Bangalore District Court
P.N.Venkatesh S/O P.S.Narayana Rao vs Ravi Kuran B S/O P.N.Rama Bhat on 6 March, 2015
1 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, SCCH-4
DATED THIS THE 2nd AUGUST 2014
PRESENT:
Smt.J.P.ARCHANA,B.Com.,LL.B.,
XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-4, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
Petitioners: 1. P.N.Venkatesh S/o P.S.Narayana Rao,
aged about 61 years
2. Kusuma Venkatesh
W/o P.N.Venkatesh, aged about 53 years
All are residing at No.83/1,
Surveyors street, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560 004.
- vs-
-
Respondents: 1.Ravi Kuran B S/o P.N.Rama Bhat,
major in age, Aharodyama mainroad,
Shivapura, Karkala, Udupi district-
576112 (owner of lorry bearing no.KA-
21-7775)
2. Oriental insurance company Ltd.,
Suvarna Sahakara souda, VSSN bank
building main road, Hebri-576 112,
Udupi district (Insurer of lorry bearing
2 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
No.KA-21-7775 under policy
No.472794/31/2013/382 valid from 24-
12-2012 to 23-12-2013)
JUDGEMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioners u/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for grant of compensation on account of death of Sumanth in a Road Traffic Accident as his legal representatives and dependents.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as under:
That on 30-12-2012 at about 17.30 hours when Sumanth was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-05-R- 5907 near Haniya village, Hosanagara taluk, at that time, driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-21-7775 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle, as a result of which he fell down and the lorry ran over on the head of Sumanth and he died on the spot. It is also contended that Sumanth was aged about 26 years, Assistant Director and earning Rs.2,65,200/-p.a.. Due to the death of Sumanth, petitioners lost the love and affection and earning member of the family. Therefore, they pray to award compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.3 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
3. Upon service of notices, respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte and respondent No.2-insurance company appeared through counsel and filed written statement, wherein denied that the accident was occurred due to negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and also denied the entire petition averments. Further respondent No.2 contended that driver of the offending vehicle does not possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. However admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of the accident. Further contended that their liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal has framed the following :
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioners prove that Sumanth died on 30-12-2012 at about 17.30 hours, Haniya village, Hosanagara taluk, Shimoga district which was due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-21-7775 by its driver ?4 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If So, at what amount and from whom ?
3. What award or order?
5. After framing issues, petitioner No.1 is got examined as PW1 and one Dr.Anand Lakshman-CEO with M/s Address Health Solutions India Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. Respondent No.2 has not lead either oral or documentary evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
for a totalcompensation of
Rs.23,25,000/-from the respondents No.1 and 2 along with interest at 6%p.a. Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: It is the evidence of PW1-1 st petitioner that on 30-12-2012 at about 17.30 hours 5 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 when his son Sumanth was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA-05-R-5907 near Haniya village, Hosanagara taluk, at that time, driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-21- 7775 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle, as a result of which he fell down and the lorry ran over on the head of Sumanth and he died on the spot. In support of her said contentions, she relied on the police records such as copies of complaint, FIR, spot mahazar, sketch, charge sheet, inquest report, PM report which are marked as Exs.P.1 to 6 respectively.
9. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitioner has produced copy of FIR at Ex-P1 and copy of mahazar at Ex-P3. Both documents clearly shows that Hosanagara police have registered case against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable u/s 279, 304A of IPC. Ex-P6 PM report relating to the Sumanth which reveals that Sumanth died in a road traffic accident. After investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet as per Ex-P4 for the offence punishable u/s 304A of IPC. The registration of criminal case and filing of charge sheet prima facie establishes 6 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle No.KA-21-7775. Ex-P2 mahazar drawn on the scene of occurrence also supports the case of the petitioner.
10. In the cross-examination of PW1 nothing has been elicited to dis-believe the version in their chief examination. Though respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied the petition averments, not lead any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. So, from the above evidence of PW1 and the police records, it is crystal clear that Sumanth sustained injuries and died in the alleged accident, due to actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.2 :
The first petitioner in this case, who is examined as PW1 has stated that he is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother of Sumanth who died in the accident. He also stated that Sumanth was aged about 26 years old and was working as Assistant Director and was earning Rs.2,65,200/- per year. He also stated that Sumanth 7 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 was young, dynamic, energetic and qualified, he would have occupied the highest point in his career, in view of the qualification and exertise, the deceased had plans to launch his own research center and was preparing for it and would have earned not less than Rs.20,00,000/- per year. He also stated that due to the death of Sumanth, petitioners lost the love and affection and also earning member of the family. Hence prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-.
12. It is not seriously disputed that petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased Sumanth. Even from Ex-P8-copy of SSLC certificate and Ex-P9-copy of PUC certificate, it appears that the petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased Sumanth and both petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased.
13. Regarding the income of the deceased, in the petition and also from the evidence of PW-1 it is forthcoming that Sumanth was working as Assistant 8 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 Director and was earning Rs.2,65,200/- per year. The petitioners have produced Ex-P7-salary slip, Ex-P17- pay slip and Ex-P18 and 19 pay slips. Further the petitioners have got examined one Dr.Anand Lakshman-CEO with M/s Address Health Solutions India Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore as PW-2 who has stated in his affidavit that Sumanth was aged about 26 years old, he had done BSc in Bio chemistry, Genetics and Bio technology from Bangalore university and MS in Cancer Genomics and Development Biology from Utrecht University, Netherland. That Sumanth had secured distinction throughout his studies. That Sumanth was specialized in Genetic cancer, a very special and unique specialization. That Sumanth had very good potential growth in the said field and would have grown scaled goods heights in it. That Sumanth was working as Assistant Director with Address Health Solutions India Pvt., Ltd., That Sumanth was earning Rs.2,65,200/-p.a. and was working since September 2010. That Address Health Solutions India Pvt., Ltd., was new start up venture, Dr.V.Sumanth had agreed to work at a salary lower than market rates for his qualifications as he was interested in working with an organization which 9 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 improves health of children. That to compensate for loss in income, the company had offered him his contract, the right to earn employee stock options as and when they are issued. That the deceased was eligible for at least 500 employee stock option plan shares in the company, vesting over 3 years, which are currently valued at Rs.1944.44 per share and value of which is likely go gown in the future with further growth of the company. That the deceased on several occasions that he foresaw him as the future CEO of the company, when he step down, this was because of his talent, qualifications and commitment to the company and cause for which they were working. That the deceased was young, dynamic, energetic and qualified, he would have occupied the highest position in his career in M/s address Heath Solutions India Pvt., Ltd., That in view of the qualification and expertise would have earned not less than Rs.18,00,000/-per annum in approximately 5 years time. That due to untimely all the huge potential has been wiped away. PW-2 also produced Ex-P16-ID extract, Ex-P17-pay slip and Ex- P18-19-pay slips of deceased. PW-2 in his cross- examination has stated that the salary was transferred 10 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 to the account of the deceased. Further he has not produced wage register extract, PF extract and bank statement of account extract. PW-1 has not produced bank statement of account extract of the deceased to substantiate that he was drawing salary of Rs.22,100/- p.m. So the evidence of PW-2 cannot be relied upon without corroboration. However considering the qualification of the deceased in the absence of clear proof of evidence the notional income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.15,000/-p.m.
14. Considering the age of the deceased i.e., 26 years as per Ex-P6, 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 11 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 age of the deceased was 40-50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years.
15. In this case, the age of the deceased is 26 years and he is having a permanent job. So there will be every possibility of him getting promotion and increment. So the addition to income for future prospectus in this case would be 50%of the actual salary drawn by him i.e., 50% of Rs15,000/-= Rs.7,500/-. The total income of the deceased will be Rs.15,000/--+Rs.7,500/-=Rs 22,500/-. The deceased was a bachelor and the claimants No.1 and 2 are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to bachelors, normally 50% per cent is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which even the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Since the deceased was a bachelor, 50% of the same has to be deducted towards his personal 12 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 expenses. So the loss of dependency for the petitioners would be Rs.11,250/-p.m.
16. In this regard it is relevant to note the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in 2012 ACJ 2002- Amrit Bhanu Shali and others v/s National insurance co., Ltd., and others- wherein it is held that:-
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 166 (1) ©-claim application-legal representative- married sister-whether married sister of the deceased is entitled to any share in compensation along with her parents-Held:
no.
Quantum-Fatal accident -Principles of assessment-multiplier-choice of -deceased aged 26 and claimants are father, mother and sister who got married during pendency of claim application-Tribunal adopted multiplied of 17-High Court reduced multiplier to 13-Whether multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased be applied-Held: yes; the age of dependants has no nexus with computation of compensation. [ 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) followed ]
17. Relying on the ratio laid down in the above decision the age of the deceased is taken for application of the 13 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 multiplier. As per the PM report, the age of the deceased on the date of his death was about 26 years. The appropriate multiplier to the said age is 17. So the total loss of dependency for the petitioners would be (Rs.11,250 x 12 x 17 ) Rs.22,95,000/-only.
18. 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. A sum of Rs.10,000/- is to be awarded towards the loss of love and affection as the petitioners lost their son in the young age. Since the petitioners lost the earning member of the family it is just and proper to award Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate.
19. In view of the above reasoning, petitioners are entitled for the compensation under the following Heads:
Loss of dependency Rs. 22,95,000=00 Transportation of the deadbody and funeral expenses Rs. 10,000=00 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000=00 Loss of love and affection Rs. 10,000=00 Total Rs. 23,25,000=00 14 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.23,25,000/- only.
16. The respondent No.2 insurance company in its written statement has admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of accident. Further there is no proof of violation of the conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent No.2 has to indemnify the respondent NO. 1 the owner of the vehicle and liable to pay the above compensation. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.3: In view of my above finding on issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
:ORDER:
Petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of MV Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,25,000/-with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.15 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
The respondents NO.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent NO.2 insurance company has to indemnify the respondents NO. 1 owner of the offending vehicle and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this award.
Out of the above compensation amount, petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased are entitle to 50% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of share of petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% of the same 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 cheques.
The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- . Draw award accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation through Online, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2nd August 2014).
(J.P.ARCHANA) XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Bangalore.
Annexure List of witnesses examined for the petitioner:
PW1 P.N.Venkatesh
16 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
PW2 Dr.Anand Lakshman
List of Witnesses examined for the Respondents: NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P.1 Copy of complaint Ex.P.2 Copy of FIR Ex.P.3 Spot mahazar and sketch Ex.P.4 Charge sheet Ex.P.5 inquest mahazar Ex.P.6 PM report Ex.P.7 Salary slip Ex.P.8 SSLC certificate Ex.P.9 PUC certificate Ex.P.10 BSc certificate Ex.P.11 Master diploma certificate Ex.P.12 Adhar card of 1st petitioner Ex.P.13 Adhar card of 2nd petitioner Ex.P.14 Reports Ex.P.15 Passport Ex.P.16 ID extract Ex.P.17 Pay slip Ex.P.18 & 19 Pay slip of deceased
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
NIL MEMBER, MACT-4, BANGALORE.
*** 17 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 Dated 2.8.2014:-
Judgment passed separately and order passed in open court.
: :ORDER::
Petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of MV Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,25,000/-with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondents NO.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent NO.2 insurance company has to indemnify the respondents NO. 1 owner of the offending vehicle and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this award.
Out of the above compensation amount, petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased are entitle to 50% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of share of petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% of the same 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 cheques.
The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- . Draw award accordingly.
XVIII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES MEMBER,MACT-4, BANGALORE.18 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 19 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 Petitioners: 1. P.N.Venkatesh S/o P.S.Narayana Rao, aged about 61 years
2. Kusuma Venkatesh W/o P.N.Venkatesh, aged about 53 years All are residing at No.83/1, Surveyors street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
- vs-
-
Respondents: 1.Ravi Kuran B S/o P.N.Rama Bhat, major in age, Aharodyama mainroad, Shivapura, Karkala, Udupi district-
576112 (owner of lorry bearing no.KA-
21-7775)
2. Oriental insurance company Ltd., Suvarna Sahakara souda, VSSN bank building main road, Hebri-576 112, Udupi district (Insurer of lorry bearing No.KA-21-7775 under policy No.472794/31/2013/382 valid from 24- 12-2012 to 23-12-2013) 20 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013 Where as, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C.Act praying for the compensation of Rs. {Rupees } for the injuries by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. Where as, this claim petition coming up before Smt.J.P. Archana, XVIII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the Presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for the petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
:ORDER:
Petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of MV Act, 1988 is allowed in part.
Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,25,000/-with costs and future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondents NO.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent NO.2 insurance company has to indemnify the respondents NO. 1 owner of the offending vehicle and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this award.21 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013
Out of the above compensation amount, petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased are entitle to 50% each.
After deposit of the compensation amount, out of share of petitioners No.1 and 2, 50% of the same 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 cheques.
The advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2014.
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area: Bangalore.
By the
___________________________
Respondent
Petitioner/s No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on petition 10-00
Court fee paid on powers 01-00
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
Member : MACT,
Metropolitan Area , Bangalore.
22 M.V.C.No.1823 of 2013