Bangalore District Court
Ravi.M vs The Managing Director, B.M.T.C on 4 January, 2025
SCCH-14 1 MVC.783/2023
KABC020039382023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 04th day of January, 2025
Present : SRI. D.RAMESH.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.783/2023
Petitioners: 1.Sri.Ravi.M
S/o Muniyappa.M
Aged 57 years.
2.Smt.Padma.A.M
W/o Ravi.M
Aged about 48 years.
Both are residing at:
Dasarahosahalli Village,
Doddunkarpanahalli Hobli,
Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District - 563162.
(By Sri.Pillareddy, Adv)
SCCH-14 2 MVC.783/2023
Vs.
Respondent : The Managing Director,
BMTC. K.H.Road,
Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 27.
(By Sri.Jagadeesh G.S., Adv)
[
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioners against Respondent under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death of Shilpashree.R. D/o Ravi.M in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 10-10-2022 at about 10.15. a.m., when Shilpashree was boarding the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-0961 at University ladies hostel bus stop, at that time the driver of the bus suddenly moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner.
Due to the tremendous impact, the deceased fell down from the BMTC bus and the left wheel of the bus ran over the deceased.SCCH-14 3 MVC.783/2023
As a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately she was shifted to Fortis hospital and admitted as an inpatient for 2 weeks. Inspite of the best treatment given, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital on 23.10.2022.
Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and she was studying in 1st Year M.Sc., Mathematics at Bangalore University and was a bright student. The Respondent is the owner cum internal insurer is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
3. In pursuance of service of notice, the Respondent appeared before the Court through its Counsel and filed objections to the main petition.
Respondent in the written statement denied the age of the deceased Shilpashree and it also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of bus. On the other hand, the deceased was responsible for accident since she was not diligence in getting inside the bus and on her negligence, SCCH-14 4 MVC.783/2023 the accident took place. It contended that the when the driver of bus reached University ladies hostel bus stop, after alighting passenger and after closing the door, he moved slowly and at that time, the deceased ran to catch the moving bus without observing closed door and she lost balance and fell down on the road. Further it contended that on 19.10.2022 and 16.11.2022, this respondent on humanity ground paid Rs.31,21,445/- to the Fortis hospital for treatment and Rs.50,000/- paid to the petitioner No.1 from Fortis hospital as full and final satisfaction. Further contended that if any compensation is awarded, then the said amount to be deducted in the awarded amount. On these grounds, Respondent has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, my Learned Predecessor has framed the following Issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representative of the deceased?SCCH-14 5 MVC.783/2023
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that Shilpashree.R D/o Ravi.M died due to injuries sustained by her in an accident occurred on 10.10.2022 at about 10.15 a.m. at University ladies hostel bus stop, on University main road, Bengaluru, arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-0961?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 17 and got examined an eyewitness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.18 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, Respondent has got examined two witnesses as RW.1 and RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.1 and 2 and closed its side evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the SCCH-14 6 MVC.783/2023 following judgments;
1. 2014 ACJ 2648 between Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi Vs. Ramkaran Ramachandra Sharma & another
2.AIR 2019 SC 994 between Sunita & others Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
7. Having heard both the sides and perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.2: This issue is taken at first instance for
discussion. It is the case of the Petitioners that the daughter of Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 Shilpashree was died in the SCCH-14 7 MVC.783/2023 Road traffic accident that occurred on 10-10-2022 due to rash negligent driving the driver of offending Bus bearing No.KA-57-
F-0961.
9. On the other hand, the Respondent has denied the said accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending BMTC bus.
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and he has filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and re-iterated the petition averments.
11. The petitioners have relied on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P17. Ex.P-1 and 2 are the certified copies of FIR and complaint, which show that Kamakshipalya Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the offending bus for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 of IPC r/w 134(A&B) 187 of MV Act. Ex.P.3 is the copy of PM report which shows the cause of death "death is due to septicemia as a result of injuries SCCH-14 8 MVC.783/2023 sustained". Ex.P4 and 6 are the Spot Mahazar and sketch, which show that the concerned police had drawn the Mahazar at the spot in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.5 is the Inquest. Ex.P.7 is the IMV report which shows that accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the offending Bus. Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the Charge-sheet which shows that the I.O of Kamakshipalya Traffic Police station has submitted Charge-sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC r/w 134(A&B) 187 of MV Act.
12. Ex.P.9 is the death certificate, it shows the date of death of Shilpashree as 23.10.2022. Exs.P.10 to 12 are the notarised copies of Aadhar cards of Petitioners No.1 & 2 and deceased. Ex.P.13 is the notarised copy of SSLC marks card of deceased. Ex.P.14 is the notarised copy of PUC marks card of deceased. Ex.P.15 is the notarised copy of marks card of 1 st semester to 6th semester. Ex.P.16 is the notarised copy of ID card of deceased. Ex.P.17 is the Provisional admission card of SCCH-14 9 MVC.783/2023 deceased to PG of the year 2020-22.
13. PW1 who is father of the deceased though he deposed about the accident, admittedly he was not an eyewitness to the accident. Therefore, his evidence would not be deciding factor for the negligent. PW.2 is an eyewitness who was traveling in the bus at the time of accident. She deposed in her examination in chief by way of affidavit that the driver of the offending bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the deceased getting into the Bus, suddenly moved the Bus, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the Bus and the left wheel of the Bus ran over the deceased. In her cross examination nothing is elicited to disbelieve the version of the petitioners. In fact she specifically denies the suggestion of the learned counsel for the respondent.
14. On the other hand respondent has examined the driver of offending bus as RW.1. In his examination in chief by way of affidavit he deposed that on 10.10.2022 he was on duty as driver in BMTC bus. When he reached University ladies SCCH-14 10 MVC.783/2023 hostel bus stop, after alighting passenger and after closing the door, he moved slowly and at that time, the deceased ran to catch the moving bus without observing closing doors and she lost balance and fell down on the road. Thus the alleged accident occurred purely due to the negligence of the deceased Shilpashree and he did not cause the alleged accident. Hence, there is no negligence on his part. In his cross examination he denied the negligence on his part. His versions is completely adverse to the evidence of eyewitness -PW.2 and the first information and charge sheet. The PW.2 clearly deposed that while the deceased getting into the bus the driver moved the bus without observing her. Even charge sheet also says same thing. Admittedly, the charge sheet has not been challenged by the driver of the offending bus. If there is no negligent on his part and if there was negligent on the part of deceased why he did not challenge the charge sheet. So this aspect clearly shows that there is no negligence on the part of the deceased, on the other hand due to the negligence of the driver of the offending SCCH-14 11 MVC.783/2023 vehicle the said accident was occurred. In the case of Sunita (supra) Hon'ble Apex court held that contents of the FIR and charge sheet are material for considering the rash and negligent. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition and documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the said accident, deceased succumbed to injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 is in the "Affirmative".
Issue No. 1 and 3:
15. Both these issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts.
16. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Shilpashree. In order to prove this fact, PW.1 has produced his Aadhar card and the Aadhar SCCH-14 12 MVC.783/2023 cards of the petitioner No.2 and the deceased at Ex.P.10 to 12. Upon going through the same, they prove the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have proved that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Shilpashree.
17. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 23 years and she was studying 1st Year M.Sc., Mathematics at Bengaluru University, Bengaluru. The Ex.P16-ID Card of deceased and Ex.P.17-Admission Card also supported the same, they show that the deceased was studying 1 st year M.Sc., at Bengaluru University. Admittedly, no documents are produced to show the earning capacity of the deceased. As the deceased was M.Sc., student, if she had completed her education she is going to earn the good salary and she was having potential career.
18. In the case Ashvinbhai Jayantilal Modi (Supra) Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
SCCH-14 13 MVC.783/2023
"9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In our considered view, the deceased was 19 years old and was pursuing his Medical Degree with good marks at the time of the accident. With respect to the future income of students pursuing professional courses we refer to Arvind Kumar Mishra V New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2010 ACJ 2867 (SC), wherein this court held as under:
"(11) On completion of Bachelor of Engeenring (Mechanical) from a prestigious institution like B.I.T., it can be reasonably assumed that in the campus interview he was selected by Tata as well as Reliance Industries and was offered pay package of Rs.3,50,000 per annum. Even if that is not accepted for want of any evidence in support thereof, there would not have been any difficulty for him in getting some decent job in the private sector. Had he decided to join government service and got selected, he would have been put in the pay scale for Assistant Engineer and would have earned at least Rs.60,000 per annum. Wherever he joined, he had a fair chance of some high position. But uncertainties of life cannot be ignored taking relevant factors into consideration. In our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to access his SCCH-14 14 MVC.783/2023 future earnings at Rs.60,000 per annum taking the salary and allowances payable to an Assistant Engineer in public employment as the basis..."
The Tribunal and the High Court have not taken into proper consideration that the deceased was a student of medicine at the time of the accident while determining his future income. The courts below have wrongly ascertained he future income of the deceased at only Rs.18,000 per month, which in out view is too less for a medical graduate these days. Therefore, the courts below have failed in following the principle laid down by this court in this aspect in the above case. The deceased was a diligent and outstanding student of medicine who could have pursued his M.D. after his graduation and reached greater heights. Today, medical practice is one of the most sought after and rewarding profession. With the tremendous increase in demand for medical professionals, their salaries are also in the rise. Therefore, we have no doubt in ascertaining the future income of the deceased at Rs.25,000 p.m., i.e., Rs.3,00,000 p.a...."
19. In the above said judgment the deceased was medical student and the accident was taken place in the year 2002 and SCCH-14 15 MVC.783/2023 monthly income was considered as Rs.25,000/- p.m. But in the case on hand the deceased was M.Sc., student and the accident was taken place in the year 2022. Hence, considering the qualification of deceased and year of accident, the notional income of the deceased was considered at Rs.25,000/- per month.
20. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Shilpashree was 23 years at the time of the accident. PW.1 has produced Aadhar card at Ex.P.12 which shows the date of birth of the deceased was 15.02.1999. The alleged accident was occurred on 10-10-2022. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Shilpashree was 23 years.
21. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
SCCH-14 16 MVC.783/2023
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
22. The deceased has left behind her, her parents. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are considered as dependents. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "Loss of estate has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 14,500/-, loss of consortium should be Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/-". The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased Sudha, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- SCCH-14 17 MVC.783/2023 towards funeral expenses.
II. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
23. Petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents of the deceased have lost their daughter's love and care in their old age. Bearing in mind the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
III. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
24. The injured was died in the Fortis hospital, Bengaluru and the residence of the petitioners is at Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar. Hence, there is some distance between both the places. Therefore, the petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. But there is no evidence to show the exact amount which they have spent. Hence, baring in the mind of the distance between pace of SCCH-14 18 MVC.783/2023 death and place of burial, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
25. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.25,000/- 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 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 SCCH-14 19 MVC.783/2023 compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
- Held : - yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High Court disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes: there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork : executing Court directed to SCCH-14 20 MVC.783/2023 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 "While determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 40% where the deceased was below the age of 40 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.."
26. In another reported decision in Civil Appeal Nos.19- 20 of 2021 in between Kirti and Another V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as follows;
SCCH-14 21 MVC.783/2023
"When it comes to the second category of cases, relating to notional income for non-earning victims, it is my opinion that the above principle applies with equal vigor, particularly with respect to homemakers. Once notional income is determined, the effects of inflation would equally apply. Further, no one would ever say that the improvements in skills that come with experience do not take place in the domain of work within the household. It is worth nothing that, although not extensively discussed, this Court has been granting pertaining to future notional prospects income, even in cases as has been highlighted by my learned brother, Surya Kant, J., in his opinion (Hem Raj V. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2018) 15 SCC 654: Sunita Tokas V. New India Insurance Company Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 688)".
27. As per the above decisions 40% out of loss of dependency has to be granted towards future prospects. So, 40% of Rs.25,000/- comes to Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.35,000/- p.m. SCCH-14 22 MVC.783/2023 (Rs.25,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-). 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 18. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that since the deceased is spinster/bachelor 50% of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
After deducting 50% towards her personal expenses in Rs.17,500/- it comes to Rs.17,500/- (35,000.00 - 17,500.00) and multiplier applied is 18 which comes to Rs.37,80,000/- (17,500 x 12 x 18 = Rs.37,80,000/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.37,80,000/- towards loss of dependency.
28. The respondent contended in its objections statement that on 19.10.2022 and 16.11.2022, this respondent on humanity ground paid Rs.31,21,445/- to the Fortis hospital for SCCH-14 23 MVC.783/2023 treatment and Rs.50,000/- paid to the petitioner No.1 from Fortis hospital as full and final satisfaction. If any compensation is awarded, then the said amount to be deducted in the awarded amount. In this regard respondent got examined Supervisor of Fortis hospital as RW.2. He has produced Ex.R.2 certificate, it shows that BMTC has paid the said amount to the concerned hospital towards medical expenses of the injured. Admittedly, the amount which paid by the respondent to the hospital towards medical expenses of the injured and which is not compensation to the petitioners. Moreover, the medical expenses is not claimed by the petitioners here. Hence, question of deducting the amount paid by the respondent towards medical expenses in the compensation amount does not arise at all.
29. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 88,000/-SCCH-14 24 MVC.783/2023
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/-
of dead body
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.37,80,000/-
Total Rs.39,61,000/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.39,61,000/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
30. Regarding Liability : As already discussed above, in this case the driver of the offending BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F- 0961 was charge-sheeted. Further, there is no dispute about the validity of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle. Therefore, Respondent is owner cum internal insurer is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the "Affirmative" and Issue No.3 "Partly in the Affirmative". SCCH-14 25 MVC.783/2023
31. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.39,61,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.39,61,000/- along with costs and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
The Respondent being the owner cum internal insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount as stated supra SCCH-14 26 MVC.783/2023 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of this award.
Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 60% to the Petitioner No.2.
1) 40% to the Petitioner No.1.
After being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 by way of E- payment and after their proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 and 2 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of their choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
SCCH-14 27 MVC.783/2023(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 04th day of January, 2025) (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Ravi.M P.W.2 : Radhika Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of PM report
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Inquest
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of sketch (2 in nos.)
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of IMV report
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of death certificate
Ex.P.10 to : Notarised copy of aadhar cards
12
SCCH-14 28 MVC.783/2023
Ex.P.13 : Notarised copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P.14 : Notarised copy of PUC marks card
Ex.P.15 : Notarised copy of marks card of 1st
semester to 6th semester
Ex.P.16 : Notarised copy of ID card
Ex.P.17 : Provisional admission card of PG of the
year 2020-21-22
Ex.P.18 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card of PW.2
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Suresh.N RW.2 : Ramkumar
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2 : Certificate about receipt of Rs.30,21,445/- from
BMTC
(D.RAMESH)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.