Bangalore District Court
Pichakuntla Lakshmamma vs S R K Constructions And Projects Pvt Ltd on 15 January, 2025
SCCH 15 1 MVC No.2223/2021
KABC020159422021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-15
Present : SMT. KUMARI SUJATHA
B.com.L.L.B.,
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
MVC No.2223/2021
Dated : This the 15th day of January, 2025
PETITIONER/S : 1. Smt. Pichakuntla
Lakshmamma
W/o Late P. Venkataiah
Since dead( deleted as per order
dated 12.06.2023)
2. P. Venkateshwari
D/o Late P. Venkataiah
Aged about 24 years,
C/o P. Lingam
3. Pichikuntla Swathi
D/o Late P. Venkataiah
Aged about 22 years,
4. P. Dipika
D/o Late P. Venkataiah
SCCH 15 2 MVC No.2223/2021
Aged about 19 years,
All are residing at No.146,
2nd Cross, Vinayaka Layout,
Varthur, Bengaluru-560 087.
The 2nd Petitioner is permanent
resident of No.1-39, Kandivanam
Farooq Nagar Mandal, Mogalgidda
Mahabubnagar,
Telangana-509410
The Petitioner 1, 3 and 4 are the
permanent residents of No.3/71/1,
Machanpalli, Mahabubnagar
Mandal & District,
Andhra Pradesh-509 204
(By Sri. M. Bheema Reddy, Adv.)
Vs
RESPONDENT/S: 1.M/s. S.R.K. Constructions and
Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
R/by S. Ravi Kumar
Door No.1/493, Smith Road
Nagarajpet, Kadapa,
Kadapa District,
Andhra Pradesh-516 001.
(R.C. owner of Bolero vehicle bearing
Reg. No.AP-04-AY-9722)
(Exparte)
2. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
R/by its Manager
Regional office,
No.144, Subharam Complex,
SCCH 15 3 MVC No.2223/2021
M.G. Road, Bengaluru.
(Insurer of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.
No.AP-04-AY-9722)
(Policy No.556016312010000343
Valid from 07.08.2020 to 06.08.2021)
(By Sri S.R. Murthy, Adv.)
3. M. Vamsik Krishna
S/o. Mandala Shankara,
Aged major,
Residing at No.9-104-2,
Penmchupadu Road, Madanapalli,
Chitoor District, Andhra Pradesh.
(R.C. owner of the Bolero bearing
Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008)
(By Sri B. Subramanyam, Adv.)
4. United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Regional office,
T.P. Hub 5th and 6th Floors,
Nrupathunga Road,
Krishi Bhavan Building,
Hudson Circle, Bengaluru.
(Insurer of the Bolero bearing Reg.
No.AP-03-TG-0008)
(By Sri K. Sathyish Kumaar, Adv.)
SCCH 15 4 MVC No.2223/2021
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioners against Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- for the death of Sri. P. Venkataiah S/o Late P. Ramulu in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition are as under:
That on 27.04.2021 at about 7.20 p.m., when the father of the Petitioner No.2 to 4 by name Sri. P. Venkataiah was travelling as inmate in the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP- 04-AY-9722 which was driven by one B. Srinivasulu on Punganur-Madanapalle High way Road, near Bheemaganipalle Byepass cross at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and thereby both vehicles bearing Reg. No.AP-04-AY- 9722 and AP-03-TG-0008 dashed each other. Due to the said impact, P. Venkataiah had sustained severe bleeding injuries on his chest and died on the spot.
Thereafter, the Post Mortem was conducted at P.H.C. SCCH 15 5 MVC No.2223/2021 Punganur and the dead body was handed over to the Petitioners. The Petitioners had spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies.
Prior to the date of the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was doing Coolie work and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Petitioners were entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. The Respondent No.1 is the R.C. owner and the Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 and the Respondent No.3 is the RC owner and Respondent No.4 is the Insurer of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-03-TG- 0008. Therefore, all the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 to 4 had appeared before the Court through their Counsels and Respondent No.2 and 4 filed their Objection Statements to the main petition. But, Respondent No.3 did not SCCH 15 6 MVC No.2223/2021 choose to file Objection Statement.
The Respondent No.2 in its Objection Statement denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-04-AY-9722 and also the death of the P. Venkataiah due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Further it contended that, the Respondent No.1/insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and entrusted his vehicle to the driver who did not possess valid and effective D L at the time of alleged accident. Further it contended that the driver of the Bolero bearing Reg. No.AP-03- TG-0008 was responsible for the accident. Further it contended that it has issued Act Policy (Private car - liability only) and it has not taken premium to cover the risk of occupant / inmate / passenger / transporting employees and therefore it is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. On these grounds, the Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
SCCH 15 7 MVC No.2223/2021 The Respondent No.4 in its Objection Statement denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No.AP-03-TG-0008 and also the death of P. Venkataiah due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. Further it contended that the said accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 and therefore it is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. On these grounds, the Respondent No.4 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, this Tribunal has framed the following Issues:
ISSUES
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that Sri. P. Venkataiah S/o Late P. Ramulu was died in the Road Traffic Accident which occurred on 27.04.2021 at about 7.20 p.m., near Bheemaganipalle Bypass cross turning, SCCH 15 8 MVC No.2223/2021 Punganur Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of Bolero vehicles bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 and bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008?
2) Whether the Petitioners further prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased P. Venkataiah S/o Late P. Ramulu?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4) What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 16 documents at Ex.P.1 to 16. On the other hand, Respondent No.4 has examined one witness as RW.1 and got marked one document at Ex.R1 and closed its side evidence. Further the Respondent No.2 has examined one witness as RW.2 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.R2 and 3 and closed its side evidence.
SCCH 15 9 MVC No.2223/2021
6. Having heard Arguments by both sides and upon perusal of the Written arguments of the Respondent No.2 and depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.4 : As per the Final Order for the following :
REASONS
7. Issue No.1: It is the case of the Petitioners that the father of the Petitioner No.2 to 4 by name Venkataiah was died in the road traffic accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the offending Bolero vehicles bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 and Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008.
8. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 and 4 had denied the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the Bolero vehicles bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY- 9722 and Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008.
SCCH 15 10 MVC No.2223/2021
9. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.2 got examined herself as PW.1 and she has filed her chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and re-iterated the averments made in the petition.
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P18. Ex.P-1 and 2, 2(a) are the True copies of FIR and Complaint which shows that on the Complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased by name Pichigantla Lakshmamma W/o Late Venkataiah, the Punganur Urban Police have registered the case against the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P.3 & 3(a) are the Spot mahazar which shows that the concerned police had drawn mahazar at the spot in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.4 is the IMV report which shows that the said accident does not occurred due to any mechanical defects of vehicle. Ex.P5 is the copy of PM report which shows the cause of death is due to right side ribs fracture with Haemothorax leading to Cardio SCCH 15 11 MVC No.2223/2021 Respiratory arrest. Ex.P6 is the Inquest Mahazar of the deceased. Ex.P-7 is the true copy of the Charge-Sheet which shows that the I.O of the Punganur Urban Police Station has submitted Charge-sheet against the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 for the offences punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P8 to 11 are the Aadhaar cards of the Petitioners and the deceased. Ex.P12 & 13 are the Death Certificates. Ex.P14 to 16 are the PAN cards.
11. P.W.1 is subjected for cross-examination by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and 4. In the cross- examination, PW.1 deposed that she did not personally witnessed the accident. To rebut the evidence of PW.1, the Respondent No.4 got examined Administrative Officer by name Sri N.G. Prashanth as RW.1 and he got marked one document at Ex.R.1. The Respondent No.2 has examined its Assistant Manager by name Himendra Kartantik Simha as RW.2 and got marked two documents at Ex.R2 and 3. In the cross- examination RW.1 admitted that the policy of the offending SCCH 15 12 MVC No.2223/2021 Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 was valid at the time of accident and the driver of the offending vehicle also holds valid Driving license. Further he admitted that as per the Complaint, two vehicles were involved in the said accident. But, he denied the said accident was occurred by head on collusion and the said accident was occurred in the middle of the road. He denied the other suggestions. RW.2 has deposed in his cross-examination that his insured vehicle holds Liability Only Policy and they issued the policy which the insured proposed for their vehicle.
12. Upon going through the police records it clearly shows that after thorough investigation the I.O has Charge-sheeted the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY- 9722 for the offence punishable under Sec.304A of IPC. The driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008 was not Charge-sheeted for the offences. Though, the Petitioners have contended that said accident was occurred by head on collusion and there is contributory negligence by the driver of SCCH 15 13 MVC No.2223/2021 the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008, the entire materials available on record does not supports the said fact. Further, PW.1 admitted in her cross-examination that she did not personally witnessed the accident and Ex.P7 - Charge-sheet also filed against the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY- 9722. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by the Petitioners and documents exhibited, the alleged accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 and in the said accident, their father was succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 is "Partly in the Affirmative."
13. Issue No.2 and 3: Both these Issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of facts.
14. Initially the wife of the deceased by name Smt. Pichakuntla Lakshmamma was shown as Petitioner No.1 in this SCCH 15 14 MVC No.2223/2021 claim petition. Subsequently, on her death, she was deleted from the caused title. The Petitioner No.2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased Sri. Venkataiah. PW.1 has produced Aadhaar cards of the Petitioner No.2 to 4 and the deceased at Ex.P.8 to
11.
15. The PW.1 in her cross-examination admitted that herself and other Petitioners were residing in their husbands house. Further she admitted that she and Petitioner No.3 and 4 also doing coolie. Hence, it is clear that the Petitioners are not dependent on the income of the deceased. But, the Petitioners being the children of deceased have a right to apply for compensation and it would be bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the Application irrespective of the fact, whether concerned legal representatives were fully dependent on the deceased and not, to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. As the Petitioners are the LRs of deceased Sri. Venkataiah and also they have proved that the death of the Sri. Venkataiah has been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver SCCH 15 15 MVC No.2223/2021 of the offending vehicle, they entitled for the compensation.
16. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 49 years and he was working as a Coolie and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. PW.1 has produced Ex.P.11 i.e., the Aadhaar Card of the deceased Sri. Venkataiah which shows his date of birth was 20.06.1972. The alleged accident has been occurred on 17.10.2022. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Sri. Venkataiah was 50 years, 03 months and 27 days. Hence, the age of the deceased Sri. Venkataiah to be taken at 51 years for the purpose of assessment.
17. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, SCCH 15 16 MVC No.2223/2021 COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
18. The deceased has left behind her, her daughters. The Petitioner No.2 to 4 are the married daughters of the deceased. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has pleased to observed that: "Loss of estate has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 15,000/-, loss of consortium should be Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/-". It is further observed that the aforesaid Judgment amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. The said Judgment was rendered on 30.10.2017. By applying the said observation made in the aforesaid case, since, more than 6 years lapsed from the date of Order, the consortium fixed in the said case should be enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.48,400/-. Further, the loss of estate and funeral expenses also extended to Rs.18,150/- each.
SCCH 15 17 MVC No.2223/2021
19. As this Court has already observed that the Petitioner No.2 to 4 are the married daughters of deceased, they are entitled for a sum of Rupees 48,400/- each towards loss of consortium and Rupees 18,150/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 18,150/- towards funeral expenses.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
20. The Petitioner No.2 to 4 being the daughters of deceased, they lost their father's love and care. Bearing in mind the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
21. The Petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. Hence, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- under SCCH 15 18 MVC No.2223/2021 this head would be just and reasonable.
VI. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
22. As per the discussion made above, the Petitioners are the majors and the Petitioner No.2 to 4 are married and they are residing in their husbands house and also doing coolie work, they are not the dependents of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are not entitled for any compensation under this head.
23. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs.1,45,200/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000/-
of dead body
6. Loss of Dependency -
SCCH 15 19 MVC No.2223/2021
Total Rs.2,36,500/-
Thus, totally the Petitioner No.2 to 4 are awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,500/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
24. Regarding Liability : This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722.
The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 has relied on the following decision:
1. 2008 ACJ 2045 SC, between Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Sudhakaran K.V
2. 2006 ACJ 1441 (SC), between United India Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Tilak Singh SCCH 15 20 MVC No.2223/2021
3. 2022 ACJ 19 Srinagar, between National Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Jamal Master & others.
4. 2022 AJ 339 Madras, between New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Vs Jamal Master & others,
5. 2022 ACJ 571 Ernakulam, between Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs v. Thilakan & another
6. 2023 ACJ 1098 Ahmedabad, between HDFC Ergo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs Sharmilaben Gopalbhai Vasav & others 7.2023 ACJ 1147, between S. Vijayalakshmi & others Vs. Ashok Brothers implex Ltd.,
8. 2023 ACJ 2569 Karnataka, between United India Co. Ltd., Vs. Shravankumar & others.
9. 2024 ACJ 1000 Cuttack, between New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Monaka Sahoo & others.
10. 2024 ACJ 1143 Karnataka, between Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Mahadevappa & others SCCH 15 21 MVC No.2223/2021
11. 2024 ACJ 1356 Gauhati, between Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Lakhimal Teronpi & others.
25. I have gone through the decisions. It is the main contention of the Respondent No.2 that it has issued Act Policy and (Private car - liability) only to the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 and it has not taken premium to cover the risk of occupant / inmates of the Bolero vehicle. Further it is the main contention of the Respondent No.2 that it received additional premium of Rs.50 for person towards legal liability to paid driver / or conductor and / or cleaner employed in connection with the operation of insured vehicle. Therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 being the owner of the said Bolero vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. In the decision reported in 2023 ACJ 2569, Karnataka between United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Shravankumar and others wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has pleased to observed as under:
SCCH 15 22 MVC No.2223/2021 "Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147 (1) - Motor insurance - Act policy - Private vehicle - passenger risk - liability of insurance company - insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that offending jeep was insured under Act policy and risk of the deceased travelling in jeep as fare paying passenger was not covered - jeep was insured under 'private car liability only policy' covering risk of third party and an additional premium was paid to cover risk of one employee and does not cover risk of passengers - Whether Tribunal erred in holding that since jeep was insured insurance company is liable to pay compensation- Held: yes; owner is solely liable."
26. In the instant case also the deceased Venkataiah was proceeding in the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 as a inmate. As per Ex.R3 the policy which was issued to the said vehicle shown as Private car / Liability Only Policy and therefore it is clear that the offending Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 having insurance of Act Policy and the deceased was travelling as a occupant / inmate / passenger who is not covered under the said policy. Therefore, the risk of the inmate/occupant of the said car was not covered. Therefore, the Respondent No.2 being the insurer is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 being the owner of the said Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-04-AY-9722 is liable to pay compensation to SCCH 15 23 MVC No.2223/2021 the Petitioners. Since, the Petitioners have failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the another Bolero vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TG-0008, the petition against the Respondent No.3 and 4 is also liable to be dismissed against them. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 and 3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
27. Issue No.4: From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner No.2 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,36,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent No.1 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondent No.2 to 4 is hereby dismissed.
SCCH 15 24 MVC No.2223/2021 The Petitioner No.2 to 4 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,36,500/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 being the owner, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
The compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.2 to 4 are apportioned among them are as shown below:1) 33% each to the Petitioner No.2 and 3
2) 34% to the Petitioner No.4 Since, the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.2 to 4 is meager, the entire amount awarded to Petitioner No.2 to 4 shall be released to them by way of E-
SCCH 15 25 MVC No.2223/2021
payment and after their proper
identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 15th day of January, 2025) (Smt. Kumari Sujatha.) XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge, ACJM,Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 Smt. P. Venkateshwari Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.2(a) English translated copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 Spot mahazar Ex.P.3(a) English translated copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 IMV report SCCH 15 26 MVC No.2223/2021 Ex.P.5 PM report Ex.P.6 Inquest mahazar Ex.P6(a) Translated copy of Inquest mahazar Ex.P.7 Charge sheet Ex.P.8 to 11 Aadhaar cards Ex.P12 & 13 Death certificates Ex.P14 to 16 PAN cards
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Sri. N.G. Prashanth RW.2 : Sri. Himendra Kartantik Simha M.N
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Authorization letter
Ex.R3 : Copy of Policy
(Smt. Kumari Sujatha.)
XIII Addl. Small Causes Judge,
ACJM,Court of Small Causes &
Member, MACT-15, Bengaluru.