Bangalore District Court
Saraswathi vs National Insurance Co.Ltd on 18 April, 2017
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.2030/2016
Dated this the 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2017
Petitioner/s : 1.Saraswathi,
W/o Late Ramesh,
Aged about 26 years.
2.Baby.R.Vijaylakshmi,
D/o Late Ramesh,
Aged about 8 years.
3.Baby R.Pooja,
D/o late Ramesh,
The petitioner No.1 to 3 are
Minors Rep.by her mother
Natural Guardian
Smt.Saraswathi, W/o Ramesh,
R/of Koratagere Village,
Krishnarajpet Taluk,
Mandya - 571 436.
4.Sri.Kenchashetty,
S/o Dasappashetty,
Aged about 60 years.
5.Smt.Chandramma,
W/o Kenchashetty,
Aged about 52 years,
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.2030/2016
The petitioner No.3 and 4 are
R/of Weavers Colony,
Gottigere
Bengaluru South, Bengaluru.
V/s
(By pleader Sri.V.M.B.)
Respondent/s 1.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Branch Manager,
T.P.Hub, No.144,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy
No.651300/31/15/6300004298
Valid form 10.06.2015 to 09.06.2016)
2.M.Subramani,
S/o Murugesan,
No.5/85, Eest Thottam,
Aerthanaripalyam,
Nadanthai Post,
P.Velur Taluk, Namakkal Dist.,
Tamil Nadu - 637001.
(RC lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189)
(R1-By pleader Sri.SRM
R2-By pleader -Exparte)
XVI ADDL.JUDGE & MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.2030/2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition U/s 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-for the death of Ramesh S/o Kenchashetty in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Ramesh who was aged 30 years, was working as power loom worker and was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m., On 06.03.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased and his friend by name Nagaraju were proceeding in Honda Shine bike bearing No.KA-54-J-7987 from Bannerughatta to Mysore. When they reached near NICE office, Nagaraju went to give meals to one Lokesh. The deceased was sitting on the bike, at that time, lorry bearing No.TN-47-V- 1189 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life came and dashed against the deceased. Due to impact, Ramesh sustained severe head injury and sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. He succumbed to injuries on the spot. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners. They have spent Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and preserving the dead body in cold storage. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident. The petitioners are the dependents of the deceased. They have lost their dependency, lost love and affection of the deceased. Thalagattapura police have registered Crime No.81/2016 SCCH-14 4 MVC No.2030/2016 against the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the said lorry and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have filed this petition for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with Court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the averments of the petition as false. He has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent No.2 in respect of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 and contended that the owner and concerned police have not complied their mandatory duties, that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and the lorry was not having valid permit and FC at the time of accident, that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of insured lorry, that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that a false complaint is lodged before the police after lapse of one day which as after thought and created for getting compensation by colluding with the respondent No.1, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, that the petitioners are not the LR's of the deceased. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him. In spite of service of notice, the respondent No.2 remained absent. Hence, he is placed exparte.
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.2030/20164. On the basis of above pleadings, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Ramesh S/o Kenchashetty died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 06.03.2016 at about 11.00 p.m., near Nice office, Sompura, Mysore Road, Bangalore, arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189?
2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.1 and examined an eyewitness as PW-2. They have got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P12. The respondent No.1 has examined his officer as RW.1 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R.1.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed written arguments and relied upon the following rulings:
1.ILR 2002 KAR 893 (Kumari Jyothi and others Vs. Mohd.Usman Ali and others) SCCH-14 6 MVC No.2030/2016
2. 1983 A.C.J.290 (Gujarat) Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and others Vs. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others)
3. 1983 A.C.J.290 (Punjab & Haryana) (Nirmal Bhutani & Others Vs.Haryana State and another) 4.1975 A.C.J.396 (New Delhi) (Pushpa Rani Chopra and others Vs.Anokha Singh and others) 5.2005 ACJ 1323 S.C. (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel & others)
6.ILR 2009 KAR 385 (Smt.Nasreen Banu and others Vs. The Divisional Manager and another)
7.ILR 2003 KAR 409 (P.Varalakshmi Reddy and others Vs. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation.
I have gone through the written arguments, rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.15,82,000/-
from the respondent no.1.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The petitioners have examined PW.1 and 2 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 12 to prove their SCCH-14 7 MVC No.2030/2016 case. The respondent No.1 has relied upon the oral evidence of RW.1 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R.1 to prove his defence and disprove the case of the petitioners. The respondent No.2 is the owner of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 and he remained exparte.
9. The counsel for the petitioners has argued that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 who drove his vehicle in high speed and in negligent manner and dashed against the deceased who was sitting on motorcycle bearing No.KA-54-J-7987 which was parked on the side of the road, that the deceased died due to fatal injuries sustained by him in the accident, that PW-1 has deposed as per averments of the petition and PW.2:Nagaraju is an eyewitness and has supported the evidence of PW.1, that the police have registered the crime, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 which supports the version of PW.1 and 2 regarding the manner of accident, that the petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased, that the deceased was holding driving license which reveals the date of his birth, that copy of study certificates of the petitioner No.2 and 3 and copy of ration card are produced to prove the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased, that copy of aadhar card of PW.2 is at Ex.P.12 which proves identity of the witness, that the respondent No.1 has failed to prove his contention that the accident has occurred due to sole or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, that he has SCCH-14 8 MVC No.2030/2016 not examined the driver of lorry to prove his defence, that nothing is elicited from PW.1 and 2 to disbelieve their evidence, that the petitioners have proved their case by producing the oral and documentary evidence and on the other hand, the evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.R.1 are not sufficient to disprove the case of the petitioners. Hence, he has sought for allowing the petition and for awarding compensation to the petitioners as prayed.
10. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed written arguments wherein he has reiterated the facts of the case and evidence adduced by the parties. He has argued that it can be safely gathered from the records that the deceased has parked his motorcycle on the road without any indication, that due to his negligence the accident has occurred, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry, that the petitioners have not produced driving license of the deceased, that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, that the deceased was not having constant income, that his income proof is not produced and as such notional income shall be taken into consideration, that future prospects cannot be awarded, that since the accident has occurred due to negligence of the deceased, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
11. The respondent No.1 has relied upon certain rulings wherein following principles have been laid:
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.2030/20161.ILR 2002 KAR 893 (Kumari Jyothi and others Vs. Mohd.Usman Ali and others) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(Central Act.No.59 of 1988) Sections 122, 166 and 168 - Accident occurred about one hour after midnight when a motorcycle driven by the deceased crashed into an unattended lorry parked without any sign or indication to warn the other road users and in this accident both the motorcycle driver and pillion rider died. Tribunal apportioned negligence equally between the driver of the motorcycle and the driver of the Lorry in appeal High Court held the negligence could be attributed only to the driver of the Lorry in view of the provision of Section 122 of the Act.
2. 1983 A.C.J.290 (Gujarat) Premlata Nilamchand Sharma and others Vs. Hirabhai Ranchhodbhai Patel and others) Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, sec.81 and Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules, 1959, rules 146 and 213-Negligence-obstruction on the highway-No fitment of reflectors-Accident on dark foggy night-Tractor cum trailer parked on left side of asphalt road-Scooter driver coming from behind and not noticing obstruction collided against trailer-as a result of accident the scooterist lost his life-Claims Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that there was no negligence of tractor driver-Whether the driver was negligent in parking the tractor-
trailer in violation of statutory provisions-Held : yes ; there is a purpose in framing the rules and those who use the vehicles on the road must give due regards to them and must comply with them.
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.2030/20163. 1983 A.C.J.640 (Punjab & Haryana) (Nirmal Bhutani & Others Vs.Haryana State and another) Motor Vehicles Act,1939, sec.81-Negligence- Vehicle kept in a dangerous position-Road roller parked in the middle of highway unattended, unmarked and without any sign or indication for other road users-Place dark due to trees and branches-Car ran into the road roller at night-Whether the driver of the road roller was negligent-Held : yes ; parking of road roller was a grave and unexpected hazard for the road users and it constituted a breach of duty of care.
4.1975 A.C.J.396 (New Delhi) (Pushpa Rani Chopra and others Vs.Anokha Singh and others)
(a) Motor Vehicles Act,1939 Sec.81-Negligence- Obstruction on the road-Truck was parked on the main road-night was dark and there was no street light-Motor cyclist dashed against the stationary truck-Whether the truck driver was negligent by causing obstruction or inconvenience to the other users of the road- Held : yes .
(b) Negligence-Contributory negligence- Truck was parked on the main road-Dark night and no street light-Motor cyclist dashed against the stationary truck resulting the death of motor-cyclist-Claims Tribunal apportioned liability between the truck driver and motor cyclist in the ration of 1/3 and 2/3 and respectively-Appellate Court reversed the finding of Claims Tribunal and held that motor-cyclist was not guilty of contributory negligence.
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.2030/20165. ILR 2003 KAR 409 (P.Varalakshmi Reddy and others Vs. The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation) Held: From the sketch, it is very clear to us that the cyclist was also in the wrong to a considerable extent and consequent to, we confirm the view of the finding of the tribunal that the deceased was guilty to contributory negligence. Having regard to the manner in which the bus was being driven, we hold that the greater degree of negligence is attributable to the bus driver and was accordingly apportion the negligence in the properties of 60:40...
It is well settled that the Tribunal is not bound by the decision recorded in a criminal case as this is an independent proceedings.
6.ILR 2009 KAR 385 (Smt.Nasreen Banu and others Vs. The Divisional Manager and another) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- Accident - Claim for compensation - Actionable negligence of a driver of the offending vehicle - HELD, A claim petition for compensation based on actionable negligence, negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle need not be established beyond reasonable doubt like that of a penal action case i.e., criminal case. However, one cannot loose sight of Evidence Act and like a civil case, if it is purely based on facts, it has to be on the number of preponderance of probabilities. This preponderance of probability again is a relative word depends upon the nature and quality of evidence let in by the parties.
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.2030/2016However, under the facts and circumstances, it can be held that the driver of the lorry contributed negligence to an extent of 75% and the motorcyclist to an extent of 25% for the occurrence of the accident.
7.Hon'ble High Court has observed as under in MFA.706/2015(The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs.Smt.Shanthamma and another) It is no doubt true that addition of future prospects to determine loss of dependency arises only in case where the deceased was in a stable employment and was drawing a regular income and not otherwise. In the instant case, neither stable employment nor regular income is established so as to call for addition of future prospects as done by the MACT.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under in 2005 ACJ 1323 S.C. ( National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel & others) But the claim petition before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal is an action in tort and the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased have to establish by preponderance of evidence that there was no negligence on the part of the injured or deceased and they were not responsible for the accident. The exception to this general rule is give in the section 140 of the Act where the legislature has specifically made provisions for payment of compensation on the principle of no fault liability.
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.2030/2016Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under in Civil Appeal No.2836/15:
However, I agree that the matter in relation to future prospects to be added to the annual income to determine the compensation towards loss of dependency cannot be finally decided by us and has to be ultimately referred to a larger Bench - because I was a party to the reference in National Insurance Co.Ltd., v.Pushpa (supra and more importantly, cannot in propriety recall that reference while I am part of another Bench presently. In view of the observations, the matter has to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders towards the constitution of a suitable larger Bench in accordance with law.
12. There is no dispute regarding the collision between motorcycle bearing No.KA-54-J-7987 and lorry bearing No.TN-47-
V-1189 on the date, time and place of accident. It is an admitted fact that Ramesh S/o Kenchashetty was sitting on the motorcycle at the time of accident and he died due to injury sustained by him in the accident. Copy of inquest panchanama and PM report are at Ex.P.6 and 7 which reveal that the said Ramesh died due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of multiple injuries sustained. PW.1 Saraswathi has deposed about the death of the deceased was due to accidental injuries. PW.2 Nagaraju has supported the version of PW.1 regarding the death of Ramesh and cause for his death. PW.1 is not an eyewitness to the accident, but her evidence regarding the death of Ramesh is admissible and unbelievable. Oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P.6 and 7 SCCH-14 14 MVC No.2030/2016 collectively substantiate the averments of the petition regarding death of said Ramesh due to injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident.
13. PW.1:Saraswathi has stated that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189. Evidence of PW.2 regarding the manner of accident is corroboratory to the evidence of PW.1. It is an admitted fact that PW.1 has not seen the occurrence of accident. Hence, her evidence regarding the manner of accident is inadmissible. But, PW.2 is an eyewitness to the accident and his evidence is admissible. Nothing is elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence. He has denied the suggestion that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased who was standing with the motorcycle without any indication or switching on the parking lights and there was no negligence of the part of driver of lorry.
14. RW.1:Vijay Kumar is Deputy Manager of the respondent No.1 and he has deposed that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of driver of insured lorry. He is not an eyewitness to the accident and hence, his evidence stands at par with the evidence of PW.1 and is also inadmissible. The driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 was the best witness to speak about the accident. The respondent No.1 has not examined the said driver as his witness. He has not examined any eyewitness named in the charge sheet to prove his defence and to disprove the SCCH-14 15 MVC No.2030/2016 case of the petitioners. Ex.R.1 is the copy of policy which is not helpful to prove the manner of accident as contended by the respondent No.1. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced copies of police records namely FIR with complaint, charge sheet, spot mahazar, sketch and IMV report which are marked as Ex.P.1 to 5. On perusal of said records, it reveals that Thalaghattapura police have registered Cr.No.81/2016 on 07.03.2016 at about 8.35 a.m., on the basis of information given by PW.2 Nagaraju, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 304A of IPC. There was a delay of about 8 hours in lodging the complaint. But, the accident has occurred at about 11.00 p.m., on 06.03.2016 and the complaint was filed in the early morning on 07.03.2016. Therefore, delay of 8 hours in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the case of the petitioners. Copy of IMV report at Ex.P.5 discloses that motorcycle bearing No.KA-54-J-7987 and lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 were found damaged. The said damages indicate the involvement of said vehicles in the accident. Brake system of the said vehicles was in order. The accident was not due to mechanical defects of the said vehicles. It means, the accident was due to human negligence.
15. Copy of spot mahazar and copy of sketch at Ex.P.3 and 4 reveal that the motorcycle was parked on the northern edge of the road on footpath, that lorry was driven from east to west and was deviated its direction in the place of accident causing the SCCH-14 16 MVC No.2030/2016 accident to motorcycle which was parked on the footpath. There is no explanation from the respondent No.1 regarding the said deviation. If the driver of lorry had driven his vehicle in straight direction, slowly and cautiously, the accident would have not occurred. If he had applied brakes, the accident would have been avoided. Since, the motorcycle was parked on the footpath, there was no need for its rider to switch on the indicators. There is no evidence to believe that the sketch prepared by the police is incorrect and the motorcycle was parked on the road without switching on the indicators. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of lorry which indicates his negligence for the occurrence of accident. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of charge sheet and to hold that the investigation done by the police is defective or collusive. Evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.R.1 are wholly insufficient to prove the defence of the respondent No.1 regarding the manner of accident. On the other hand, evidence of PW.1 is corroborative by the evidence of PW.2 and contents of Ex.P.1 to 7 which collectively establish the averments of the petition. I am of the opinion that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189 and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased for the occurrence of accident. The rulings relied by the respondent No.1 are not applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, I hold that the petitioners have succeeded to prove this issue and I answer the same in affirmative.
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.2030/201616. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioners are claiming to be the wife, daughters and parents of the deceased Ramesh. The respondent No.1 has denied the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. There is no evidence on behalf of the respondent No.1 to rebut the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioners to prove their relationship with the deceased. PW.1 Saraswathi has deposed that she is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the daughters and the petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Ramesh. The petitioners have produced copy of study certificates of the petitioner No.2 and 3 and copy of ration card to corroborate the evidence of PW.1 which are marked as Ex.P.9 to 11. Name of all the petitioners including the deceased are mentioned in the ration card which indicates that they were residing together. PW.1 has admitted that the petitioner No.4 and 5 are residing in Bengaluru and she and the deceased were residing at Mandya. But, the ration card at Ex.P.11 discloses that all the petitioners were residing with the deceased in Kortagere Village of K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. The deceased was the only earning member of the family. Hence, it can be said that all the petitioners were depending upon his income. The petitioners are the wife, daughters and parents of the deceased. They are LR's and dependents of the deceased. Hence, they are entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased in road traffic accident.
17. PW-1 has deposed that the deceased was aged 30 years, was working as Power loom worker and was earning Rs.15,000/-p.m., The petitioners have produced copy of driving SCCH-14 18 MVC No.2030/2016 license of the deceased which reveals that the deceased was born on 28.08.1987 and was holding driving license to ride a motorcycle with gear with effect from 09.12.2015. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of driving license. He was aged 28 years as per the date of birth mentioned in the said driving license. However, evidence of PW.1 is an admission regarding the age of the deceased. Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 30 years as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier is 17.
18. There is no documentary evidence regarding the occupation and income of the deceased. However, occupation of the petitioner is shown as power loom worker in the FIR with complaint and inquest panchanama. Except bare denials nothing is elicited from PW.1 regarding the occupation of the deceased. Investigating officer has recorded the occupation of the deceased as power loom worker while drawing mahazar. Hence, I hold that the deceased was a power loom worker. The petitioners have not produced pay slips, salary certificate or bank statement of the deceased. In the absence of material evidence, oral testimony of PW.1 regarding income is unacceptable. Under the circumstances, income of the deceased shall have to be assessed notionally. The accident is of the year 2016. The deceased was a power loom worker which indicates that he was a skilled worker. Hence, I am of the opinion that if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.9,000/-p.m., it will meet the ends of justice. His annual income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. There is no evidence to believe that the deceased was getting fixed income regularly. His income is SCCH-14 19 MVC No.2030/2016 assessed notionally. Hence, there shall not be any addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospects. The petitioners are the LR's and dependents of the deceased. They are 5 in numbers. Hence, 1/4th amount shall be deducted from the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. 1/4th of Rs.1,08,000/- comes to Rs.27,000/-. After deduction of said amount, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.81,000/-p.a., The petitioners have lost their dependency. They have lost love and affection and estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There is no documentary evidence regarding the amount spent for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. However, they are entitled for reasonable amount towards said expenses. Loss of dependency of the petitioners would be Rs.81,000 x17 = 13,77,000/-. They are entitled for compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.75,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 is further entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.13,77,000/-
(Rs.81,000 x 17) 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 75,000/- 3 Loss of estate Rs. 75,000/-
4 Transportation and Rs. 30,000/-
funeral expenses 5 Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/-
to the petitioner No.1 TOTAL Rs.15,82,000/-
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.2030/2016Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015 (arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs. Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
19. The respondents are the insurer and owner of lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189. It is held above that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of said lorry. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioners as stated above. The respondent No.1 has denied his liability to indemnify the respondent No.2 on various grounds. He has examined RW.1 and got marked copy of policy at Ex.R.1 to prove his defence, but the said evidence is not sufficient to hold that the driver of insured lorry was not holding a valid and effective licence and the lorry was not having valid FC and permit as on the date of accident, that the respondent No.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Since, the policy was in force, the respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify the respondent No.2 and to compensate the petitioners as above. The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount and proportionate interest as follows:
The petitioner No.1 : Rs.5,82,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.3,50,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5 : Rs.1,50,000/-each Hence, I answer the issue as above.SCCH-14 21 MVC No.2030/2016
20. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under;
The petitioner No.1 : Rs.5,82,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.3,50,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5 : Rs.1,50,000/-each SCCH-14 22 MVC No.2030/2016 After deposit, entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.1, 4 and 5 shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification. Entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their respective names under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or Co-operative bank till they attain majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 18th day of April, 2017.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 23 MVC No.2030/2016
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Saraswathi
PW.2 Nagaraju
Respondent' s
RW.1 M.Vijayakumar
Ex.P1 Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P3 Copy of spot panchanama
Ex.P4 Copy of sketch
Ex.P5 Copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 Copy of Inquest panchanama
Ex.P7 Copy of PM report
Ex.P8 Copy of Driving license
Ex.P9 Copy of study certificate of petitioner No.2
Ex.P10 Copy of study certificate of petitioner No.3
Ex.P11 Ration card
Ex.P12 Aadhar card
Respondent/s
Ex.R.1 Copy of Policy
XVI ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.2030/2016
Dt.18.04.2017
P- VMB
R1- SRM
R2- Exparte
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under;SCCH-14 25 MVC No.2030/2016
The petitioner No.1 : Rs.5,82,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.3,50,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5 : Rs.1,50,000/-each After deposit, entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.1, 4 and 5 shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper identification. Entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their respective names under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or Co-operative bank till they attain majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 26 MVC No.2030/2016
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.2030/2016 Petitioner/s : 1.Saraswathi, W/o Late Ramesh, Aged about 26 years.
2.Baby.R.Vijaylakshmi, D/o Late Ramesh, Aged about 8 years.
3.Baby R.Pooja, D/o late Ramesh, The petitioner No.1 to 3 are Minors Rep.by her mother Natural Guardian Smt.Saraswathi, W/o Ramesh, R/of Koratagere Village, Krishnarajpet Taluk, Mandya - 571 436.
4.Sri.Kenchashetty, S/o Dasappashetty, Aged about 60 years.
5.Smt.Chandramma, W/o Kenchashetty, Aged about 52 years, The petitioner No.3 and 4 are R/of Weavers Colony, Gottigere Bengaluru South, Bengaluru.
V/s (By pleader Sri.V.M.B.) Respondent/s 1.National Insurance Co.Ltd., SCCH-14 27 MVC No.2030/2016 Branch Manager, T.P.Hub, No.144, Shubharam Complex, M.G.Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
(Policy No.651300/31/15/6300004298 Valid form 10.06.2015 to 09.06.2016)
2.M.Subramani, S/o Murugesan, No.5/85, Eest Thottam, Aerthanaripalyam, Nadanthai Post, P.Velur Taluk, Namakkal Dist., Tamil Nadu - 637001.
(RC lorry bearing No.TN-47-V-1189) (R1-By pleader Sri.SRM R2-By pleader -Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a
motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
SCCH-14 28 MVC No.2030/2016ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.15,82,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under;
The petitioner No.1 : Rs.5,82,000/-
The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.3,50,000/- each The petitioner No.4 & 5 : Rs.1,50,000/-each After deposit, entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.1, 4 and 5 shall be released in favour of respective petitioners through account payee cheques with proper SCCH-14 29 MVC No.2030/2016 identification. Entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their respective names under the guardianship of the petitioner No.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or Co-operative bank till they attain majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent 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
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 30 MVC No.2030/2016
SCCH-14 31 MVC No.2030/2016
SCCH-14 32 MVC No.2030/2016
SCCH-14 33 MVC No.2030/2016