Bangalore District Court
Smt.P.Amaravathi vs Syed Habeeb Rehman on 4 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 4th day of March 2020
Present: SRI.MAHANTESH S.DARAGAD
B.Sc., LL.B.,
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.4310/2017
PETITIONER: 1. Smt.P.Amaravathi
W/o. Late G.Gopi,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Kumari.N.Pallavi
D/o.Late N.Reddappa,
Aged about 9 years,
Petitioner No.2is minor Rep.by
Petitioner No.1/aunt/next friend
Both are residents of No.8-23-1,
Yalakappali Kutta,
Madanapalle Mandal,
Chittoor District,
Andhrapradesh.
(By Pleader Sri.TVR)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1. Syed Habeeb Rehman
2 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
S/o.Syed Ibrahim,
Major, R/at Shivarapatna Village
& Post, Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(Exparte)
2. The IFFCO-TOKIO Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Sri.Shanthi Towers, 5th Floor,
No.141, 3rd Main, East of NGEF Layout,
Kasturinagar,
Bengaluru-560043.
(By pleader Sri.SNR)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondents U/S. 166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Smt.C.Bhagyamma W/o. Late Reddappa in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
On 3-5-2017, at about 2.00 P.M., Bhagyamma was walking in front of Bharani hospital, Malur town, Kolar district, at that time, the driver of Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-08-3811 3 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 came from Hosakote side at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Bhagyamma. Due to the impact, Bhagyamma fell down and sustained grievous hed injuries and become unconscious. Immediately, she was shifted to Bharani hospital, Malur, wherein after first aid, she was referred to NIMHANS, Bengaluru, wherein she has undergone brain surgery and took treatment for 20 days as an inpatient. Thereafter, she was taken to Government hospital, Madanapalle, from there she was referred to Chandra Mohan Nursing home, Madanapall, then she was referred to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi in turn to Government hospital, Madanapalle, wherein she was treated for 7 days and the doctors advised to taken home since she could not survive and on 1-7-2017 Bhagyamma succumbed to the accidental injuries at home. The petitioners have spent Rs.4,00,000/- towards treatment and conveyance and 4 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
3. The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Bhagyamma was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 35 years, working as a coolie in BESCOM under labour contractor and she was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-.
4. The contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 is the elder sister and petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of deceased and they are the legal representatives and dependents of deceased. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, due to unexpected death of Bhagyamma, they have suffered lot and lost the bread earner of the family.
5. The respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of alleged Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-08-3811 and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Auto-rickshaw and as such, the respondent 5 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, the petitioner prays to grant for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest and cost.
6. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. The Respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was placed exparte.
7. The brief contents of written statement of respondent no.2 are as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended that, the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 has denied that, deceased Bhagyamma sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident and succumbed to death due to accidental injuries. Further he contended that, as per police documents, deceased 6 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 Bhagyamma has not died due to alleged accidental injuries. Further the respondent No.2 contended that, post mortem was not conducted to the deceased and police have not filed charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC. Further he contended that, the present claim petition is filed by the LRs of deceased and deceased has not filed claim petition claiming compensation. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the involvement of the alleged Auto-rickshaw in the alleged accident and it has been implicated. Further the respondent No.1 has contended that, the owner of the alleged Auto-rickshaw and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged Auto-rickshaw and the liability of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further the Respondent No.1 has denied that, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Auto- 7 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18 rickshaw. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and dependency of the petitioners upon the income of deceased. Further he contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and fanciful. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, Smt.Bhagyamma W/o.Reddappa, died due to injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 3-5-2017, at about 2.00 A.M., near Bharani hospital Malur Town, Kolar Dist., involving Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-08-3811 belonging to Respondent No.1 and the said vehicle insured with second Respondent?
Additional issue No.1:
Whether the petitioners prove that there is nexus between the accidental injuries and death of C.Bhagyamma ?8 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the only legal heirs and the dependants of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? if so, at what rate and from whom?
5. What order or award?
9. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 11. Further one Dr.T.Ramachandra Prasad Rao is examined as PW-2 and got marked one document as Ex-P-12.
10. The Respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW-1 and no documents are got marked.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
12. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 & 2 : In the Affirmative 9 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 Addl.Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.3 & 4: In the partly Affirmative Issue No.5: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
13. Issue No.1, 2 and Additional issue No.1: These issues are interconnected with each other, hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, these issues are taken together for common consideration.
14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 and 2. Further he argued that, as per police investigation papers, the alleged accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Auto-rickshaw. Further he argued that, the defence of the Respondent No.2 is that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of 10 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 alleged Auto-rickshaw. To prove the said defence, though the Respondent No.2 has not examined the eyewitnesses to the alleged accident and not produced any rebuttal documents. Further he argued that, the petitioners have proved their case as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
15. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following Judgments:
1. 2003 ACJ 597 (M.D. KSRTC Vs. K.S.Venkataramappa and others)
2. 2007 (10) SCC 643 (Manjuri Bera (smt) Vs. Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., and another)
3. Civil Appeal Nos.242-243/2020 (National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Birender and others).
16. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed written arguments by reiterating the contents of 11 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 objection statement filed by respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by RW-1. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of alleged Auto-rickshaw and there is no nexus between the death and injuries and as such, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Further he contended that, the petitioners have failed to prove their case as contended in the petition by producing proper documents. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the respondent No.2 with cost.
17. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the following Judgments.
1. ILR 1990 KAR 4300 (FB) (Kannamma Vs. Dy.Gen.Manager
2. ILR 2002 KAR 1864 (FB) (Uttam Kumar Vs. Madhav and another) 12 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18
3. MFA.22156/2011 (MV) (National Ins.Co.Ltd. Vs. Srikant Ramdas Shanbag (dead) by his LRs)
4. MFA.23198/2013 (Indira and others Vs. Krishnan and another)
18. On rival contention urged by both the parties, I intend to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of evidence available on records, it reveals that, to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as PW-1 and she has stated in her evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of her evidence, she has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 11.
19. To prove the involvement of the alleged Auto-rickshaw to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Auto-rickshaw, in support of oral evidence, the petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation 13 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 papers and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 4 i.e. true copy of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, MVA report and charge sheet. On perusal of Ex-P-1 & 4 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that, Malur police have registered a case in Cr.No.162/2017 as against the driver of the Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-08-3811 and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet as against the driver of the Auto-rickshaw for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 338 of IPC.
20. Further in order to prove the nexus between the accidental injuries and death of deceased Bhagyamma, the petitioners have examined Dr.T.Ramachandra Prasad Rao, Retired Civil Asst.Surgeon, as PW-2, who has deposed that, deceased Bhagyamma has sustained grievous head injuries in a RTA occurred on 3-5-2017 and taken treatment at NIMHANS and Sanjaygandhi hospital, Bengaluru. Further PW-2 has 14 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 deposed that, after necessary treatment, deceased Bhagyamma was referred to General hospital, Madanapalle and she has also taken treatment at SVRR hospital, Tirupathi. But in spite of best treatment taken by her, she has not recovered from the accidental injuries and her condition deteriorated day by day and doctor has advised the relatives of patient to take home and then on 1-7-2017 she succumbed to injuries at home. Further PW-2 has specifically deposed that, the death of Bhagyamma is due to grievous head injuries sustained in the accident.
21. Thereafter, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined the PW-1 and 2 at length, but nothing has been elicited from them in respect to death of deceased Bhagyamma was not due to accidental injuries.
22. Further to prove the defence, the Respondent No.2 has not examined any eyewitness to the alleged accident and not produced any rebuttal documents to disprove the case of the 15 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 petitioners. Further the respondent No.2 ought to have examined the expert doctor to prove that, the evidence of PW-2 is not correct and acceptable one, but he has not do so. Thus, the evidence of PW-2 is intact.
23. At this juncture I relied the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.231/2013 in between Shri Chinnappa and others Vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.
Ltd., in which it is observed that " Doctors are taught and trained in the medical colleges. Over the years, they acquire expertise. This evidence has remained unchallenged, neither it was impeached by the respondent in any manner nor demonstrated to be an unworthy opinion by placing any contrary evidence from a doctor with superior qualification and experience"
16 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
24. On perusal of the said observation, it is clear that doctors are taught and trained in the medical colleges and if the respondent feels to be an unworthy opinion, he can place contrary evidence from a doctor with superior qualification and experience.
25. It is specific contention of the respondent No.2 that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by deceased Bhagyamma and her death and the accident occurred 3-5-2017 and the deceased Bhagyamma died on 1-7-2017 after two months and argued that, the deceased died due to some other illness and not for the accidental injuries and the petitioners have not conducted the post mortem to show the cause of death.
26. Further on perusal of Ex-P-6 i.e. copy of discharge summary, it shows that, deceased Bhagyamma had sustained thin SDH in right parietotemporal region with underlying hemorrhagic contusions with mass effect and MLS of 8 mm. 17 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18 uncal prominence present and she underwent right temporo- parieto - occipital decompressive craniectomy and evacuation of SDH with augmentative duroplasty and bone flap in abdomen. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1, based on the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that, that the injuries had nexus with the death of the deceased.
27. At this juncture I relied the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad reported in 1994 ACJ 1017 in between Khairullah and another Vs. Anita and other, which reads thus;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, section 110-A---claim application---Accident between a truck and scooter and the scooterist succumbed to the injuries after about 25 days in the hospital---Owner and driver contended that discharge ticket 18 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 shows that deceased died due to cardio-
respiratory failure and not on account of injury received in the accident and as post mortem was done to arrive at the cause of death they are not liable---whether failure to conduct post -mortem can be taken as a circumstance against the claimants---Held: no this is not a case under section 302 IPC where conducting of post-mortem to know the cause of death may be necessary; cardio-respiratory failure is a consequence and secondary to the injury received in the accident.
28. Another decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, at Madurai Bench reported in 2011 ACJ 2197 in between Abdul Rahim and another Vs. Sundaresan and another, which reads thus;
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section1 66 -Claim application---Post mortem report---Absence of--Cyclist sustained 19 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 fracture and multiple head injuries when he was hit by a car---Tribunal relying upon evidence concluded that accident occurred due to negligence of car driver--injured remained treatment in three Government hospitals one after the other and died after 4 months---Claim application filed by the injured was amended as a claim by his son after his death. X-rays and C.T. Scan show that injuries were inflict brain and confirmed by the doctor who treated the injured---Doctor said that injured died of injuries sustained in the accident---No rebuttal evidence of any competent neurologist--Contention that in the absence of post mortem report it cannot be said that death was due to the accident ---
Claimants can be denied compensation for not conducting post mortem--Held: no;
death of the deceased occurred due to injuries sustained in the accident.
20 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
29. On perusal of the same, it is observed that, the failure to conduct post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased cannot be taken as a circumstance against the claimants, who are claiming compensation for the death of deceased as it is not a case under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
30. In the instant case post mortem was not conducted, it cannot be said that if no post-mortem was done, the cause of death was not due to the accident. Therefore, above citations are aptly applicable to the facts of this case on hand.
31. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 and 2 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral version of the petitioners is corroborated with the documentary evidence and as such, the petitioners have proved that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of 21 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 the Auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-08-3811 and also proved that, there was nexus between accidental injuries and death of deceased Bhagyamma as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
32. Further on perusal of the records, it reveals that, Smt.Bhagyamma W/o.Late Reddappa has sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident occurred on 3-5-2017 and succumbed to the said injuries on 1-7-2017.
33. In addenda of this, in a claim for compensation U/S.166 of MV Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and others Vs. Satbir and others).
34. Considering the above facts and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 and 2 coupled with documents and for the 22 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 above reasons, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved these issues by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer these issues in the affirmative.
35. Issue No.3:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 is the sister and petitioner No.2 is the adopted daughter and they are the legal representatives and dependents of deceased. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Bhagyamma was the only bread earner in their family and as such, they are the dependents of deceased and due to her unexpected death, they have suffered lot and lost the bread earner of the family.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
36. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have relied upon the documents at Ex.P-7 to 9 i.e. notarized copies of Aadhaar cards. On perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with 23 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 contents of those documents, it reveals that, the tribunal cannot find out the relationship between the petitioners and deceased. However, the respondent No.2 has not disputed the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Further on perusal of cross-examination of PW-1, it reveals that, deceased had no issues and her husband died 20 years back and after the death of her husband, she is living with her deceased sister Bhagyamma and as such, she is legal heir of deceased.
37. Further the contention of petitioners is that, petitioner No.2 is the adopted daughter of deceased, but there is no records to show that, petitioner No.2 is the adopted daughter of deceased. In the absence of positive documents in respect to relationship of petitioner No.2 with the deceased, the tribunal cannot accept that, petitioner No.2 is the legal heir of deceased. Thereby, only the petitioner No.1- sister of deceased 24 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 is the legal representative and dependent of deceased Bhagyamma.
38. At this juncture, I relied a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 242-243/2020 in case of National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Birender and Others, wherein it is observed that;
" The legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. It must necessarily follow that event he major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependant on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only" 25 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
39. On perusal of the said decision it is clear that, the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation and not limit the claim towards conventional heads.
40. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that, only the petitioner No.1 is the legal heir and dependent of deceased. Considering the above facts and on perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reasons, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have partly proved this issue by producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.3 in the partly affirmative.
41. ISSUE No.4: The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Bhagyamma was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 30 years, working as a coolie in BESCOM under labour contractor and getting consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Bhagyamma was the only earning 26 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 member in their family and due to unexpected death of Bhagyamma, they have put to mental agony, great hardship and lost the bread earner of the family.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
42. To prove the age of deceased, the petitioners have produced the notarized copy of Aadhaar card and same is marked as Ex-P-7, wherein, the year of birth of deceased is shown as 1972 and the same is considered as year of birth of the deceased. Then, it is clear that, as on the date of accident deceased Bhagyamma was aged about 45 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is '14'.
43. Further to prove the occupation and income, the petitioners have not produced any supportive documents. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of positive documents regarding the occupation 27 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 and income of deceased and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.7,500/-p.m. certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
44. At this stage, I relied the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi and others, has held at para No.61 as under:
"(i) .................
(ii) .................
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40-50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the 28 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation.
The established income means the income minus the tax component."
45. Further in a citation reported in 2018 ACJ page 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.,), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"We are of the view that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. Accordingly, in the present case, addition of 40% to the income assessed by the Tribunal is required to 29 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 be made. The Tribunal made addition of 50% while the High Court has deleted the same."
46. In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the view that, the deceased being aged below 50 years, an addition of 25% to the income should be added towards future prospects. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, deceased Bhagyamma was aged about 45 years and as such, 25% is added to the income of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.9,375/-p.m.(Rs.7,500 + 1,875 i.e.25%).
47. Further as stated above that, only petitioner No.1 is the dependent of deceased. Hence, half of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on such deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,687/-p.m. and same is rounded off to Rs.4,700/-. 30 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
48. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.4,700/- P.M. and the multiplier 14 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.7,89,600/- (Rs.4,700 X 12 X 14) Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.7,89,600/- under the head of loss of dependency.
49. Further the petitioner No.1 being the sister of deceased and as such, in view of the citation of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi), the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/-under the head of loss of estate and she is also entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
50. Further to prove the medical expenses incurred by the petitioners, PW-1 has produced medical bills and the same 31 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 are marked as Ex-P-10. Further on perusal of the records, it reveals that, the accident has occurred on 3-5-2017 and in spite of best treatment taken at various hospital, deceased Bhagyamma succumbed to the injuries on 1-7-2017. Therefore, considering evidence of PW-1 coupled with medical bills at Ex-P-10, it reveals that, the petitioners have spent a sum of Rs.34,164/- towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.34,200/- under the head of medical expenses certainly it would meets the ends of justice.
51. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,53,800/- under the following conventional heads. 32 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18 Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency Rs. 7,89,600/- Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 15,000/- funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Towards medical expenses Rs. 34,200/-
Total Rs. 8,53,800/-
52. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition
and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the Auto- rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-08-3811 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence of driver of alleged Auto-rickshaw. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged Auto- rickshaw is liable to pay compensation amount with interest 33 MVC.No.4310/2017 SCCH-18 @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.
53. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioner No.1 U/s.166 of MV Act against the respondents is hereby allowed with cost.
The claim petition filed by petitioner No.2 is hereby dismissed.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for
compensation of Rs.8,53,800/- with interest
@ 8% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, it is directed to respondent No.2- insurance company to deposit the said compensation amount in this tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
34 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18 With regard to the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized /schedule bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% of the amount shall be released in his name through e- payment.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 4th day of March 2020).
(MAHANTESH S.DARAGAD) III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BENGALURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. P.Amaravathi P.W.2. Dr.T.Ramachandra Prasad Rao List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of spot mahazar
35 MVC.No.4310/2017
SCCH-18
Ex-P3 True copy of MVA report
Ex-P4 True copy of charge sheet
Ex-P5 Xerox Copy of Medical certificate
Ex-P6 Xerox Copy of discharge summary
Ex-P7 to 9 Notarized copy of Aadhaar Cards
Ex-P10 Medical bills
Ex-P11 Prescriptions
Ex-P12 Xerox copy of case sheet
List of witnesses examined on respondent's side:
R.W.1: Gireesha List of documents exhibited on respondent's side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE.