Bangalore District Court
) Smt.Manjula vs Samesh Kumar on 6 October, 2015
1
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF OCTOBER'2015
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
MVC No.2566/2014
Petitioners: 1) Smt.Manjula,
W/o.Late T.G.Manjunath,
Aged 54 years,
2) T.M.Geetha,
W/o.T.M.Girish,
Aged 32 years,
3) T.M.Mamatha,
W/o.Ravi Kumar P.T.,
Aged 30 years,
All are residing at 1st Cross,
Near Banashankari Temple,
Galihalli Road, Tharikere,
Chikkmagalur District.
And also residing at
No.28, 1st Floor, 7th Main
Road,
Near Bajaj Pulsar Show
Room,
Bangalore 560 085,
BSK 3rd Stage.
(By Venkateshaiah, Advocate)
Vs.
2
Respondents: 1. Samesh Kumar,
S/o.Shri Om Prakash,
Aged Major,
Silothi Village,
Bahadurgarh Tehsil,
Jhajjar District,
Haryana State.
(Owner of the Lorry
bearing
Reg.No.HR.63/A.5922).
2. The Manager,
SBI General Insurance Co.,
Ltd.,
Rukmini Towers,
Platform Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore 560 020.
(Respondent No.1 by Sri
B.R.Srinath, Advocate,
Respondent No.2 by Sri K.Prakash,
Advocate,
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.50 lakhs from the respondents with regard to the death of T.M.Deepak in the road traffic accident that occurred on 04.04.2014 at about 04.30 pm., on NH-4, Bangalore-Tumkur Highway, Near Rayarapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
3 It is contended in the petition that the petitioner No.1is the mother and petitioners No.2 and 3 are the sisters of the deceased T.M.Deepak respectively, who died in the road traffic accident that occurred on 04.04.2014.
3. It is contended that on 04.04.2014, at about 04.30 pm., deceased T.M.Deepak was riding motorcycle No.KA.02/ET.4756 along with one Chethana as pillion rider, slowly and cautiously observing the traffic rules. While so proceeding, when they came near Rayarapalya, Sompura Hobli, on NH 4 Bangalore-Tumkur Road, lorry bearing No.HR/63/A.5922 which was also proceeding on the same road, the driver of which suddenly parked the vehicle on the middle of the road, as a result, there occurred a collision between the lorry and the motorcycle on which the deceased Deepak was proceeding. In the accident, Deepak sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Immediately thereafter, the body was shifted to Government Hospital, Tumkur, wherein PM was conducted and the petitioners have sent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation, funeral, obituary ceremonies.
4. It is contended that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.HR.63/A.5922 and the Police have registered a case against the driver of the lorry.
5. It is contended that at the time of accident, deceased Deepak was hale and healthy and he was aged 27 years and working as Junior Manager, at Adishwar Electro World, Kathriguppe, Banashankari Bangalore and getting a salary of Rs.25,500/- per month. It is further contended that the petitioners were depending upon the income of the deceased and the 4 deceased was contributing major portion of his income towards the maintenance of the petitioners. It is contended that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry and the respondent No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
6. In pursuance of filing of the petition, this Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and in response to the same, both the respondents appeared through their counsel and the respondent No.1 has not filed statement of objections.
7. The respondent No.2 in the statement of objections has admitted that the respondent No.2 has issued the policy against the alleged lorry, which was valid as on the date of accident, however, the liability/obligation is subject to terms and conditions, exceptions and compliance of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act.
8. It is contended that the situation of the alleged accident has been twisted and described as if the insured vehicle is involved and responsible for the alleged accident and the stated facts are far from truth. It is contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle without knowledge of riding and without possessing the valid vehicle documents, in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the rear portion of the insured vehicle, which was parked on the extreme left side of the mud road by putting the indicators to know the incoming vehicles. The alleged accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased. Without prejudice to the above contentions, it is contended that during the course of proceedings, if it is proved that the driver of both the vehicles are 5 responsible for the accident, the liability may be reduced to the extent of negligence of the deceased.
9. The respondent No.2 denies the age, avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is very exorbitant and fancy and none of the petitioners were dependant on the income of the deceased. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and not based on any norms. For all these reasons, the respondent No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. In view of the contentions raised by both the parties, the following issues are framed:-
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 04.04.2014 at about 04.30 pm., on NH 4, Bangalore-Tumkur High Way, Near Rayarapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore within the jurisdiction of Dobaspet Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.HR.63/A.5922 by its driver?
2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident occurred on account of negligent act of the deceased?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4) What Order?
11. In order to substantiate their case, on behalf of the petitioners', the petitioner No.1, who is the mother of the deceased, has been examined as PW 1. The petitioners have also examined two more witnesses as PW 2 and
3. In all 21 documents came to be marked on behalf of the petitioners as Ex.P.1 to P.21.
6
12. On the other hand, none has been examined nor any documents are got marked on behalf of the respondents.
13. I have heard the counsel for petitioners and the respondents.
14. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105.
15. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied on the following decision:-
1) 2008 ACJ 1188
2) 2003 AIR SCW 5505
3) ILR 1987 Kar 2730
4) 2007 ACJ 2188
5) 2011 AIR SCW 4126
16. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1) Partly in the affirmative,
2) Partly in the affirmative,
3) Partly in the affirmative,
4) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
17. Issue No.1 & 2:- It is the case of the petitioners that on 04.04.2014, at about 04.30 pm., on NH 4 near Rayarapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, deceased Deepak was proceeding on Motorcycle 7 bearing registration No.KA.02/ET.4756 by riding the same along with one Chethana as pillion rider, carefully and cautiously and at that time, the driver of the lorry No.HR.63/A.5922 without giving any signal, parked the lorry on the center of the road and thereby dashed against the motorcycle and thereby accident occurred and in the accident, rider of the motorcycle ie., Deepak having sustained grievous injuries died on the spot.
18. On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself, since he himself went and dashed against the lorry which was parked on the left side of the road.
19. The petitioners, who are the mother and sisters of the deceased, in order to prove their case, have examined the mother of the deceased as PW 1, who has filed an affidavit in the form of examination in chief, in which she has reiterated the averments of the petition.
20. Apart from the oral evidence of PW 1, the petitioners have also got marked Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 PM Report, Ex.P.3, Inquest Report, Ex.P.4, Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 Spot Sketch, Ex.P.6 IMV Report and Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet.
21. PW 1 was subjected to cross-examination. In her cross- examination, she admits that her son was riding the motorcycle of his friend and the friend of her son was sitting in the motorcycle. She admits that the accident was occurred in the national high way and number of vehicles used to pass through in the said road and also admits that it is a double road and there is a road divider and she came to know about the accident before
6.p.m., and she saw the accident spot. It is suggested to her that her son went and dashed behind the lorry and the said suggestion has been denied by her. She says that she saw the lorry but did not see to which portion the 8 motorcycle came in contact with the lorry. It is suggested to her that the lorry was parked on the left side of the road and the said suggestion has been denied by her. She admits that on both sides of the road, there is a mud road. It is suggested to her that, lorry was parked on the left side mud road and her son could not control his motorcycle since he was in high speed and he went and dashed the parked lorry and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that her son was having a girl as pillion rider and he was not observing the traffic rules and the accident was occurred due to his negligence and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that the driver of the lorry had parked the vehicle with indicators and her son only inspite of the same went and dashed against the lorry and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that, the driver of the lorry was not negligent and the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of her son and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that, her son was not having knowledge to ride the vehicle and there was no any insurance to the said vehicle and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that in order to get the compensation colluding with the police, a false case has been registered against the driver of the lorry and the police documents are created to suit their convenience and the said suggestion has been denied by her.
22. The petitioners, in order to prove the negligence of the driver of the lorry, have also examined the pillion rider of the motorcycle driven by the deceased, as PW 3. In her evidence, PW 3 has deposed that she is an eye-witness and also complainant to the accident which occurred on 04.04.2014 at about 04.3-0 pm., on NH 4, Bangalore-Tumkur Highway near Rayarapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk and that on 04.04.2014, 9 she was traveling as pillion rider and her friend deceased Deepak was riding the motorcycle slowly and carefully and cautiously by following the traffic rules on the left side of the road and when they came near Rayarapalya, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk on NH 4, Bangalore-Tumkur Highway, the driver of the lorry No.HR.63/A.5922 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without giving any signal parking on the center of the road and dashed against the deceased Deepak, as a result of which, having sustained grievous head injuries, Deepak fell down on the road and died on the spot and she also sustained injuries and she attributes negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry for the accident.
23. She has been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent No.2, wherein she admits that the road wherein the accident was occurred is a two way and that there is a road divider in the road and further admits that in one side two vehicle can pass at a time simultaneously. She further admits that she did not notice any mark made by the high way authority on the border of the road and the accident was occurred in between 4 to 4.30 p.m.., and that the lorry was parked on the side of the road but there was no any signal. She says that when she saw the vehicles at the time of the accident it was already parked. She further says that the motorcycle came in contact with the rear left side portion of the lorry and the rider has sustained the injury to his head. It is suggested to her that, the rider was not wearing the helmet and the said suggestion has been denied by her. She says that she saw the lorry at around 10 feet before the accident and that there was no any mark on the left side of the road and the road is visible for a long distance. It is suggested to her that, the driver of the lorry while parking the lorry had put the parking lights and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is further suggested to her that the lorry was parked partly on the mud road and 10 partly on the edge of the road after the white mark and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that, both of them traveling and talking to each other and did not notice the lorry and went and dashed against the lorry which was parked on the side of the road and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is elicited from her they left Chandapura Nice road at around 2.p.m. It is suggested to her that, the rider was riding the motorcycle without wearing the helmet and he drove the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the rear portion of the lorry and as a result he succumbed to the injuries and the said suggestion has been denied by her. She says that she did not notice what happened to the helmet. It is suggested to her that in order to over come their mistake a false complaint was given to the police by her making the allegation against the driver of the lorry that he had parked the lorry without any parking signal that too in the middle of the road and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that, the accident was not occurred on account of negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the same was occurred on the negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and the said suggestion has been denied by her.
24. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court.
It is the contention of the petitioners that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and on the other hand, the respondent No.2 contends that the accident has occurred due to the negligent act of the deceased himself. The Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, in support of his contentions, relied upon the principles laid down in the judgment reported in 2008 ACJ 1188 ( Renukadevi H., Vs. BMTC and another). In this judgment, it is held that "Bus came at fast 11 speed and hit a scooter from behind, scooter was trapped under wheel of bus and rider of scooter sustained serious injuries and the Tribunal held that bus driver was rash and negligent and solely responsible for the accident and the High Court observed that spot mahazar clearly indicated that scooter hit rear wheel of the bus indicating that the injured was also negligent to a great extent and held that both the bus driver and scooter rider were equally negligent".
25. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 AIR SCW 5505 (Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs Laxman Iyer and another). In this judgment, it is held that the act or omission amounting to want of ordinary are or in defiance of duty or obligation on the part of the complaining party which conjointly with the other part's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident renders it one to be the result of contributory negligence".
26. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has also relied upon the judgment reported in ILR 1987 KAR 2730 (Sharada Bai Vs KSRTC). In this judgment, regarding contributory negligence, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court held that "Contributory Negligence - Burden of proof on propounder of defence to establish victim's failure to take reasonable care of himself as contributory cause - Reasonable care varies with prevailing conditions and circumstances - Unnecessary for propounder to adduce evidence - Inferable from evidence of claimants or perceptive facts admitted/established on balance of probabilities".
27. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioners, in his arguments, vehemently contended that this is not a case, where contributory negligence can be invoked and the respondents have not adduced any evidence before the Court, though they have taken defence that the accident 12 occurred on account of contributory act of the deceased and in the absence of any documentary proof or other material, this Court cannot believe the version of respondent No.2.
28. Keeping in view the contentions urged by the Counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondent No.2, this Court has to appreciate whether there is any substance in the contention of respondent No.2 regarding the contributory negligence. Though the petitioners have pleaded in the petition that the vehicle was parked in the middle of the road, the admission given by PW 3, who is none other than the pillion rider of the motorcycle, it is clear that the lorry was parked on the side of the road, but she claims that there was no any signal. She further says that when she saw the vehicles at the time of the accident and it was already parked and the motorcycle came in contact with the rear left side portion of the lorry. She categorically admits that the road was visible for a long distance. On perusal of the sketch drawn by police during the course of investigation, which is marked as Ex.P.5, it is clear that the lorry was parked on the extreme left side of the road and PW 3 further admits that there is a road divider in the road and in one side, two vehicles can pass at a time simultaneously. Such being the case, the rider had no obstruction to proceed on the road and no doubt PW 3 categorically says that there was no any signal mark, but she categorically admits that the road was visible from a long distance. Thus, on the overall evaluation of the evidence available in the form of evidence of PW 1 and 3 and the documentary evidence such as Ex.P.5 Sketch, it emerges that though the driver of the lorry had parked the vehicle on the left side of the road, had not put any indicator, at the same time, though there was no any obstruction on the road, which admittedly being a double road, the rider of the motorcycle could have easily proceeded ahead. It appears from the 13 Sketch Ex.P.5 that there is tiny curve at the place of accident. Thus, a responsibility was cast both on the rider of the lorry to put some indicators for the other users of the road and on the part of the rider of the motorcycle to be more cautious while negotiating a curve. Therefore, considering the totality of the evidence available before the Court, though the respondent No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence, as rightly contended by the counsel for the respondent No.2 and principles laid down in the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent, as extracted supra, which are aptly to the case on hand, it is a case of contributory negligence, in as much as, the driver of the lorry has contributed to the extent of 75% and the deceased to the extent of 25% in occurrence of the accident. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative.
29. Issue No.3:- It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the mother, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the sisters of the deceased. So far as the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is concerned, there is no dispute, since in the cross-examination of PW 1, not even a single suggestion is put to her denying their relationship. Moreover, it is elicited from her that deceased is her son and petitioner No.2 and 3 are married and that they are residing at their in laws house.
30. So far as the death of deceased in the accident is concerned, to substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.2 - P.M.Report issued by General Hospital, Tumkur, which says that the death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. Ex.P.3 is the Inquest Mahazar conducted on the body of deceased. Both these documents reveal that the deceased died on account of the accidental injuries.
14
31. In a case of death in a road traffic accident, while awarding compensation, the age, avocation, income and number of dependents, are the major factors to be taken in to consideration.
32. In the case on hand, the petitioners contend that the deceased was aged 27 years and working as Junior Manager in Adishwar Electro World, Kathriguppe, Banashankar, Bangalore and drawing a salary of Rs.25,500/- per month.
33. As far as age of the deceased is concerned, to substantiate the same, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.14 copy of the Aadhaar Card of the deceased, in which the year of birth of deceased is shown as 1986. Further, the petitioners have produced copy of SSLC Marks Card of the deceased, which remained unmarked, wherein the date of birth of deceased is shown as 16.01.1986. Thus, the contents of Ex.P.14 coupled with the copy of SSLC Marks Card of deceased, make it clear that the deceased was running 27 years at the time of accident.
34. So far as avocation and income of the deceased is concerned, it is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as Junior Manager at Adishwar Electro World with a salary of Rs.25,500/- per month. The respondent No.2 has denied the same.
35. In order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the 1st petitioner has been examined as PW 1 wherein she has reiterated the avocation and income as stated in the petition. She has got marked Ex.P.8 Appointment Letter along with Offer Letter, Ex.P.9 2 Pay Slips for the month of October'2013 and March'2014, Ex.P.10 Bank Statement. 15
36. PW 1 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent No.2 in this regard wherein, she says that she does not know whether her son was paying the income tax or not and she has not produced Form 16 before the court. She says that she can examine the employer before the court. It is suggested to her that, her son was not working as Senior Manager and also not earning Rs.25,500/- and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is suggested to her that Ex.P.8 to 10 are created for the purpose of this case to claim more compensation and the said suggestion has been denied by her.
37. Apart from her evidence, the petitioners have also examined PW 2 One Rajesha D., and in his evidence PW 2 says that deceased Deepak was working in their company ie., Randstad India Ltd., as Junior Manager (Sales Promoter) and he drew Rs.15,000/- as salary during September'2013. Apart from his evidence, PW 2 has produced Ex.P.19 Notarised Copy of Employer ID Card and Ex.P.21 Pay Slip.
38. PW 2 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent No.2, wherein, he admits that they are crediting the salary of the employee to the bank account and further says that if the employee wants pay slip, he can take the same from the online. He admits that the salary slip does not disclose the contribution of the employer towards provident fund and ESI and that the Bonus will not vary in every month salary that is fixed. He says that irrespective of loss or profit, the statutory bonus is paid to the employees and that there is no any condition in the offer letter that fixed bonus will be paid to him. He further says that the salary will be varied subject to the incentives. It is elicited from him that they have a document to show that how much amount was credited to the each and every 16 employees. He admits that the appointment of the deceased was made for a period of 1 year and the continuing of his employment is discretion of the management subject to his performance and the probation period is only for a period of 6 months and that their company has not paid any amount to the deceased family. He feigns ignorance that he does not know anything about the coverage of group insurance. He further says that there is a separate pay roll department and that no attendance is maintained in their company. He admits that the salary will be paid based on the information given by the concerned section regarding his attendance. It is suggested to him that, deceased was not working in their company and not drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
39. Now, let met appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased.
40. On the one hand, in the petition, the petitioners claim that the deceased was working as Junior Manager with Adishwar Electro World and getting a salary of Rs.25,500/- per month. That means, the deceased was working in a Electricals Goods Shop, but the witness examined on behalf of the petitioners, ie., PW 2 says that the deceased was working in Randstad and that he was drawing a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. But Ex.P.8 produced in this case shows that Randstand is a company dealing in Staffing, Search and Selection, HR Solutions and In house Services and thus, there is contradiction as to where exactly, the deceased was working. Be that as it may.
41. Even with regard to the quantum of salary drawn, on the one hand, the petitioners claims that the decease was drawing Rs.25,500/- per month, 17 but Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate issued by Randstad shows that the deceased drew salary of Rs.22,515/- for October'2013, for the month of March'2014, the salary was Rs.13,315/-. Quite interestingly, Bank Statement of the deceased produced as Ex.P.10 speaks otherwise, since, for October'2013, the salary of the deceased is shown as Rs.9,963/- and again for November'2013, again the salary is shown as Rs.6,451/-. Thus, there is lot of inconsistency with regard to the salary stated by PW 1 and 2 with that of the documents produced in support of their evidence. Though PW 2 says that they are crediting the salary of the employees to the Bank account and they have document to show the salary, but Ex.P.10 Statement of Bank does not support his version. Therefore, having regard to the inconsistency in the quantum of income of the deceased, even average salary cannot also be taken into consideration and hence, I deem it just and proper to take the income of the deceased at Rs.9,963/- being the salary for September'2013 per month as per Ex.P.10 Bank Statement
42. In view of the principles liaddown in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into consideration. In the case on hand, the deceased was working in a private firm and getting salary and thus, it can be assumed that the deceased had a bright future. Further, as the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident, 50%, from out of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects, which works out to Rs.4,981/- and thus the total (present income plus loss of future prospects) works out to Rs.14,944/-.
43. Regarding the deduction to be made towards personal expenses of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was a bachelor. Further, on 18 perusal of the cause title to the petition, it can be seen that petitioner No.1 is mother and the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the married sisters and petitioner No.2 and 3 being married, they cannot be treated as dependants, since PW 1 admits in clear terms that they are residing in their respective husband's house. Such being the case, ½ out of the income of the deceased has to be given deduction, towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, if that be so, the actual loss of dependency per month comes to Rs.7,472/- and annually it works out to Rs.89,664/-.
44. Having regard to the fact that the deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable is 17 and if we multiply the said amount by 17 multiplier, it works out to Rs.15,24,288/-, to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
45. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. AhmedAbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
46. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
19 Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs 1 Loss of dependency 15,24,288.00 2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000.00 members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. 3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000.00 funeral and ritual expenses Total 16,34,288.00 Less 25% towards contributory 4,08,572.00 negligence of deceased Amount of compensation to 12,25,716.00 which petitioners are entitled to
47. The compensation amount has to be apportioned amongst the petitioners in the following manner:-
1) Petitioner No.1 - Mother - Rs.11,25,716/-
2) Petitioner No.2 - Sister - Rs.50,000/-
3) Petitioner No.3 - Sister - Rs.50,000/-
48. So far as liability to pay compensation amount is concerned, the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry involved in the accident, which fact is admitted by respondent No.1 and 2. Hence, both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioners and the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the lorry owned by respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 shall indemnify the respondent No.1 and pay compensation amount.
49. In a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), the Supreme Court has held that the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the present day cost of living 20 and thereby awarded, interest on the compensation amount at 9% p.a. I have no reasons to deviate from the said view of the Apex Court. Accordingly, interest on compensation amount is awarded at 9% p.a.
50. Accordingly, issue No. 3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
51. Issue No.4: In the result I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,25,716/- from the respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally (being the 75% of total compensation of Rs.16,34,288/-) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the respondent No.1 shall pay the compensation amount as stated above within 3 months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
1) Petitioner No.1 - Mother - Rs.11,25,716/-
2) Petitioner No.2 - Sister - Rs.50,000/-
3) Petitioner No.3 - Sister - Rs.50,000/-
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in her name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1.
Entire compensation amount apportioned in favour petitioner No.2 and 3 with interested is ordered to be released to them. 21 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transaction thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 6th day of October'2015) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1: Smt.Manjula
P.W.2: Rajesha D.,
P.W.3: Chethana
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents : Nil Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Copy of FIR Ex.P-2 Copy of PM Report Ex.P-3 Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P-4 Copy of spot Panchanama Ex.P-5 Sketch Ex.P-6 IMV Report Ex.P-7 Charge Sheet Ex.P-8 Appointment Letter along with Offer Letter Ex.P-9 2 Pay Slips for the month of Octobr'2013 and March'2014 Ex.P-10 Bank Statement Ex.P-11 Notarised copy of Election ID Card Ex.P-12 Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card 22 Ex.P-13 Notarised copy of Election ID Card Ex.P-14 Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.17 Notarised copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.18 Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Employer ID Card Ex.P.20 Authorisation letter Ex.P.21 Pay Slip
Documents marked on behalf of the respondent: Nil (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore