313/2013 and in MVC
4314/2013 got himself examined as PW-2, petitioner No.1 in
MVC 4315/2013 and also Guardian/father of petitioner in
4316/2013 got himself examined as PW3, Guardian/father of
petitioner in MVC 4317/2013 got himself examined as PW4
and petitioner in MVC 4318/2013 got himself examined as
PW5, and doctor who treated the petitioners in MVC 4316 &
4317/2013 is got examined as PW6 and got marked
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.52. Respondent has got
examined one T.K.Mahesh, its bus driver as RW1 and got
marked document at Ex.R1.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners
and respondent.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 In the affirmative
Issue No.2 Partly in the affirmative and
as per final order
Issue No.3 As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: It is the evidence of PWs' 1to 5 that on
25.04.2013 at about 08.45 p.m the petitioners in
M.V.C.No.4316, 4317, 4318 of 2013 and the deceased
J.Ramakrishna, N.G.Manoj, N.G.Madan, Ravikumar D.Y in
MVC No.4312, 4313, 4314, 4315 of 2013 respectively were
going to Sri. Sigandhuru Chowdeshwari temple in a Qualis car
bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AA-1229 and the same was driven by
the deceased J. Ramakrishna on the extreme left side on
Tumkur-Tiptur road slowly and while proceeding reached
near Nirmala Dhaba, at that time suddenly the driver of the
KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA-17-F-1095 came from Tiptur
side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
said quails car and caused the accident, as a result of which
the driver of Qualis Ramakrishna succumbed to the fatal
injuries on the spot and Madan, Manoj and Ravikumar
succumbed to fatal injuries after taking first aid treatment at
Government Hospital, Tiptur and other petitioners in MVC
Nos.4316 of 2013 to 4318 of 2013 sustained grievious
injuries. In support of their said contentions, they relied on
the police records such as FIR, statement, charge sheet,
mahazar, sketch, IMV report, certified copy of deposition in
CC842/2013 and copy of statement which are marked as Ex-
P1 to 8 respectively.
9. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitioners have produced
copy of FIR at Ex-P1. This document clearly shows that Tiptur
rural Police have registered case against the driver of the
offending KSRTC bus for the offence punishable u/s 279, 337,
338, 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P.10,15, 18, 21 PM Report relating to
J.Ramakrishna, Madan, Manoj and Ravikumar respectively in
which the doctor has stated that deceased died due to injuries
sustained in a road traffic accident. Ex.P.23, Ex.P.29 and
Ex.P.34 Wound Certificates relating to the petitioners in MVC
Nos.4316 of 2013 to 4318 of 2013 respectively in which the
doctor has stated that petitioners had sustained injuries in a
road traffic accident. After investigation, the police have filed
the Charge sheet as per Ex.P.3 for the offence punishable u/s.
279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The registration of criminal
case and filing of Charge sheet prima facie establishes
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle
bearing No.KA-17-F-1095.
10. The respondent filed written statement and denied the
petition averments and got examined it's driver as RW1 and he
has stated that, the alleged facts in respect of the accident
mentioned in the petition are totally false and frivolous one.
That the police falsely registered the FIR and complaint
against him, as their Corporation vehicle is bigger one. That
the criminal case was registered against him in
C.C.No.842/2013, on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, at Tiptur has acquitted him vide Judgment
dated 15.09.2014. That on the said day he has driven the bus
slowly by observing all the traffic rules and regulations. But
the driver of the car KA-05-AA-1229, deceased himself
negligently drove his Qualis car and consequently has
contributed his negligence to the said accident. That he is not
responsible for the aforesaid accident. That as per their
Corporation enquiry report, the Corporation bus was driven
by him slowly towards Tiptur to Bangalore, the Qualis car
without observing the traffic rules was coming opposite side in
highly rash and negligent manner and dashed to their
Corporation bus on right side, suddenly he applied the break.
That the car driver had no control over the car and dashed to
the bus. Such being the fact, the allegation against him in
respect of rash and negligence is totally false. Thus their
Corporation is not liable to ay any compensation as claimed in
the claim petitions. Further he has produced ExR1 C.C. of
judgment in C.C.842/2013. RW-1 in his cross examination
admitted that the police have filed the charge sheet against
him and criminal case is pending against him, but denied that
the accident was occurred due to his negligence.
11. In the instant case, the evidence of PW-1 regarding
negligence of driver of the KSRTC bus is supported by the
police records. RW-1 the driver though stated that there was
no negligence on his part, his evidence cannot be believed as
a criminal case is pending against him and he has to save
himself from conviction in the said case. Though in Ex R1 C.C.
of judgment in C.C.842/2013 the driver of the bus is acquitted
by giving benefit of doubt it is only corroborative piece of
evidence. However in the cross-examination of PW's-1 to 5
nothing has been elicited to dis-believe the version in their
chief examination. Under the said circumstances, from the
above evidence of petitioners, medical records and the police
records, it is crystal clear that the Ramakrishna, Madan,
Manoj and Ravikumar in MVC Nos.4312 of 2013 to 4315 of
2013 died and petitioners in MVC Nos.4316 of 2013 to 4318
of 2013 have sustained injuries in the said accident due to the
actionable negligence of driving of the offending vehicle.
Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4312 of 2013:-
The first petitioner in this case, who is examined as PW1
has stated that she is the wife of J.Ramakrishna who died in
the accident. She also stated that petitioner No.2 to 4 are
their minor daughters and petitioner No.5 is her mother-in-
law. She also stated that they spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
transportation of deadbody and for funeral obsequies of the
deceased. She also stated that J.Ramkrishna was aged about
32 years and was running Pork shop and doing agricultural
operation in his own 16 guntas of land and earning of
Rs.50,000/-p.m. She also stated that due to the death of
J.Ramakrishna petitioners lost the love and affection and also
earning member of the family. Hence prayed for awarding
compensation as prayed in the petition.
13. It is not disputed that the petitioner no.1 is the wife,
petitioners No.2 to 4 are the children and petitioner No.5 is the
mother of deceased J.Ramakrishna. Even from the Ex.P13
affidavit Geological tree, Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 notarised copy of
election I.D. card, Ex.P40 notarised copy of D.L., Ex.P41 and
Ex.P42 notarised copy of birth certificate, Ex.P43 report card,
it appears that the petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2
to 4 are the children and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the
deceased J.Ramakrishna and all the petitioners are the legal
representatives of the deceased.
14. Regarding the income of the deceased, in the petition and
also from the evidence of PW-1 it is forthcoming that deceased
was running pork shop, apart from that he was doing
agricultural operations in his own land of 16 guntas. and
contributing the entire amount to the maintenance of the
family. The petitioners have produced documents regarding
avocation and income of J. Ramakrishna at Ex.P12 license,
Ex.P44 and Ex.P45 I.T.Returns. On perusal of Ex.P.44 it is
pertaining to the year 2006-2007 and Ex.P.45 it is pertaining
to the year 2004-2005. The petitioners have not produced
recent I.T. returns of the deceased to ascertain his actual
income at the time of accident. In the absence of clear proof of
income the notional income of the deceased is taken as
Rs. 7,000/-p.m.
15. Considering the age of the deceased i.e., 35 years as per
Ex-P5, he will certainly be having future prospectus of
promotion and it is relevant to note the decision laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Varma Case wherein it
was clearly held that where the annual income is in the
taxable range, the words `` actual salary`` should be read as ``
actual salary less tax``. The addition of 50% towards future
prospects to the actual salary to the net actual salary of
deceased only in case of a permanent job and when below 40
years of age and addition to the income should be only 30%, if
the age of the deceased was 40-50 years. There should be no
addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years.
16. In this case, the age of the deceased is 32 years. So the
addition to income for future prospectus in this case would be
50% of the actual income by him i.e., 50% of Rs.7,000/- =
Rs.3,500/-. The total income of the deceased will be Rs.
7,000/-+Rs. 3,500/-=Rs.10,500/-. As per Sarla Varma case,
out of the said amount 1/4th has to be deducted towards
personal expenses of the deceased, if he would have been
alive, as the number of dependants of the deceased are four.
So the loss of dependency for the petitioners would be Rs.
7,875/-p.m. As per the PM report at Ex.P.10, the age of the
deceased is shown as 35 years on the date of his death. The
appropriate multiplier to the said age is 16. So the total loss
of dependency for the petitioners would be (7,bn875 x 12 x 16)
Rs. 15,12,000/- only.
17. Petitioners might have also spent some amount towards
transportation of the deadbody and funeral expenses. So it is
just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
under this head. The petitioner No.1 is the wife of the
deceased has lost the companionship of her husband. So it is
proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
consortium to the 1st petitioner. Since the petitioners lost the
earning member of the family it is proper to award
Rs.20,000/- towards loss of estate.
18. In view of the above reasoning, petitioners are entitled for
the compensation under the following Heads:
Heads Amount(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 15,12,000/-
Transportation of the
deadbody and funeral 10,000/-
expenses
Loss of consortium to the
20,000/-
Petitioner No.1
Loss of estate 20,000/-
Total Rs.15,62,000/-
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of
Rs15,62,000./- only.
19. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4313 of 2013:-
The first petitioner in this case, who is examined as PW2
has stated that 2nd petitioner is his wife and N.G.Manoj who
died in the accident is their son. After the Post Mortem they
took the dead-body and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
transportation of the dead-body and funeral expenses. He
also states that on the date of accident, his son was hale and
healthy and aged about 16 years. Due to the sudden death of
their son, they are put to mental shock and agony and also
lost the love and affection. Hence prayed for awarding
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
20. The relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not
seriously disputed. From the perusal of PM report at Ex-P15 &
study certificate at ExP16 it is forthcoming that deceased-
N.G.Manoj is the son of petitioners who was aged about 16
years. As such it appears that the petitioners are the legal
representatives of N.G.Manoj and due to his death certainly
the petitioners have lost their future bright son and also
deprived of his love and affection. Though the loss of their
son cannot be counted in terms of money, they are entitled for
the compensation due to death of their son N.G.Manoj.
21. The petitioners have proved that their son N.G.Manoj
sustained injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries in
the accident, so they are entitled for the compensation. Now,
the question is for how much compensation, they are entitled
and from whom?. The petitioners have stated that their son
N.G.Manoj was aged about 16 years. In this regard it is
relevant to note the decision laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India-Kishan Gopal and another Vs Lala
and others wherein it is held as follows:-
Quantum-Fatal accident-deceased boy aged 10
was assisting his father in his agricultural
work-claimants: father and mother aged 36-
Apex Court taking into consideration
drastically falling rupee value, assessed
notional income of the deceased at rs.30,000/-
p.a. adopted multiplier of 15 and allowed
Rs.4,50,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- under
conventional heads towards loss of love and
affection, funeral expenses and last rites; total
Rs.5,00,000/-.
22. Guided by the ratio laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, it can be considered that determination of
damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task
and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a
child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is
uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning
nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of
assessment of compensation, therefore becomes stiffer. The
figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of
guesswork. In cases where parents are claimants, relevant
factor would be age of parents.
23. It is also noted in the above decisions that in case of death
of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit
derived by the parents during the child's lifetime. But this will
not necessarily bar the parent's claim and prospective loss will
find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they
had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child
had lived. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of
uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of
death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income
nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of
proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that
at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their
academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter
advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed
with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the
deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis
nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of
mathematical computation.
24. In the instant case also since the deceased was aged about
16 years on the date of his death and had he been alive, would
have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the
petitioners, so the notional income at the rate of Rs.30,000/-
p.a. is taken and further taking the age of younger parent i.e.,
mother in this case i.e., 33 years by applying the multiplier
which is 16, the loss of dependency would be Rs.30,000/- x
16. = Rs 4,80,000./-.
25. Petitioners might have also spent some amount towards
transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. So it is
just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- under
this head. The petitioners have lost their son, hence it is just
and proper to award to compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards
loss of love and affection.
26. In view of the above reasoning, petitioners are entitled for
the compensation under the following Heads:
Heads Amount(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 4,80,000/-
Transportation of the
deadbody and funeral 10,000/-
expenses
Loss of love and affection 50,000/-
Total Rs.5,40,000/-
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of
Rs. 5,40,000/- only.
27. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4314 of 2013:-
The first petitioner in this case, who is examined as PW2
has stated that 2nd petitioner is his wife and N.G.Madan who
died in the accident is their son. After the Post Mortem they
took the dead-body and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
transportation of the dead-body and funeral expenses. He
also states that on the date of accident, his son was hale and
healthy and aged about 13 years. Due to the sudden death of
their son, they are put to mental shock and agony and also
lost the love and affection. Hence prayed for awarding
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
28. The relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not
seriously disputed. From the perusal of PM report at Ex-P18 &
study certificate at Ex.P.19 it is forthcoming that deceased-
N.G.Madan is the son of petitioners who was aged about 13
years. As such it appears that the petitioners are the legal
representatives of N.G.Madan and due to his death certainly
the petitioners have lost their future bright son and also
deprived of his love and affection. Though the loss of their son
cannot be counted in terms of money, they are entitled for the
compensation due to death of their son N.G.Madan.
29. The petitioners have proved that their son N.G.Madan
sustained injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries in
the accident, so they are entitled for the compensation. Now,
the question is for how much compensation, they are entitled
and from whom? The petitioners have stated that their son
N.G.Madan was aged about 13 years. In this regard it is
relevant to note the decision laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India-Kishan Gopal and another Vs Lala
and others wherein it is held as follows:-
Quantum-Fatal accident-deceased boy aged 10
was assisting his father in his agricultural
work-claimants: father and mother aged 36-
Apex Court taking into consideration
drastically falling rupee value, assessed
notional income of the deceased at
Rs.30,000/-p.a. adopted multiplier of 15 and
allowed Rs.4,50,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- under
conventional heads towards loss of love and
affection, funeral expenses and last rites; total
Rs.5,00,000/-.
30. Guided by the ratio laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, it can be considered that, determination of
damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task
and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a
child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is
uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning
nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of
assessment of compensation, therefore becomes stiffer. The
figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of
guesswork. In cases where parents are claimants, relevant
factor would be age of parents.
31. It is also noted in the above decisions that in case of death
of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit
derived by the parents during the child's lifetime. But this will
not necessarily bar the parent's claim and prospective loss will
find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they
had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child
had lived. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of
uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of
death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income
nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of
proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that
at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their
academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter
advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed
with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the
deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis
nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of
mathematical computation.
32. In the instant case also since the deceased was aged about
13 years on the date of his death and had he been alive,
would have certainly contributed substantially to the family of
the petitioners, so the notional income at the rate of
Rs.30,000/-p.a. is taken and further taking the age of younger
parent i.e., mother in this case i.e., 33 years by applying the
multiplier which is 16, the loss of dependency would be
Rs.30,000/- x 16 = Rs. 4,80,000./-.
33. Petitioners might have also spent some amount towards
transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. So it is
just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- under
this head. The petitioners have lost their son, hence it is just
and proper to award to compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards
loss of love and affection.
34. In view of the above reasoning, petitioners are entitled for
the compensation under the following Heads:
Heads Amount(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 4,80,000/-
Transportation of the
deadbody and funeral 10,000/-
expenses
Loss of love and affection 50,000/-
Total Rs.5,40,000/-
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of
Rs. 5,40,000/- only.
35. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4315 of 2013:-
The first petitioner in this case, who is examined as PW3
has stated that 2nd petitioner is his wife and Ravikumar D.Y.
who died in the accident is their son. After the Post Mortem
they took the dead-body and spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
transportation of the dead-body and funeral expenses. He
also states that on the date of accident, his son was hale and
healthy and aged about 17 years. Due to the sudden death of
their son, they are put to mental shock and agony and also
lost the love and affection. Hence prayed for awarding
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.
36. The relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not
seriously disputed. From the perusal of PM report at Ex-P21 &
study certificate at Ex.P.22 it is forthcoming that deceased-
Ravikumar D.Y. is the son of petitioners who was aged about
17 years. As such it appears that the petitioners are the legal
representatives of Ravikumar D.Y. and due to his death
certainly the petitioners have lost their future bright son and
also deprived of his love and affection. Though the loss of
their son cannot be counted in terms of money, they are
entitled for the compensation due to death of their son
Ravikumar D.Y.
37. The petitioners have proved that their son Ravikumar D.Y.
sustained injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries in
the accident, so they are entitled for the compensation. Now,
the question is for how much compensation, they are entitled
and from whom?. The petitioners have stated that their son
Ravikumar D.Y. was aged about 17 years. In this regard it is
relevant to note the decision laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India-Kishan Gopal and another Vs Lala
and others wherein it is held as follows:-
Quantum-Fatal accident-deceased boy aged 10
was assisting his father in his agricultural
work-claimants: father and mother aged 36-
Apex Court taking into consideration
drastically falling rupee value, assessed
notional income of the deceased at
Rs.30,000/-p.a. adopted multiplier of 15 and
allowed Rs.4,50,000/- plus Rs.50,000/- under
conventional heads towards loss of love and
affection, funeral expenses and last rites; total
Rs.5,00,000/-.
38. Guided by the ratio laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India, it can be considered that determination of
damages for loss of human life is an extremely difficult task
and it becomes all the more baffling when the deceased is a
child and/or a non-earning person. The future of a child is
uncertain. Where the deceased was a child, he was earning
nothing but had a prospect to earn. The question of
assessment of compensation, therefore becomes stiffer. The
figure of compensation in such cases involves a good deal of
guesswork. In cases where parents are claimants, relevant
factor would be age of parents.
39. It is also noted in the above decisions that in case of death
of an infant, there may have been no actual pecuniary benefit
derived by the parents during the child's lifetime. But this will
not necessarily bar the parent's claim and prospective loss will
find a valid claim provided that the parents establish that they
had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary benefit if the child
had lived. In cases of young children of tender age, in view of
uncertainties abound, neither their income at the time of
death nor the prospects of the future increase in their income
nor chances of advancement of their career are capable of
proper determination on estimated basis. The reason is that
at such an early age, the uncertainties in regard to their
academic pursuits, achievements in career and thereafter
advancement in life are so many that nothing can be assumed
with reasonable certainty. Therefore, neither the income of the
deceased child is capable of assessment on estimated basis
nor the financial loss suffered by the parents is capable of
mathematical computation.
40. In the instant case also since the deceased was aged about
17 years on the date of his death and had he been alive, would
have certainly contributed substantially to the family of the
petitioners, so the notional income at the rate of Rs.30,000/-
p.a. is taken and further taking the age of younger parent i.e.,
mother in this case i.e., 35 years by applying the multiplier
which is 16, the loss of dependency would be
Rs.30,000/- x 16= Rs. 4,80,000./-.
41. Petitioners might have also spent some amount towards
transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. So it is
just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- under
this head. The petitioners have lost their son, hence it is just
and proper to award to compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards
loss of love and affection.
42. In view of the above reasoning, petitioners are entitled for
the compensation under the following Heads:
Heads Amount(Rs.)
Loss of dependency 4,80,000/-
Transportation of the
deadbody and funeral 10,000/-
expenses
Loss of love and affection 50,000/-
Total Rs.5,40,000/-
Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of
Rs.5,40,000/- only.
43. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4316 of 2013:-
The petitioner has proved that, he sustained injuries in
the alleged accident, so he is entitled for the compensation.
Now, the question is for how much compensation, he is
entitled and from whom?
44. PW3 the natural guardian and father of the petitioner has
deposed that, in the said accident his son sustained head
injury, immediately he was taken to Government Hospital,
Tiptur wherein first aid treatment was given and petitioner
referred to NIMHANS Hospital wherein he was treated for a
day and during the course of treatment C.T.Head and brain
scan was done, severe injuries were confirmed. Thereafter for
further treatment referred to Raj Mahal Vilas Hopsital, there
his son was treated as an inpatient from 26.04.2013 to
28.04.2013 and after necessary treatment his son was
discharged with an advised to attend follow up treatment and
his son was under bed rest as per the doctor's advise. He also
stated that his son is not in a position to concentrate on
studies as he is getting headache very often. In support of his
said contentions he relied on the wound certificate at Ex-P23
and Emergency case record at Ex-P26 and also the evidence of
PW-6 doctor who treated the petitioner and he has produced
Case sheet and X-ray pertaining to the petitioner at Ex-P49
and Ex.P50 respectively.
45. PW-6 has deposed that, on 26.04.2013 the patient by
name Kiran came with history of RTA on 25.04.2013. He had
sustained displaced fracture of shaft to left humerus. He was
admitted to Raj Mahal Vilas Hospital on 26.04.2013 for
surgical management of the above injury. That on the same
day underwent open reduction and internal fixation of the
fracture using DC plate and screws. That he was discharged
from the hospital on 28.04.2013 with necessary instructions
to be followed for recovery from the injury sustained. He was
subsequently treated as an out-patient for a period of 3
months. He also stated that he recently examined the
petitioner on 06.12.2014 for physical disability assessment.
He also stated that petitioner complains of pain, swelling of left
elbow and shoulder and complains of difficulty in using his left
shoulder joint and using left shoulder for lifting and bowling.
Clinically, the fracture of shaft of left Humerus is found to be
united. Radiological examination of left Humerus showed
united fracture of shaft of left Humerus with the implants in-
situ. Based on his age, nature of injury, duration of
treatment, clinical and radiological examination, based on
guidelines of DSJE, Government of India, he suffers total
physical disability of 12% to the left upper limb and 5% to the
whole body. He also needs surgery for removal of implants and
approximate expenditure for the same is Rs.18,000/- at Raja
Mahal Vilas Hospital and he produced Case sheet and X-ray at
Ex.P.49 to 50 respectively.
46. From the above evidence of PWs. 3 and 6 and the medical
records, it appears that the petitioner has sustained displaced
fracture of shaft of left Humerus for which he took treatment
at Raja Mahal Vilas Hospital as an inpatient from 26.04.2013
discharged on 28.04.2013.
47. PW-3 has deposed that he spent huge amount towards
medicine, treatment conveyance and nourished food etc., In
this regard he has produced 9 prescriptions and 15 medical
bills at Ex-P27 and 28 respectively. The total amount of the
said bills is for about Rs.39,649/- only. He might have also
spent some amount for conveyance, special nourishment and
other miscellaneous expenses during treatment of his son. So,
it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.45,000/-towards
medical and incidental charges.
48. At this juncture it is relevant to note the decision laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in New Delhi,
Mallikarjun Vs Divisional Manager, National Ins. Co. Ltd., and
another wherein it is held that -
Quantum injury principles of assessment -
assessment of compensation in case of children
suffering disability Apex Court observed that
appropriate compensation on all other heads in
addition to the actual expenditure for treatment,
attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above
10 percent and up to 30 percent to the whole body,
Rs.3,00,000/- up to 60 percent, Rs.4,00,000/- up
to 90 percent, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90 percent,
it should be Rs.6,00,000/- for permanent disability
up to 10 percent, it should be Rs.1,00,000/- unless
there are exceptional circumstances to take a
different yardstick.
49. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
court in the above decision, though it is difficult to have an
accurate assessment of the compensation in the case of
children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle
accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and
the approach of various High Courts, I am of the view that the
appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the
actual expenditure towards treatment, attendant, etc., should
be, if the disability is above 10 percent and up to 30 percent to
the whole body Rs.3,00,000, up to 60 percent Rs.4,00,000/-,
up to 90 percent Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90 percent it should
be Rs.6,00,000/-. For permanent disability up to 10 percent it
should be Rs.1,00,000/- unless there are exceptional
circumstances to take a different yardstick. In the instant
case, the disability as per the evidence of PW-6 is to the tune
of 5%. The petitioner was inpatient from 26.04.2013
discharged on 28.04.2013 and the period of hospitalization is
3 days causing also inconvenience and loss of earnings to the
parents. The petitioner, hence, would be entitled to get the
compensation as follows:
Heads Amount(Rs.)
Pain and suffering already
undergone and to be suffered in
future, mental and physical
1,00,000/-
shock, hardship, inconvenience
and discomfort, etc, and loss of
amenities in life on account of
permanent disability
Discomfort, inconvenience and
loss of earnings to the parents
5,000/-
during the period of
hospitalization
Medical and incidental expenses
during the period of 45,000/-
hospitalization for 3 days
Total 1,50,000/-
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of
Rs.1,50,000/- only.
50. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4317 of 2013:-
The petitioner has proved that he sustained injuries in
the alleged accident, so he is entitled for the compensation.
Now, the question is for how much compensation, he is
entitled and from whom?
51. PW4 the natural guardian and father of the petitioner has
deposed that, in the said accident his son sustained head
injury, immediately he was taken to Government Hospital,
Tiptur wherein first aid treatment was given and petitioner
referred to NIMHANS Hospital wherein he was treated for a
day and during the course of treatment C.T.Head and brain
scan was done, severe injuries were confirmed. Thereafter for
further treatment referred to Raj Mahal Vilas Hopsital, there
his son was treated as an inpatient from 27.04.2013 to
29.04.2013 and after necessary treatment his son was
discharged with an advised to attend follow up treatment and
his son was under bed rest as per the doctor's advise. He also
stated that his son is not in a position to concentrate on
studies as he is getting headache very often. In support of his
said contentions he relied on the wound certificate at Ex-P29
and 2 X-rays at Ex.P30 and also the evidence of PW-6 doctor
who treated the petitioner and he has produced Case sheet
and X-ray pertaining to the petitioner at Ex-P51 and Ex.P52
respectively.
52. PW-6 has deposed that, on 27.04.2013 the patient by
name Manoj, came with history of RTA on 25.04.2013. He
had sustained displaced comminuted fracture of shaft to left
humerus. He was admitted to Raj Mahal Vilas Hospital on
27.04.2013 for the treatment of above injury. He underwent
on 28.04.2013 for open reduction and internal fixation of the
fracture using DC plate and screws. He was discharged from
the hospital on 29.04.2013 with necessary instructions to be
followed for recovery from the injury sustained. He was
subsequently treated as an out-patient for a period of 3
months. He also stated that he recently examined the
petitioner on 06.12.2014 for physical disability assessment.
He also stated that petitioner complains of pain, swelling of left
elbow and shoulder and complains of difficulty in using his left
shoulder joint and using left shoulder for lifting weights and
working overhead. Clinically, the fracture of shaft of left
Humerus is found to be united. Radiological examination of
left Humerus showed united fracture of shaft of left Humerus
with the implants in-situ. Based on his age, nature of injury,
duration of treatment, clinical and radiological examination,
based on guidelines of DSJE Government of India, he suffers
total physical disability of 14% to the left upper limb and 5%
to the whole body. He also needs surgery for removal of
implants and approximate expenditure for the same is
Rs.18,000/- at Raja Mahal Vilas Hospital and he produced
Case sheet and X-ray at Ex.P.51 and 52 respectively.
53. From the above evidence of PWs'4 and 6 and the medical
records, it appears that the petitioner has sustained displaced
comminuted fracture of shaft of left Humerus for which he
took treatment at Raja Mahal Vilas Hospital as an inpatient
from 27.04.2013 discharged on 29.04.2013.
54. PW-4 has deposed that he spent Rs.2,00,000/-towards
medicine, treatment conveyance and nourished food etc., In
this regard he has produced 13 prescriptions and 15 medical
bills at Ex-P.32 and 33 respectively. The total amount of the
said bills is for about Rs.38,914/- only. He might have also
spent some amount for conveyance, special nourishment and
other miscellaneous expenses during treatment of his son. So,
it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.44,000/- towards
medical and incidental charges.
55. At this juncture it is relevant to note the decision laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in New Delhi,
Mallikarjun Vs Divisional Manager, National Ins. Co. Ltd., and
another wherein it is held that -
Quantum injury principles of assessment -
assessment of compensation in case of children
suffering disability Apex Court observed that
appropriate compensation on all other heads in
addition to the actual expenditure for treatment,
attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above
10 percent and up to 30 percent to the whole body,
Rs.3,00,000/- up to 60 percent, Rs.4,00,000/- up
to 90 percent, Rs.5,00,000/- and above 90 percent,
it should be Rs.6,00,000/- for permanent disability
up to 10 percent, it should be Rs.1,00,000/- unless
there are exceptional circumstances to take a
different yardstick.
56. Relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme court in the above decision, though it is difficult
to have an accurate assessment of the compensation in
the case of children suffering disability on account of a
motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant
factors, precedents and the approach of various High
Courts, I am of the view that the appropriate
compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual
expenditure towards treatment, attendant, etc., should
be, if the disability is above 10 percent and up to 30
percent to the whole body Rs.3,00,000, up to 60 percent
Rs.4,00,000/-, up to 90 percent Rs.5,00,000/- and above
90 percent it should be Rs.6,00,000/-. For permanent
disability up to 10 percent it should be Rs.1,00,000/-
unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a
different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability as
per the evidence of PW-6 is to the tune of 5 %. The
petitioner was inpatient from 27.04.2013 discharged on
29.04.2013 and the period of hospitalization is 3 days
causing also inconvenience and loss of earnings to the
parents. The petitioner, hence, would be entitled to get
the compensation as follows:
Heads Amount(Rs.)
Pain and suffering already
undergone and to be suffered
in future, mental and
physical shock, hardship,
1,00,000/-
inconvenience and dis-
comfort, etc, and loss of
amenities in life on account
of permanent disability
Discomfort, inconvenience
and loss of earnings to the
5,000/-
parents during the period
of hospitalization
Medical and incidental
expenses during the period 44,000/-
of hospitalization for 3 days
Total Rs.1,49,000/-
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of
Rs.1,49,000/- only.
57. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4318 of 2013:-
PW5/petitioner has deposed that in the said accident he
had sustained head injury and immediately after the accident
he was referred to Government Hospital, Tiptur and after first
aid he was referred to NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore wherein
CT Scan and brain scan was done and later on he was
admitted to Manasa Hospital as inpatient from 26.04.2013 to
28.04.2013. Thereafter he was discharged with advise for
follow up treatment. He also stated he has spent a sum of
Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He also stated that
he is getting headache, giddiness, cannot walk, stand, sit
squat on floor, cannot lift or carry weight, cannot ride any
vehicle and undergoing deep mental shock. He stated that, he
has suffered permanent disability. Hence prayed to award
compensation of Rs.12,50,000/-.
58. In support of his said contentions, he relied on the wound
certificate issued by Government hospital Tiptur at Ex-P34
and Lab reports at Ex.P36. As per the said wound certificate,
petitioner has sustained head injury over the scalp frontal
region 15 cms , 1/2-1/2 cms which are described as simple in
nature, absolutely there is no proof that the petitioner has
sustained any grievous injuries and he is permanently
disabled. Petitioner has produced 3 medical bills at Ex.P37
for Rs.4,330/- towards medical and incidental charges.
Further the injury sustained by the petitioner was only simple
injuries i.e., head injury over the scalp frontal region 15 cms,
1/2-1/2 cms. Further the petitioner has not produced any
document i.e., discharge summary to show that he took
treatment as inpatient in the said hospital. The petitioner has
stated that he was healthy and was running hotel business
under the name and style of M/s. Venkateshwara hotel(non-
veg.) and earning Rs.15,000/-per month, after the accident he
lost earnings. The petitioner has not produced any document
in support of his avocation and income. Since the petitioner
has not proved that he sustained grievous injuries and
suffered permanent disability by examining the doctor who
treated him, no compensation could be awarded either for
disability or for loss of earnings during laid up period. However
because of the said injury, petitioner has suffered pain, he
might have also spent some amount for medicine, conveyance
and other miscellaneous expenses during the period of
treatment. So it is just and proper to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/-. Hence it is held that the
petitioner is entitled for the global compensation of
Rs.10,000/-only.
59. Issue No. 3 in all case: In view of my above findings on
issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
The petitions filed by the petitioners in all case under Sec.166 of MV Act, 1989 are allowed in part.
Petitioners in MVC Nos. 4312/4313/4314/4315/4316/ 4317/4318 of 2013 are entitled for compensation with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit as here under:
MVC No. 4312 of 2013 Rs.15,62,000/- MVC No. 4313 of 2013 Rs. 5,40,000/- MVC No. 4314 of 2013 Rs. 5,40,000/- MVC No. 4315 of 2013 Rs. 5,40,000/- MVC No. 4316 of 2013 Rs. 1,50,000/- MVC No. 4317 of 2013 Rs. 1,49,000/- MVC No. 4318 of 2013 Rs. 10,000/-
The respondent is liable to pay the above compensation amount and shall deposit the said amount before the tribunal within 30 days from the date of award.
MVC No.4312/2013:
Out of the compensation amount of Rs.15,62,000/- in MVC No.4312 of 2013, petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased is entitled to 40%, petitioner No.2 to 5 are the children and petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased are entitled to 15% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of the share of petitioners No.1 and 5, 50% shall be kept in FD in their respective names in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be released to them through account payee cheque. Since the petitioner No.2 to 4 are minors, their entire share of compensation amount shall be kept in F.D. in any nationalised or scheduled bank till they attains the age of majority.
MVC No.4313/2013:
Out of the above compensation amount of Rs.5,40,000/- in MVC No.4313 of 2013, petitioners No.1 & 2 are parents are entitled to 50% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of the share of petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% shall be kept in FD in their respective names in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be released to them through account payee cheque. MVC No.4314/2013:
Out of the above compensation amount of Rs.5,40,000/- in MVC No.4314 of 2013, petitioners No.1 & 2 are parents are entitled to 50% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of the share of petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% shall be kept in F.D in their respective names in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be released to them through account payee cheque.
MVC No.4315/2013:
Out of the above compensation amount of Rs.5,40,000/- in MVC No.4315 of 2013, petitioners No.1 & 2 are parents are entitled to 40% each and Petitioner No.3 is brother is entitled to 20%.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of the share of petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% shall be kept in FD in their respective names in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of five years and the balance amount shall be released to them through account payee cheque. Since the petitioner No.3 is a minor, his entire share of compensation amount shall be kept in F.D. in any nationalised or scheduled bank till he attains the age of majority. MVC No.4316/2013:
After deposit of the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- in MVC No.4316 of 2013, since the petitioner is minor Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in FD in his name in any nationalised or scheduled bank till he attains the age of majority. Balance amount shall be released to the petitioner through his guardian/father through account payee cheque as he spent some amount towards medical expenses.
MVC No.4317/2013:
After deposit of the compensation amount of Rs.1,49,000/- in MVC No.4317 of 2013, since the petitioner is minor Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in FD in his name in any nationalised or scheduled bank till he attains the age of majority. Balance amount shall be released to the petitioner through his guardian/father through account payee cheque as he spent some amount towards medical expenses.
MVC No.4318/2013:
Since the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- in M.V.C.No.4318/2013 is meager, entire amount shall be released to the petitioner through account payee cheque.
The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-each in MVC Nos. 4312 to 4317 of 2013 and Rs.500/- in MVC No. 4318 of 2013.
Draw award accordingly.
Keep the original judgment in MVC.No.4312 of 2013 and copy thereof in other case.
(Typed to my dictation through Online, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 31st January 2015).
(J.P.ARCHANA) XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bangalore.
Annexure List of witnesses examined for the petitioners in all the cases :
PW1 Umadevi @ Uma PW2 N.S.Gururaj PW3 S.Yallappa PW4 Shivappa PW5 Srikanth PW6 Dr.R.Chandrashekar
List of witnesses examined for the Respondent in all the cases:
RW1 T.K.Mahesh List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners in both cases Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR Ex.P.2 Copy of Statement Ex.P.3 Copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.4 Copy of Mahazar Ex.P.5 Copy of Sketch Ex.P.6 Copy of IMV Report Ex.P.7 Certified copy of deposition in C.C. 842/13 Ex.P.8 Copy of Statement Ex.P.9 Copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.10 Copy of PM report Ex.P.11 Copy of Statement Ex.P.12 License Ex.P.13 Affidavit Ex.P.14 Copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.15 Copy of PM report Ex.P.16 Study certificate Ex.P.17 Copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.18 Copy of PM report Ex.P.19 Study certificate Ex.P.20 Copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P.21 Copy of PM report Ex.P.22 Study Certificate Ex.P.23 Copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.24 Study Certificate Ex.P.25 3 X-rays Ex.P.26 Emergency case record Ex.P.27 9 prescriptions Ex.P.28 15 medical bills Ex.P.29 Copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.30 2 x-rays Ex.P.31 Notarised copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.32 13 prescriptions Ex.P.33 15 medical bills Ex.P.34 Copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.35 Certified copy of deposition CC. No. 842/13 Ex.P.36 2 lab reports Ex.P.37 3 medical bills Ex.P.38 Notarised copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.39 Notarised copy of Ration card Ex.P.40 Notarised copy of DL Ex.P.41 & 42 Notarised copy of Birth certificate Ex.P.43 Report card Ex.P.44 & 45 I.T. Returns Ex.P.46 Notarised copy of ration card Ex.P.47 Notarised copy of ration card Ex.P.48 Marks Card Ex.P.49 Case sheet of Kiran Ex.P.50 1 X-ray of Kiran Ex.P.51 Case sheet of Manoj Ex.P.52 1 X-ray of Manoj List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondent in all cases Ex.R.1 Certified copy of judgment in CC No.842/13 MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE.
***