Bangalore District Court
Rajappa vs Madesh .M on 28 February, 2025
1
M.V.C.No.7240/2022
SCCH - 7
KABC020382972022
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ASCJ. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7)
Dated this the 28th day of February 2025
BEFORE: Sri. SHYAM PRAKASH
B.A.L, LLB.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.7240/2022
Petitioners : 1. Sri. Rajappa,
S/o Motappa,
Aged about 50 years.
2. Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o Rajappa,
Aged about 47 years.
Both are residing at
Obatti Village, Masthi Hobli,
Malur Taluk,Kolar District.
3. Kumari. Vanishree,
D/o Late Lokesh
Aged about 9 years,
4. Kumari. Manasa,
D/o Late Lokesh,
Aged about 7 years,
Both are minors represented
2
M.V.C.No.7240/2022
SCCH - 7
by their parental grandfather /
Petitioner No.1 Sri. Rajappa,
All are residing at Obatti Village,
Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. T.V. Ramesh, Advocate)
-VERSUS -
Respondents : 1. Sri. Madesh.M.,
S/o Marappa,
Major,
R/o. Obatti Agrahara Village,
Thoralakki Post,
Masthi Hobli,
Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
(Sri. B.M. Ramesh, Advocate)
2. SBI General Insurance Company
Ltd, Rukmani Towers, Plot form
road, Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore - 20..
(By Sri. V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
*****
:JUDGMENT:
1. This petition is filed u/s.166 of M.V.Act 1989 for claiming compensation on account of death of Lokesh S/o Rajappa.
2. The brief facts of the case is that, on 03.11.2022 at about 6:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Masti Police 3 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 Station, infront of the house of the accused, Hobatti Agrahara, the accused has started the offending tractor bearing registration No.KA-51-T-0698 and keeping the said vehicle in starting condition he has instructed the deceased/Lokesh to remove the cultivator and accordingly when the deceased Lokesh was trying to remove the cultivator, at that time without observing the deceased the accused drove the offending tractor in a high speed, rash or negligent manner so as to endangering the human life. As a result, the deceased crushed in between rear wheel of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries on his head and neck and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the RL Jalappa Hospital. Thereafter, the father of the deceased/ Petitioner No.1 lodged complaint before the Masthi police station. Accordingly, a case was registered in their Crime No.93/2022 and prepared F.I.R. for the offence punishable under sections 279 and 304A of IPC and submitted to the jurisdictional judicial magistrate and the superior officers and investigation was taken up by the investigating Officer.
3. It is contended that the Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioners No.3 and 4 are the children of the deceased Sri.Lokesh and as on the date of the alleged accident the said deceased was aged about 28 years and working as Coolie/mason and 4 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 earing Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- under different head of loss of dependency, funeral and obsequies expenses, loss of filial love, loss of consortium, loss of estate.
4. It is contended that the accident is due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-51-T-0698. The respondent No.1 is the RC owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending Tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-51-T-0698. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation
5. In response to the notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 are appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements.
6. In the written statement of respondent No.1, he has admitted that he is the RC owner of the offending vehicle and denied the petition averments in part including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle and contended that the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2/Insurance company and any liability, i.e., fastened on him would have to be indemnify by the Respondent No.2 and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. In the written statement of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company, it has admitting that the offending vehicle 5 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 was duly insured with it and the same is valid on the date of the accident and denying the petition averments in part and contended that at the time of accident the deceased was traveling as a fare paid/unauthorized passenger in the offending Tractor bearing Reg. No.KA- 59-T-0698 and the insured has intentionally permitted more than one person to travel in the said tractor as a fare paid/ unauthorized passenger at the time of accident knowing fully well that the seating capacity of the tractor in question is one including driver of the vehicle, except driver no other person is entitled to travel in the tractor as per the registration certificate and insurance policy of the vehicle and as per Rule 28 of Rules of road regulation it is clearly mentioned that the driver of the tractor cannot carry any person in the tractor. Further contended that the Petitioners have not furnished the particulars of the vehicle including the driving licence of the rider of the offending vehicle. Further it is denied having insured the vehicle involved in the accident. The insurer liability is subjected to validity of the DL, permit and other documents as per the law. Further it is alleged that there is no compliance of provision under Section 134(C), 158 of M.V. Act. Further it is alleged that the alleged accident is occurred due to negligence and fault of the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle is not possessing valid DL, FC 6 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 and effective permit at the time of alleged accident. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and in order to obtained compensation the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present claim petition. Further it is denied that the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petition is false and frivolous in the eye of law and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V.Act. Hence sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, this tribunal framed the following:-
:: I S S U E S ::
(1) Whether the Petitioners proves that deceased Lokesh S/o Rajappa sustained injuries due to rash and negligent act of driving of Tractor bearing No.KA-59-T-0698 dated 03-11-
2022 at about 6-30 p.m. and succumbed to injuries?
(2) Whether the Petitioners proves the age and earnings of the deceased as stated in the claim petition?
(3) Whether the Petitioners prove that they are legal heirs of deceased Lokesh S/o Rajappa?
7M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 (4) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? from whom?
(5) What order or award?
9. In support of the case of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 12 and witness by name Narayanappa got examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P.13 and closed their side. On the other hand the Respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW-1 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and the Insurance Company got examined their Legal Officer as RW-2 and got marked Ex.R.4 document and closed their side.
10. Heard the arguments of both side.
11. My findings to the above referred Issues are as under;
Issue No.1 :- In the affirmative
Issue No.2 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3 :- In the affirmative
Issue No.4 :- Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.5 :- As per final order
for the following:-
:REASONS:
12. Issue No.1 : This petition is filed u/s.166 of M.V. Act 1989 for seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Lokesh S/o Rajappa.
8M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7
13. The petitioners' in the petition have contended that on 03.11.2022 at about 6:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Masti Police Station, infront of the house of the accused, Hobatti Agrahara, the accused has started the offending tractor bearing registration No.KA-51-T-0698 and keeping the said vehicle in starting condition he has instructed the deceased/Lokesh to remove the cultivator and accordingly when the deceased Lokesh was trying to remove the cultivator, at that time without observing the deceased the accused drove the offending tractor in a high speed, rash or negligent manner so as to endangering the human life. As a result, the deceased crushed in between rear wheel of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries on his head and neck and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the RL Jalappa Hospital. It is contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The version of the Respondent No.1 is that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and denied the petition averments in part including age, avocation, income and negligence attributed against the driver of the offending vehicle and contended that he is possessing valid driving licence and the offending vehicle was insured with Respondent No.2/Insurance company and any liability, i.e., fastened on him would 9 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 have to be indemnify by the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 admitted the alleged accident and its version is that, the offending vehicle was duly insured with it and the same is valid on the date of the accident and denying the petition averments in part and contended that at the time of accident the deceased was traveling as a fare paid/unauthorized passenger in the offending Tractor bearing Reg. No.KA-59-T-0698 and the insured has intentionally permitted more than one person to travel in the said tractor as a fare paid/ unauthorized passenger at the time of accident knowing fully well that the seating capacity of the tractor in question is one including driver of the vehicle, except driver no other person is entitled to travel in the tractor as per the registration certificate and insurance policy of the vehicle and as per Rule 28 of Rules of road regulation it is clearly mentioned that the driver of the tractor cannot carry any person in the tractor. Further contended that the Petitioners have not furnished the particulars of the vehicle including the driving licence of the rider of the offending vehicle. Further it is denied having insured the vehicle involved in the accident. The insurer liability is subjected to validity of the DL, permit and other documents as per the law. Further it is alleged that there is no compliance of provision under Section 134(C), 158 of M.V. Act. Further it is alleged 10 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 that the alleged accident is occurred due to negligence and fault of the deceased. The driver of the offending vehicle is not possessing valid DL, FC and effective permit at the time of alleged accident. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and in order to obtained compensation the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present claim petition. Further it is denied that the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petition is false and frivolous in the eye of law and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V.Act. Hence sought for dismissal of the petition.
14. The burden to prove the framed issues lies on the Petitioners. Hence, in order to prove their case, the Petitioner No.1 himself examined as P.W.1 and he has reiterated the entire petition averments and contentions taken in the course of claim petition in his evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Exs.P.1 to P.13 documents and also got examined witness by name Narayanappa as PW-2 and also produced as many as Ex.P.13 document. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by the PW-1. Ex.P-1 is the True copy of FIR, Ex.P-2 is the True copy of complaint, Ex.P.3 11 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 is the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, Ex.P-5 is the Inquest Report, Ex.P.6 is the Postmortem report, Ex.P.7 is the Charge Sheet, Ex.P.8 is the Adhar Card of deceased, Ex.P.9 is the Adhar Card of Rajappa, Ex.P-10 is the Adhar Card of Rathnamma, Ex.P.11 is the Adhar Card of Vanishree, Ex.P-12 is the Adhar Card of Manasa, Ex.P-13 is the Adhar Card of Narayanappa.
15. In the cross-examination of PW-1 by the counsel for Respondent he has deposed that, after the death of his deceased son his daughter-in-law got married another person. Further he has denied that after her second marriage she has taken her children and leaving with her second husband. Further he has deposed that he do not know Shilpa. The deceased who was married to Shubha and due to her marriage she has begotten Petitioners No.3 and 4 children. Further he has denied that the dead body of the deceased is handed over to Shilpa who is the wife of the deceased. Further he has denied that the said shilpa is necessary party to this case. Further he has deposed that prior to the alleged accident the deceased and his children who are residing in his house. Further for the suggestion he has deposed that when the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle along with its driver/ Respondent No.1 at that 12 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 time the deceased fall from the Tractor and sustained grievous injuries and died. Further he has denied that the deceased was not working as mason and earning income of Rs.25,000/- p.m., and they have not incurred Rs.50,000/- towards funeral of the deceased. Further he has denied that the alleged accident due to fault of the deceased and no fault of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further he has denied that in order to get more compensation in collusion with the police they have falsely implicated the offending vehicle and filed false case against the offending vehicle and filed false evidence affidavit and produced concocted created documents and deposing falsely. According to prosecution this witness is not an eye witness and he is hearsay witness.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-2 by the counsel for Respondents No.1 and 2 he has deposed similarly that he is the eye witness of the alleged accident and he informed the said incident to Petitioner No.1 and the said Petitioner No.1 is not an eye witness to the alleged accident. Further he has deposed that near the house of the accused, Hobatti Agrahara, the accused has started the offending tractor bearing registration No.KA-51-T- 0698 and keeping the said vehicle in starting condition he has instructed the deceased/Lokesh to remove the cultivator and accordingly when the deceased Lokesh 13 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 was trying to remove the cultivator, at that time without observing the deceased the accused drove the offending tractor in a high speed, rash or negligent manner so as to endangering the human life. As a result, the deceased crushed in between rear wheel of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries on his head and neck and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the RL Jalappa Hospital. Further contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further in the cross-examination of PW-2 by the counsel for Respondent No.1 he deposed that the police came to the spot and they were conducted the spot mahazar in his presence and he has put his signature on the spot mahazar at the spot. Further he has denied that the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and after his fall the wheel of the tractor run over the deceased. Further he has denied that he has not seen the alleged accident. Further he has denied that in order to help the family of the deceased he has field false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely. According to prosecution he is an eye witness to the alleged incident. During the cross, examination Pw.2 has consistently deposed on the lines of the petition/prosecution case and he has made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination.
14M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7
17. In order to prove the version of Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.1 himself examined as R.W.1 and he has reiterated the entire version averments and contentions taken in the course of written statement in his evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Exs.R.1 to R.3 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by the RW-1. Ex.R.1 is the Adhar Card, Ex.R.2 is the RC of the offending vehicle, Ex.R.3 is the driving licence. In the cross-examination of RW-1 by the counsel for Petitioner and Respondent No.2 he has deposed similarly that he is the driver of the alleged offending Tractor. Further he has deposed that near his house he has started the offending tractor and keeping the said vehicle in starting condition he has instructed the deceased/Lokesh to remove the cultivator and accordingly when the deceased Lokesh was trying to remove the cultivator, at that time without observing the deceased he drove the offending tractor. As a result, the deceased crushed in between rear wheel of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Further he has deposed that after the alleged incident the PW-2 informed him regarding the said incident. Further in the cross-examination of RW-1 by counsel for RW-2 he has deposed that he is the RC owner of the offending Tractor and after the alleged 15 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 accident the police have conducted the mahazar and seized the offending Tractor. Further he has denied that the said deceased was proceeding in the offending vehicle on sitting on the mudguard of the offending Tractor and due to his negligent driving he fall from the mudguard and crushed in between the wheel of the Tractor and as a result he died. Further he has denied that in order to get compensation in collusion with the Petitioner they have created false story and filed false complaint before the police and deposing falsely.
18. In order to prove the version of Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.2 examined their Legal Officer as R.W.2 and he has reiterated the entire version averments and contentions taken in the course of written statement in his evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Ex.R.4 document. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. I have gone through the documents produced by the RW-2. Ex.R.4 is the copy of insurance policy and terms and conditions. In the cross-examination of RW-2 by the counsel for Petitioner and Respondent No.1 he has deposed similarly that he is deposing on the basis of the police documents. PW-1 is not an eye witness and PW-2 and Respondent No.1 are the eye witness of the alleged witness. Further he has deposed that the deceased was proceeding in the offending Tractor by sitting on the 16 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 mudguard of the Tractor and due to negligent driving of the Respondent No.1, the deceased fall from the mudguard and crushed in between the wheel and as a result he died. Further he has denied that the alleged accident occurred when the deceased was trying to detach the cultivator attached to the offending Tractor, at that time the Respondent No.1 drove the offending tractor in negligent manner and as a result the deceased crushed in between the wheel of the tractor and died. Further he has denied that in order to escape from their liability he has filed false evidence affidavit and deposing falsely.
19. On careful reading of Ex.P4/IMV report, it specifies that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has been clearly opined regarding offending Tractor bearing registration No.KA- 59-T-0698 that, no fresh damages were notice at the time of inspection.
20. On going through the Ex.P-6/Postmortem report it is seen that Doctor opined that cause of death of deceased is due to head injury sustained.
21. On going through the Ex.P-2/ Complaint it is seen that on on 03.11.2022 at about 6:30 p.m., infront of the house of the accused, Hobatti Agrahara, the accused 17 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 has started the offending tractor bearing registration No.KA-51-T-0698 and keeping the said vehicle in starting condition he has instructed the deceased/Lokesh to remove the cultivator and accordingly when the deceased Lokesh was trying to remove the cultivator, at that time without observing the deceased the accused drove the offending tractor in a high speed, rash or negligent manner so as to endangering the human life. As a result, the deceased crushed in between rear wheel of the tractor and sustained grievous injuries on his head and neck and succumbed to the injuries on the way to the RL Jalappa Hospital.
22. The Respondent No.2 contended that the accused is innocent and falsely implicated by the police and counsel further contended that the deceased was proceeding in the offending vehicle by sitting on its mudguard and he fall from the mudguard and crushed in between the rear wheels of the offending vehicle and as a result the deceased died. The alleged accident occurred due to fault of the deceased and no fault of the accused and therefore the Respondent No.1/accused cannot be held to be negligent.
23. Admittedly, the accused/ Respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending vehicle and further admitted that, 18 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 deceased was dead due to grievous injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident caused by the offending vehicle in question. On going through the prosecution papers, FIR, Complaint, Spot Mahazar, Spot sketch, MVA Report, Inquest mahazar, Postmortem report and Charge Sheet and the evidence of PW-1 are specific to the effect that, the driver of the offending vehicle/accused is the reason for the said incident and at his instance, the incident took place. The alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and fault of the accused. The evidence of eyewitness / PW-2 was corroborated to the case of the prosecution and he has supported the manner of occurrence in his evidence in the court and the manner of occurrence is the same as alleged in the Ex.P2/complaint. It seems that Pw.2 has clearly made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination. Therefore, considering the above discussed aspects collectively, it is the considered opinion of the Court that, the incident having been taken place in the manner asserted by the prosecution and the same being proved to have been taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution, when the deceased was detaching the cultivator from the offending vehicle the accused drew the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and at the spot the 19 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 deceased crushed in between the rear wheel of the tractor as a result he sustained grievous injuries and died due to alleged accident. In view of the police records, it clearly establishes that the alleged accident occurred at the spot. It is not in dispute as to the aspect that, the deceased Lokesh S/o Rajappa died due to injuries sustained in the alleged accident. Because, for the above reasons collectively, it is clear that, the accident happened due to rash or negligent act of the accused. It is evident that injuries and cause of death of deceased Lokesh S/o Rajappa noted in the Ex.P6/PM report would be caused by a road accident. At the same time, it has come out in evidence that the alleged accident was occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the offending vehicle and fault of the accused. Matters being so, the acts of the accused person clearly constitute the offences punishable under sections 279, 304A of IPC. Thus because of such negligent act of the accused/driver of the offending vehicle, it resulted in the death of the innocent man Sri.Lokesh S/o Rajappa aforesaid, as the driver of offending vehicle/accused drove the said offending vehicle very rashly or negligently on the spot. Therefore, the alleged accident occurred due to the fault of the accused/driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
20M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7
24. Issue No.2 to 4:- The Learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and he was doing Coolie / Mason and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. Further the counsel contended that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the Petitioners being legal heirs of deceased, each of the Petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection consortium and prays to award the compensation as prayed in the petition.
25. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contended that even though the Petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m., the same is not established by the claimants by producing the documents. Since the Petitioners have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards future prospects and hence prays dismissal of the petition.
26. On going through the Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12 Adhar Cards of the Petitioners respectively it is seen that the Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and 21 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 Petitioners No.3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased. On going through the evidence of PW-1 he has specifically deposed that after the alleged incident the wife of the deceased got married with another man. As such she is not entitled for compensation. Hence on the strength of Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12 Adhar cards of the Petitioners it is crystal clear that the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased.
27. The petitioners are contended that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 28 years and he was working as Coolie/ Mason and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioners relied on the Ex.P.8/Adhar Card of the deceased wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 01.01.1991 and this accident was took place on 03.11.2022. Hence it is clear that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 31 years. Hence the age of the deceased is considered as 31 years.
28. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. In the instance case the petitioners claimed that deceased was working as Coolie/ Mason and earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of 22 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 income the notional income as to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2022, the notional income of the deceased taken at Rs.14,750/-. To the aforesaid income, 40% to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in AIR 2017 SC 5157 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethy and other. Thus the monthly income comes to Rs.20,650/- (Rs.14,750/- + 40%). Since the Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother, Petitioners No.3 and 4 are the children of the deceased, hence it is appropriate to deduct 1/4th towards personal and living expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.15,488/- (Rs.20,650/- - Rs.5,162/-) has to be taken as his/deceased contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 31 years at the time of accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '16'. Thus the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.29,73,696/- (Rs.15,488/- x 12 x 16) on account of loss of dependency.
29. In addition, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of Loss of estate and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of Funeral expenses. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble 23 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 Supreme Court in 2018 ACJ 2782 in the Case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram, Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioners No.3 and 4 are the minor children of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of loss of filial consortium and also entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- each under the head of love and affection. Thus the Petitioners are entitled to the following compensation:
30. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl. Compensation under Amount in (Rs) No. different heads 1 Loss of dependency 29,73,696.00 2 Funeral Expenses 15,000.00 3 Loss of Estate 15,000.00 4 Loss of filial consortium 1,60,000.00 5 Loss of love and 2,00,000.00 affection Total 33,63,696.00
31. The Petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.33,63,696/-.
24M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7
32. The counsel for Respondent No.2 contended that the wife of the deceased has not arrayed as party in this petition, as such the present petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Further the counsel for Respondent No.2 contended that at the time of accident the deceased was proceeding on the offending tractor by sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and thereafter he fall from the moving tractor and crushed in between the rear wheel of the offending tractor and as a result he died and it is settle law that in a tractor only driver can sit on the driving seat and he can drive the tractor and no person shall sit on the mudguard of the Tractor while proceeding, under these circumstances in this matter the said deceased was sitting on the mudguard and he fall from the moving tractor and died and therefore there is violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy and accordingly the Petitioners are not entitled to get any compensation from the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company and in this regard the counsel for Respondent No.2 relied on decisions. In view of the discussion and findings given to the issue No.1 and on the strength of the eye witness/PW-2 the alleged accident occurred as alleged by the prosecution and same is not occurred as narrated by the Respondent No.2. as such the contention of the Respondent No.2 is untenable and there is no force in the contention of the 25 M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 Respondent No.2 and accordingly there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further in this matter the wife of the deceased as got married another man after the alleged incident and therefore she is not entitled to any compensation and the Petitioners have rightly not arrayed her as party to this petition.
33. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and it is directed to deposit the compensation amount. Thus I conclude that, the Insurance company/Respondent No.2 is directed to the deposit the compensation amount along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition. Hence, I answer issue No.2 and 4 are partly in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
34. Issue No.5:- For the above stated reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.26
M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.33,63,696/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to the deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 10%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 20%
Petitioner No.3 - Daughter - 35%
Petitioner No.4 - Daughter - 35%
After deposit, entire share of
compensation amount with interest allotted to the Petitioners No.1 and 2 shall be released in their favour through E-payment with proper verification and identification.
The entire shares of the petitioners No.3 and 4 shall be kept as FD in their names, in any Nationalized bank at the choice of Petitioner No.1, till they attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.27
M.V.C.No.7240/2022 SCCH - 7 Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 28th day of February 2025) (SHYAM PRAKASH) IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
PW-1 : Sri. Rajappa PW-2 : Sri. Narayanappa
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW- 1 : Sri. Madesh.M RW-2 : Sri. Ananda. M
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P-2 : True copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Motor Vehicle Accident Report
Ex.P-5 : Inquest Report
Ex.P.6 : Postmortem report
Ex.P.7 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P.8 : Adhar Card of deceased
Ex.P.9 : Adhar Card of Rajappa
28
M.V.C.No.7240/2022
SCCH - 7
Ex.P-10 : Adhar Card of Rathnamma
Ex.P.11 : Adhar Card of Vanishree
Ex.P-12 : Adhar Card of Manasa
Ex.P-13 : Adhar Card of Narayanappa
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Adhar Card
Ex.R.2 : RC of the offending vehicle
Ex.R.3 : Driving licence
Ex.R.4 : Copy of insurance policy
(SHYAM PRAKASH)
IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by
SHYAMPRAKASH SHYAMPRAKASH
Date: 2025.03.04
16:20:06 +0530