Bangalore District Court
Kavitha vs National Ins Co Ltd on 30 October, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.2151/2023
KABC020096662023
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 30th day of October, 2024
Present : SRI. D.RAMESH.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.2151/2023
Petitioner: 1.Kavitha,
W/o Jagadish,
Aged 40 years.
2.Jagadish,
S/o Late Rangegowda,
Aged about 47 years.
3.Vikas Kumar.H.J.
S/o Jagadish,
Aged about 19 years.
4.Eramma,
W/o Late Rangegowda,
SCCH-14 2 MVC.2151/2023
Aged about 70 years.
All are residing at:
Hosakere Village,
Jammanahalli Post,
Belagodu Hobli,
Sakaleshapura Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 214.
(By Sri.Ashok Kumar.S.R, Adv)
Vs.
Respondents : 1.National Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep.by its Regional Manager,
Regional Office at No.144,
2nd floor, Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
Insurer of Hyundai Grand I-10 car
bearing No.KA-51-MA-7242
Valid from 21.12.2022 to 20.12.2023
Policy No.60490031226160003428.
(By Smt.Pankaja.B.C, Adv)
2.Karthik.H.U,
S/o Umesh H.P.
Aged in major,
Shiradahalli Village,
Heggadde Hobli,
Sakaleshapura Taluk,
Hassan District - 573 134.
(Vehicle Owner)
(Exparte)
[
3.Srikantha.C.A.
S/o Annegowda,
SCCH-14 3 MVC.2151/2023
Aged in Major,
Pump House Street,
Behind Post Office,
Channapatna, Hassan - 573201.
(Insurance Policy Holder)
(By Sri.Puneethraju.D.R, Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of Vinod Kumar.J S/o Jagadish in the Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 13-03-2023 at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased Vinod Kumar.J was riding his Hero Honda bike bearing No.KA-13-S-
9851 from Hassan to Hosakere. While he was going after Holethimmanahalli towards Aluru near Mavanuru, at that time, the driver of Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing No.KA-51- MA-7242 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike. Due to the said accident, Vinod Kumar fell down along with bike and died on the spot because of grievous SCCH-14 4 MVC.2151/2023 injuries to his head and whole body.
Prior to the accident, said Vinod Kumar.J was hale and healthy and he was working as Zomato food delivery boy and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. Entire family of the deceased was depending on the income of the deceased.
The cause of death is due to accidental injuries. The said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing Reg.No.KA-51- MA-7242. The Respondent No.1 is the insurer, respondent No.2 is the owner and the Respondent No.3 is the policy holder of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MA-7242.
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, the Respondent No.1 and 3 appeared before the Court through their respective counsels. Respondent No.2 remained absence, hence placed exparte. Respondent No.1 alone filed its detailed objections.
SCCH-14 5 MVC.2151/2023
Respondent No.1 in the Objection Statement to the main petition 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 Hyundai Grand I-10 car. Further, it admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MA-7242 Further it contended that the driver of vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further contended that the owner of the vehicle knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Further it contended that owner of the insured car has not intimated the alleged accident to this respondent and there is violation of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act of Motor Vehicles Act. On these grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following Issues are framed:
SCCH-14 6 MVC.2151/2023
ISSUES
1.Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that Vinod Kumar.J. was died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 13.03.2023 at about 6.30 p.m. BM road, NH-75, near Mavanuru Village, Aluru Taluk, Hassan District, arising due to rash and negligent driving of Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MA-7242?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What award or order?
5. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.2 got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 18 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 18 and closed his side evidence.
On the other hand, Respondent No.1 has not chosen to lead evidence.
SCCH-14 7 MVC.2151/2023
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1. I have perused the depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record.
7. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.2: It is the case of the Petitioners that the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MA-7242 and in the said accident, Vinod Kumar.J had succumbed to the injuries.
9. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has denied the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Hyundai Grand I-10 car. SCCH-14 8 MVC.2151/2023
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.2 got examined himself as P.W.1 and he has filed his chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and re-iterated the petition averments.
11. 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 are the True copy of FIR and complaint, which show that Alur Police have registered the case against the driver of Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing No.KA-51-MA-7242 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of the Charge-sheet, which shows that the I.O of Alur Police Station has submitted Charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P4 is the Spot Mahazar, which shows that the concerned police have drawn Mahazar at the spot in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.5 is the Crime details form. Ex.P.6 is the PM report, which shows that death is due to cardio respiratory as a result of bleeding and head injury. Ex.P.7 is SCCH-14 9 MVC.2151/2023 the IMV Report, which shows that accident does not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the offending vehicle.
12. Ex.8 to 12 are notarised copies of PAN cards of petitioners and deceased. Ex.P.13 to 17 are notarised copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners and deceased. Ex.P.18 is notarized copy of Driving licence of the deceased, which shows that as on the date of accident he had valid and effective driving licence.
13. PW1 is subjected for cross examination by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1. During his cross examination he has denied all the suggestions made by the counsel for respondent No.1.
14. The respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of petitioner No.2.
15. Moreover, the charge sheet is the material document, which is not challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by the Petitioner No.2 and the SCCH-14 10 MVC.2151/2023 documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the Petitioners have proved that the said accident has occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing No.KA-51-MA-7242 and in the said accident, the son of PW1 had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 is in the "Affirmative".
Issue No. 1 and 3:
16. Both these issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts.
17. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased and Petitioner No.2 is the father of the deceased, petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased and petitioner No.4 is the grand mother of the deceased. In order to prove this fact, PW 1 has produced Ex.P.13 to P.17 i.e., his Aadhar Card and the Aadhar cards of the rest of the Petitioners SCCH-14 11 MVC.2151/2023 and Aadhar card of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J. Upon going through the said documents, it clearly show that the Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J, Petitioner No.2 is father of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J. Petitioner No.3 is brother of the deceased and Petitioner No.4 is grand mother of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J. Hence, the petitioners have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J. Therefore, the Petitioners are considered as the dependents on the deceased Vinod Kumar.J.
18. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 22 years and his avocation is shown as Zomato food delivery boy and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. In this regard, petitioners have not produced any documents to prove his avocation. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, since the accident has been occurred in the year 2023, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e. 16,000/- p.m. for the purpose of assessment of SCCH-14 12 MVC.2151/2023 compensation.
19. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J as 22 years at the time of the accident. As per Aadhar card of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J i.e., Ex.P.17, the date of birth of Vinod Kumar.J was shown as 23.05.2001. The alleged accident was occurred on 13.03.2023. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J was 22 years. Hence, the age of the deceased Vinod Kumar.J to be taken at 22 years for the purpose of Assessment of compensation.
20. 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, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:SCCH-14 13 MVC.2151/2023
21. The deceased has left behind him, his mother, his father, his younger brother (unmarried) and grandmother. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 to 4 are considered as dependents. 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 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/-".The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years."
The Petitioner No.1 is the father and the petitioner No.2 is mother of the deceased, petitioner No.3 is the brother and petitioner No.4 is grand mother of the deceased. The parents, have to live remaining part of their life in the absence of their son. The loss of a son full of hopes for the future can never be suitably compensated to a son. Petitioner No.3 has to live SCCH-14 14 MVC.2151/2023 remaining part of his life in the absence of his brother Petitioner No.4 has to live remaining part of her life in the absence of her grandson. The loss of a brother and grand son full of hopes for the future can never be suitably compensated to a brother and grand son. Therefore, petitioner No.1 to 4 are entitled to a sum of Rs.44,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
22. Petitioner No.2 is the father and he lost his son's love and care in his old age, Petitioner No.1 is the mother of the deceased and she lost her son's love and care. Petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased and he lost his brother's love and care, Petitioner No.4 is the grandmother of the deceased and she lost her grandson'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 SCCH-14 15 MVC.2151/2023 head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
23. 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.10,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
24. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was notionally fixed at Rs.16,000/- p.m. At this juncture, I would like to go through the decision reported in :
1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
SCCH-14 16 MVC.2151/2023
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, contract worker in a company - High Court did not consider future prospects while computing compensation - Whether claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
- Held : - yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High Court disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on SCCH-14 17 MVC.2151/2023 guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes: there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork : executing Court directed to respondent compute entitlement of claimants by adding 40 per cent of income for future prospect and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses".
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 observed that: "In case of self employed or fixed salary, the addition should be 40% below the age of 40 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.16,000/- comes to Rs.6,400/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.22,400/- p.m. (Rs.16,000/- + Rs.6,400/-). Further, as per the principles SCCH-14 18 MVC.2151/2023 laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 18. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that if the deceased is bachelor half of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
After deducting half of the amount towards his personal expenses in Rs.22,400/- it comes to Rs.11,200/- (22,400/- - 11,200) and multiplier applied is 18 which comes to Rs.24,19,200/- (11,200 x 12 x 18 = Rs.24,19,200/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,19,200/- towards loss of dependency.
25. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,76,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/-SCCH-14 19 MVC.2151/2023
of dead body
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.24,19,200/-
Total Rs.26,88,200/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.26,88,200/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
26. Regarding Liability : As already discussed in the Issue No.2, in this case the driver of the offending Hyundai Grand I-10 car bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MA-7242 was charge- sheeted. Further, there is no dispute about the validity of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 taken a contention that the deceased had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. But the petitioners have produced the notarized copy of driving licence of deceased Vinod Kumar.J, which is marked at Ex.P18. The said driving license establishes that as on the date of accident the deceased had valid and effective licence to SCCH-14 20 MVC.2151/2023 ride a bike. Hence, there is no violation of the conditions of the policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.2 being the owner and Respondent No.3 being the policy holder are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 is in the "Affirmative" and Issue No. 3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
27. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.26,88,200/- 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 Respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total SCCH-14 21 MVC.2151/2023 compensation of Rs.26,88,200/- 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 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
However, Respondent No.1 being the insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount as stated supra with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of this award.
Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 45% to the Petitioner No.1
2) 35% to the Petitioner No.2 3) 10% each to the Petitioner No.3 and 4 After being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the SCCH-14 22 MVC.2151/2023 Petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% each of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively by way of E-payment, after their proper identification and the remaining 25% each of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 and 2 respectively in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of their choice.
Entire amount awarded to the Petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be ordered to be paid to them respectively by way of E-
payment, 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 30th day of October, 2024) (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
SCCH-14 23 MVC.2151/2023Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Jagadish Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Crime details form
Ex.P.6 : True copy of PM report
Ex.P.7 : True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.8 : Notarised copy of PAN card of Kavitha
Ex.P.9 : Notarised copy of PAN card of PW.1
Ex.P.10 : Notarised copy of PAN card of Vikas
Kumar
Ex.P.11 : Notarised copy of PAN card of Eeramma
Ex.P.12 : Notarised copy of PAN card of Vinod
Kumar
Ex.P.13 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card of
Kavitha
Ex.P.14 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card of PW.1
Ex.P.15 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card of Vikas
Kumar
SCCH-14 24 MVC.2151/2023
Ex.P.16 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card of
Eeramma
Ex.P.17 : Notarised copy of Aadhar card of Vinod
Kumar
Ex.P.18 : Notarised copy of DL of Vinod Kumar
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
- NIL -
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
- NIL -
(D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.