Bangalore District Court
) Sri.M.Mallesh vs ) M/S. Reliance General Insurance on 2 March, 2016
1 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 02nd DAY OF MARCH 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, ., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.3486/2015
Petitioners: 1) Sri.M.Mallesh,
S/o. Late Mallegowda,
Aged about 63 years,
2) Smt. Sukanya,
W/o. M.Mallesh,
Aged about 50 years,
3) Sri. N.M.Kiran Kumar,
S/o. M.Mallesh,
Aged about 32 years,
4) Ms. Pavithra N.M.,
D/o. M.Mallesh,
Aged about 29 years,
All resident of
No.149, MIG-2,
KHB Colony, G-1,
Hootagalli, Mysore Dist.
Presently residing at
K.Gollahalli, Kengeri, Bangalore
(By Sri. R.Lakshmana, Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1) M/s. Reliance General Insurance
2 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
Co., Ltd.,
By its Manager,
No.28, Centenary Building,
5th Floor, M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 11
(Policy No.9202542311032217
Valid from 02.09.2014 to
30.10.2015)
(Insurer of Maruthi Ritz Car
bearing Reg.No. KA-53-P-0351)
(By B.C.Shivannegowda, Advocate)
2) Sri.Lohith Kumar B.M.,
S/o. Late Y.O.Manjunath,
No.78, 1st Floor, 8th Main,
Doddabettahalli layout,
Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore - 71
(Owner of Maruthi Ritz Car
bearing Reg.No. KA-53/P-0351)
3) Sri. Rangaiah,
S/o. Late Halli Rangappa,
Badavanahalli village,
Dodderi Hobli, Madugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District
(Owner of Tractor and Trailer
bearing Reg. No.KA-06/TA-3254,
KA-06-TA-3255)
******
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 163-A of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the 3 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 respondents with regard to the death of N.M.Harish in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are:
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 01.12.2014 at about 08.20 p.m. when the deceased was driving the Maruthi Ritz Car bearing Reg.No. KA-53-P-0351 along with inmates on Sira-Tumkur Road, NH-48, Nelahal Circle, Tumkur Dist., with due care and caution, at that time, the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No.KA-06/TA-3254, KA-06/TA-3255 came from Tumkur side in a rash and negligent manner and took right U-Turn without any indicator or signal. Due to the impact, the driver of the car dashed to the Tractor, as a result the deceased Harish having sustained grievous injuries all over the body, died on the spot. Immediately after the accident deceased was shifted to Govt. hospital, Tumkur, wherein post mortem was conducted.
3. It is contended by the petitioners that, they have spent Rs.2,00,000/- for medical expenses, 4 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 funeral and obsequies ceremony, transportation and other incidental expenses. Due to the sudden and sad demise of the deceased, the Petitioners have gone into deep mental shock, pain and sufferings.
4. It is further contended that, the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as an employee under private company and was earning Rs.3,300/- p.m. and totally 40,000/- per year and he was contributing his entire income to his family. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the Petitioners life has become miserable. The Petitioners have lost their beloved son and sole earning member of the family.
5. Further petitioners have contended that, the Kora police have registered a case regarding the accident under Section 279, 337, 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent being the insurer, 2nd respondent being the owner of the offending car and 3rd respondent being the owner of the tractor and trailor, all are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
6. In pursuance of this claim petition, this Court issued notice against all the respondents. In response to the same, the respondent No.2 and 3 remained exparte. The Respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement. In the statement of objections, the respondent No.1 has denied all the petition averments and further contended that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 1st respondent admits the insurance policy of the Car No.KA.53/P.351 issued in favour of the 2nd respondent and it is contended that the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further contended that, owner of the car has to prove that the said vehicle was having valid vehicular documents such as R.C book, and the driver of the car was having valid and effective driving licence.
7. It is further contended that, the owner of the vehicle has willfully entrusted the said car to a person who had no valid and effective driving license to drive 6 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 the same on the date of the accident. Hence there is a breach of violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the respondent No.1 has put the petitioners to strict proof the allegations that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident that occurred on 01.12.2014 at about 08.20 pm., involving the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA.06/T.3254/3255 and the car bearing No.KA.53/P.351 and that the deceased was aged about 27 years at the time of the accident and he was working in a private company and earning sum of Rs.3,300/- per month and that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased and that they have spent an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of the dead body, funeral and obsequies and other expenses.
9. The respondent No.1 has denied the averments in para No.22 of the claim petition. It is 7 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 contended that the accident in question was not due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased may be true. Further it may be true that the car was driven by the deceased very carefully by observing the traffic rules and regulations and that the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by its driver, who drew the same without having any licence to drive the same and while taking U turn on the highway, without any indication and without following the traffic rules and regulation, caused the accident. It is contended that as per the Police records ie., the deceased was also charge sheeted for the negligent driving of the insured car and hence for the negligence of the deceased, the present petition is not maintainable against this respondent.
10. It is contended that as per the police documents and as per the owner of the car, it is clear that the deceased was not a workman with the insured and further there is no employer and employee relationship between the 2nd respondent and the 8 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 deceased and as per the police records, it is clear that the deceased was working as an Engineer in Crystal Global Company Ltd., and further as per the statement of the 2nd respondent, it is clear that the deceased was working as an Engineer and therefore his income is more than Rs.40,000/- per annum and therefore, the petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the MV Act and further, for the negligence of the deceased, the petitioners cannot maintain the claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act
11. It is further contended that, the claim made by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant and the same is against the principle of computation of damages. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
12. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to the injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 01.12.2014 at about 08.20 pm., on Sira- Tumkur Road, NH-48, Nelahal Circle, 9 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 Tumkur District, within the jurisdiction of Kora Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration Nos.KA.06/TA.3254 and KA.06/TA.3255 by its driver?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 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?
13. Since the petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act and since as per Section 163-A(2) of the MV Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person and it is suffice if the petitioners prove the involvement of the vehicles in the accident and since having noticed that the issue No.1 and 2 are framed as if the petition is filed under Section 166 of the MV Act, hence, issue No.1 and 2 are clubbed and recasted as under:
10 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 01.12.2014 at about 08.20 pm., on Sira-Tumkur Road, NH-48, Nelahal Circle, Tumkur District, within the jurisdiction of Kora Police Station involving Tractor and Trailer bearing registration Nos.KA.06/TA.3254 and KA.06/TA.3255 and Car No.KA.53/P.351?
2) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3) What order?
14. In order to prove their claim, the second petitioner has been examined as PW-1 and through her evidence, Exhibits P.1 to P.21 were got marked. On the other hand respondent No.1 has examined its Manager-Legal as RW.1 and he got marked the document Ex.R1-the Insurance Policy.
15. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioners and that of the respondent No.1.
16. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:
1) 2013 ACJ 1253 SC
2) ILR 2008 KAR 959 11 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
3) ILR 2008 KAR 1249
4) 2009 ACJ 696
5) 2014 ACJ 1095
6) 2003 ACJ 2033
7) ILR 2008 KAR 996
8) 2009 ACJ 1298 SC
9) 2004 ACJ 934
10) 2006 ACJ 229
11) 2008 ACJ 594
12) 2006 ACJ 2347
17. I have given my anxious consideration to the principles laid down in the said judgments.
18. Based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative Issue No.2 ... Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3 ... As per final order For the following:
REASONS
19. Issue No.1- The petitioners have invoked Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Under 12 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 such circumstances, petitioners need not prove the fact of negligence, it is suffice, if they are able to prove the occurrence of the accident involving the car No.KA.53/P.0351 and Tractor and Trailer No.KA.06/TA-3254 & 3255, resulting in the death of Harish.
20. The second petitioner has been examined as PW 1, and in her evidence, she has spoken about the involvement of the car No.KA.53/P.0351 and Tractor and Trailer No.KA.06/TA-3254 & 3255 and also about the manner in which the accident occurred, resulting in the death of Harish in the said accident. She has been cross-examined by the counsel for the respondent No.1 wherein, it is elicited from her that her son was driving the car and it belongs to her son's friend. She says that she came to know that four persons were traveling in the car and the Police have filed charge sheet against her son also. She reiterates that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of her son. She admits that the accident has taken place in the night and her son and his friends were returning 13 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 after attending the marriage. It is suggested to her that her son was under the influence of alcohol and was driving the car and the said suggestion has been denied by her. She says that her son has taken the car from Lohith Kumar. She says that she did not enquire the persons who have witnessed the accident, but Police have registered a case against the driver of the tractor and trailer who came across the car.
21. In the cross-examination of PW 1, though questions were put to her as above and answers are elicited accordingly, but, it has to be noted that she is not an eye-witness to the accident and therefore, her evidence cannot be given weightage so far as involvement of the car No.KA.53/P.0351 and Tractor and Trailer No.KA.06/TA-3254 & 3255 in the accident, as spoken by PW 1 is concerned.
22. However, the petitioners have produced police documents in an attempt to establish the involvement of the above vehicles in the accident, wherein Harish died. Ex.P.1 is the FIR registered against the driver of 14 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 the KAR No.53/P.351 and the driver of the Tractor and Trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254-3255 for offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the IPC. Ex.P.2 is the Spot Mahazar drawn by the Police during the course of investigation, Ex.P.3 is the Spot Sketch which shows the spot of the accident. Ex.P.4 is the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, which discloses the damage caused to both the vehicles in the accident. Ex.P.5 is the Inquest Mahazar. Ex.P.6 is the Post Mortem Report, which says that the death of Harish is on account of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. Ex.P.7 is the charge sheet filed against the driver of the Tractor-Trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254-3255 and the Car No.KA.53/P.351 under Section 279, 337, 304(A) of the IPC and Section 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, after investigation. The contents of these documents clearly and unimpeachably reveal that on 01.12.2014, at about 08.20 pm, at Nelhal Circle, Tumkur-Sira Road, NH 48, an accident occurred between Tractor-Trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254-3255 and the Car No.KA.53/P.351 which was driven by 15 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 deceased Harish and in the accident, Harish having suffered grievous injuries, succumbed to the same at the spot. Thus, it can be said that the petitioners have successfully proved the occurrence of accident involving the Tractor-Trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254-3255 and the Car No.KA.53/P.351 on the relevant date, time and place, in which Harish having sustained grievous injuries, succumbed to the same. The respondent No.1 though examined one of its Officers as RW 1, who in his evidence, reiterated that the charge sheet is filed jointly against the deceased, along with the driver of the Tractor and Trailer and further contended that the deceased is also responsible and architect for the accident, but as discussed above, since this petition is filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the fact of negligence cannot be looked into and it is only the involvement of the vehicles in the accident, which is relevant to be examined and as discussed above, the petitioners by production of police records, have successfully established the same. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
16 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
23. Issue No.2:- The petitioners have claimed a total compensation of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents on account of death of Harish in the accident.
24. The counsel for the petitioners, during the course of his arguments, has relied upon the following judgments :
2013 ACJ 1253 (Reshma Kumari and others Vs. Madan Mohan and another) "Where age of deceased is upto 15 years, multiplier of 15 and assessment as indicated in Second Schedule subject to correction pointed out in column (6) of Table prepare in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), should be followed - held as yes.
ILR 2008 Karnataka 959 (National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Honnappa and Others) "When two motor vehicles were involved in the accident due to which claimant sustained injuries, in such a situation, the claim under Sec.163-A of the Act is permissible, no matter, the driver or the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, may dispute his negligence in the matter - hence, the Tribunal has not committed any error in entertaining the petition under Sec.163-A of the Act."
2014 ACJ 1095 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Babita Devi and others) "Claim application - Maintainability of - negligence of victim - Death of driver of van when 17 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 vehicle met with accident due to mechanical snag in the vehicle - Claimants filed claim application under section 163-A and Tribunal awarded compensation - Insurance Co., contended that since the deceased was driving the vehicle, therefore for his own negligence the Insurance Co., cannot be held liable to pay compensation - Negligence has no relevance in deciding the claim application filed under section 163- A- Held as Yes."
2003 ACJ 2033 (National Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Malathi C. Salian) "Whether claim under section 163-A can be defeated by Insurance Co., on the ground that death or permanent disablement has occurred due to wrongful act, neglect or default on the part of the deceased or the disabled person - Held as No - insurance company is statutorily obliged to discharge the liability under the structured formula." 2008 ACJ 594 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Saroj and others) "Maintainability of - Income claimed to be more than Rs.40,000/- p.a. - Claimants claimed income of the deceased as more than Rs.40,000/- p.a. but the Tribunal assessed income at Rs.24,000/- p.a. for computation of compensation
- Whether claim application under section 163-A is maintainable - Held as yes-making claim on the basis of higher income does not disqualify the claimants to lay a claim under section 163-A."
and contended that even though the deceased is unmarried, it is age of the deceased, which is relevant to chose multiplier. Further contended that though the 18 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 respondent No.1 has contended that the deceased is the architect and liable for the accident, but, this being a petition filed under Section 163-A of the MV Act, the said fact has no relevance. The Counsel for the petitioners further contended that even though the deceased was getting handsome salary, it is the choice of the petitioners as to the provision under which they want to file claim petition.
25. In the background of the above contentions raised by the petitioners' Counsel and the principles laid down in the above judgments, let me consider the case of the petitioners.
26. It is the case of petitioners that petitioners 1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is the sister of Harish and that the deceased Harish was aged 27 years and working in a private company and earning Rs.3,330/- per month and totally, Rs.40,000/- per annum and maintaining the family.
19 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
27. So far as the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased Harish is concerned, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.15 - Copy of the Ration Card and also produced Ex.P.14 - Family Tree and on perusal of the contents of the same, they reiterate the relationship stated by the petitioners with the deceased. Since there is no contrary evidence nor rival claim, for the purpose of this petition, it can be held that petitioners are the LRs of deceased Harish and he is survived only by them.
28. In order to determine the compensation in a death case, the age, avocation and income of the deceased are the relevant factors for consideration.
29. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.11 copy of SSLC Marks Card of the deceased, which reveals the date of birth of the deceased as 18.06.1988 and the accident having occurred on 01.12.2014, the deceased was running 27 years at the time of accident, as contended by the petitioners.
20 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
30. As far as avocation and income of the deceased is concerned, though the petitioners stated that the deceased Harish was working in a private company and earning Rs.40,000/- per annum, the same is not supported by any documentary evidence, nor the employer of the deceased is examined. However, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 - Diploma Marks Card of the deceased and the petitioners have also produced Ex.P.13 - Training Certificate. These documents reveal that the deceased completed Diploma in Tool and Die Making in the year 2007 and also under gone training in the said trade. Further, the petitioners have also produced Ex.9 - Copy of the Driving Licence of the deceased, which shows that the deceased was holding licence to drive MCWG from 16.12.2006 and LMV from 03.07.2009. Such being the case, even though the petitioners have not pleaded about the company in which the deceased was working or the quantum of income derived by him from such occupation, if I take the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum, it will meet the 21 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 ends of justice, since as stated above, the deceased was a Diploma Holder in Tool and Die Making, the said income cannot said to be exaggerated or unacceptable. The respondent No.1 has contended that since the deceased was working as an Engineer, he was earning morethan Rs.40,000/- per annum, and therefore, the petition is not maintainable under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The said contention of the respondent No.1 cannot be accepted, first of all, for the reason that the respondent No.1 has not produced any document to substantiate the same and secondly, there is no bar to restrict the income to avail the benefit of Section 163-A of the MV Act, since the Motor Vehicles Act being a social legislation. It appears that the petitioners have restricted the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/- per annum in order to bring the petition within the purview of Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, or otherwise, a person holding Diploma in Tool and Die Making would have earned more than that. Accordingly, I take the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/- per annum.
22 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
31. 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 a Diploma Holder in Tool and Die Making 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.2,000/- and thus the total (present income plus loss of future prospects) works out to Rs.6,000/-.
32. Regarding the deduction to be made towards personal expenses of the deceased, it appears that the deceased was a bachelor. Therefore, I deem it just and proper to deduct 50% out of his income towards his personal expenses, had he been alive. If that be so, the loss of monthly dependency comes to Rs.3,000/- (6,000 divided by 2) and annually it comes to Rs.36,000/-.
23 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
32. 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.6,12,000/- , to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
34. 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. 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. 24 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
35. As per II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in case of death, towards funeral expenses Rs.2000/- can be awarded. Likewise, towards loss of estate, an amount of Rs.2,500/- can be awarded. Accordingly, I award Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/-towards loss of estate.
36. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs .
1 Loss of dependency 6,12,000.00
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 2,000.00
funeral and ritual expenses
4 Loss of estate 2,500.00
Total 7,16,500.00
37. Regarding the liability to pay compensation amount is concerned, while answering issue No.1, it is held that the accident has occurred involving the Tractor-Trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254-3255 and the Car No.KA.53/P.351 and the respondent No.1 and 2 being 25 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 the insurer and owner of the car No.KA.53/P.351 and the respondent No.3 being the owner of the Tractor-
Trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254-3255, are liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners jointly and severally.
38. It is the contention of the respondent No.1 that the interest on the compensation amount has to be awarded at the rate of Rs.6% only. But in the 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 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.
39. As far as apportion of compensation amount is concerned, as discussed above, petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner 26 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 No.3 is the brother and the petitioner No.4 is the sister of the deceased. The petitioner No.3 and 4 are aged 32 years and 29 years respectively. Furthermore, the petitioner No.4 is already married and though petitioner No.1-PW 1 says that the petitioner No.4 is a divorcee, but no material is placed to substantiate the same and also to show that she was dependant on the income of the deceased and therefore, petitioner No.3 and 4 cannot be treated as a dependant members on the deceased. They can only be awarded Rs.50,000/- each, out of the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. Therefore, the compensation amount has to be apportioned amongst the petitioners in the following manner:-
1) Petitioner No.1 - Father- 50% (Out of Rs.6,16,500/-)
2) Petitioner No.2 - Mother- 50%(Out of Rs.6,16,500/-)
3) Petitioner No.3 - Brother - Rs.50,000/- (Out of Rs.7,16,500/-)
27 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15
4) Petitioner No.4 - Brother - Rs.50,000/- (Out of Rs.7,16,500/-) Accordingly, issue No. 3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
40. 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.7,16,500/- from the respondent No.1 to 3 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 being the insurer of respondent No.2, shall indemnify the respondent No.2 and thus, the respondent No.1 as insurer of the Car No.KA.53/P.351 and the respondent No.3 being the owner of the tractor and trailer No.KA.06/TA.3254- 3255, shall jointly pay the compensation amount to the petitioners as stated above within 3 months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
1) Petitioner No.1 - Father - 50% (Out of Rs.6,16,500/-)
2) Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 50% (Out of Rs.6,16,500/-)
3) Petitioner No.3 - Brother - Rs.50,000/- (Out of Rs.7,16,500/-)
4) Petitioner No.4 - Brother - Rs.50,000/- (Out of Rs.7,16,500/-) 28 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2, 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 her So far as compensation amount apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1, 3 and 4 are concerned, entire amount along with accrued interest, is ordered to be released to the respective petitioners.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 2nd day of March'2016) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1: Smt.Sukanya Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1: H.B.Guruprasad Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
29 SCCH-1 MVC.No.3486/15 Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P-2 : Mahazar Ex.P-3 : Sketch Ex.P-4 : IMV Report Ex.P-5 : Inquest Report Ex.P-6 : PM Report Ex.P-7 : Charge Sheet Ex.P-8 : Driving Licence Extract Ex.P-9 : Police Acknowledgement Ex.P-10 : Copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.11 : Copy of SSLC Marks Card Ex.P.12 : Copy of Diploma Marks Card Ex.P.13 : Copy of Training Certificate Ex.P.14 : Geneological tree Ex.P.15 : Copy of Ration Card Ex.P.16 : Copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.17 : Copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.18 : Coy of ID Card Ex.P.19 : Copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P.20 : Copy of Election ID Card Ex.P-21 : Copy of Election ID Card Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R-1 : Policy Copy
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore