Bangalore District Court
Sri M. Muniraju vs Sri Ramakrishnappa on 28 January, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 28th day of January 2015.
M.V.C.No.5518/2009
Petitioners 1. Sri M. Muniraju,
S/o Late Munishamappa,
Aged about 43 years,
2. Smt. Lalithamma L.,
W/o Muniraju,
Aged about 38 years,
Both are residing at No.29,
Surya Nilaya, 16th Cross,
Munithimmaiah Layout,
Maruthinagar, Yelahanka,
Bangalore - 560 064.
(Sri M.B. Shankare Gowda, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1. Sri Ramakrishnappa,
S/o C. Munishamappa (Late),
Aged about 55 years,
R/at Anthrahalli Village,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(RC Owner of Mahendra car
Bearing No.KA-43-M-1878)
(Sri K.M. Aswathnarayana Reddy, Adv.)
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.
Ltd., Branch Office, No.186/7,
Ragavendra Plaza, 1st Cross,
Wilson Garden, Hosur Main road,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Policy No.VPCO116806000100,
Valid from 20-02-2009 to 19-02-2010)
(Sri Ravi S. Samprathi, Advocate)
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Madhu M., Son of Muniraju in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under; The petitioners said to be the parents of the deceased Madhu in their claim petition, were alleged that, on 03-04-2009 at about 1.00 p.m., Madhu M., and others were proceeding in a Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878 driven by its driver on Kammaluru-Antharahalli road, Thubugere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, due to his negligent driving lost the control, so Mahendra car was turned turtled. Consequent to the terrific impact the inmates of the Mahendra car were sustained injuries, including the driver and the Madhu has sustained grievous injuries. So immediately he was shifted to nearby Janatha Nursing Home, Doddaballapura, wherein he took the first aid treatment, due to severe injuries sustained by the Madhu has been referred to Columbia Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 03-04-2009 to 11-04-2009 during the course of treatment, he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries on 3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 11-04-2009 after the post mortem body was handing over to them and they were performed the funeral and obsequies by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a mason and getting monthly income of Rs.7,000/- and their family depending on the income of the deceased, since the petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased who is physically handicapped by birth and the second petitioner being the mother of the deceased who are solely depending on his income. Due to the untimely death they were depressed and put to great financial hardship, without any earning member in the family. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra car. Thereby, Doddaballapura Rural Police have registered the case against the car driver in their police station crime No.98/2009 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents were appeared through their respective counsel and field their written statement. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and he has 4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 admitted that he is the registered owner of the Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878 and the said car was driven by one Lakshminarayana as on the date of the alleged accident and the Lakshminarayana has got released on bail from the complainant police and executed the bail bond and he got released the said vehicle from the Doddaballapura Rural Police Station. As on the date of the alleged accident one Lakshminarayana has driven the vehicle and he has also sustained the injuries, so he has field the claim petition in MVC No.5643/2009, in the said claim petition he has contended that he was the driver of the Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878 belongs to him, in the said claim petition the Tribunal has awarded the compensation and the second respondent being the insurer has deposited the award amount and the driver has received the said amount, as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence. So, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. The respondent No.2 being the insurer in its written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and he has also denied that on 03-04-2009 at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding in a Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878 and 5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 the driver of the said car has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the vehicle was turned turtled and the inmates of the car were sustained grievous injuries. So, the petitioners have to prove that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver and the driver of the car has not made party to the proceedings. So, the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable and prays for reject the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my Predecessor has framed the following issues.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Madhu M., died in a road traffic accident 03-04- 2009 at about 1.00 p.m., in between Kammaluru-
Antharahalli within the limits of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The petitioners in order to prove their claim petition, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P31 and they have examined the driver 6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 of the Mahendra car as PW2. The respondents have not examined any witnesses nor marked any documents in their favour.
8. Heard arguments on both side.
9. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:
The petitioners said to be the parents of the deceased were approached this court on the ground that on 03-04-2009 at about 1.00 p.m., the deceased and others were proceeding in a Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878, the driver of the said car has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to his negligent driving lost the control, so the vehicle was turned turtled, as a result the deceased was sustained grievous injuries. Though, he was shifted to Columbia Hospital, while treatment he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. Thereby, the parents of the deceased were filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
11. The petitioners were filed the instant claim petition in the year 2009 and the petitioner No.1 has got examined himself as 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P22. After full pledged trial this tribunal heard the arguments on both side and dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners by granting a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest acting under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Thereby, the petitioners being the parents of the deceased have challenged the award of this tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing a MFA 7135/2011 and the said appeal was came to be allowed and the Hon'ble High Court set aside the award passed by this Tribunal and remitted to this Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.
12. The petitioners in order to prove their claim petition, the petitioner No.1 has filed his affidavit as his chief-examination as PW1, in which he has stated that on 03-04-2009 at about 1.00 p.m., his son and others were proceeding in a Mahendra car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878 driven by its driver on Kammaluru- Antharahalli road, Thubugere Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, due to his negligent driving lost the control, so Mahendra car was turned turtled. Consequent to the terrific impact his son and inmates of the car were sustained injuries. So, immediately his son was shifted to nearby Janatha Nursing Home, Doddaballapura, wherein he took the first aid treatment, due to severe injuries his son has been referred to Columbia Hospital, 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient, while treatment he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries on 11-04-2009. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra car. Thereby, the Doddaballapura Rural Police have registered the case against the car driver in their police station crime No.98/2009 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he has produced the documents to show that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the Lakshminarayana who was the driver of the Mahendra car as on the date of the alleged accident and he has denied that as on the date of the alleged accident his son was the driver of the Mahendra car and the accident was occurred on his own negligence and as on the date of the alleged accident one Lakshminarayana was not the driver of the Mahendra car and he has denied that they have created the documents in order to get the compensation, but he has stated that as on the date of the alleged accident his son was proceeding as inmate of the car and the car was turned turtled and his son was sustained grievous injuries and one Lakshminarayana who was the driver of the Mahendra car also sustained injuries.
13. The PW2 being said to be the driver of the Mahendra car as on the date of the alleged accident in his evidence has stated 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 that as on the date of the alleged accident he was the driver of the Mahendra car and he was driving the said car by observing the traffic rules and regulations, carefully and cautiously, due to the rough road, he had applied the break slowly, however he had lost the control and the said car was turned turtled. Consequent to the terrific impact himself and the inmates of the car were sustained grievous injuries due to the said accident one Madhu has sustained head injuries. So immediately he was shifted to Asia Colombia Hospital, wherein he was lost his breath due to the accidental injuries. Thereby, he has filed the separate claim petition in MVC 5643/2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for seeking compensation and the Tribunal has awarded the compensation and he has received the compensation amount. The PW2 in his cross examination has denied that as on the date of the alleged accident one Madhu was the driver of the offending vehicle and he was not the driver of the said Mahendra car as on the date of the alleged accident and in order to help the petitioners has deposing falsely that as on the date of the alleged accident he was not the driver of the Mahendra car.
14. The petitioners in support of the oral evidence they have produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. Ex.P4 is the information filed by one C. Ramakrishnappa, son of Late C. Muniswamappa in which he has stated that on 03-04-2009 his son 10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 Rajesh, Madhu, Chennakeshava and the car driver Lakshminarayana while returning the temple through the car bearing No.KA-43-M-1878 were reached near Antharahalli road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the car driver i.e., Lakshminarayana has lost the control and suddenly applied the break, as a result it was turned turtled and his son and inmates of the car were sustained the injuries. So, he rushed to the spot and shifted them to the Janatha Nursing Home at Doddaballapur and later on they were shifted to Colombia Asia Hospital, since he was accompanying with his son in the hospital, thereby, the delay was caused in lodging the complaint. So based on the information the Doddaballapura Rural Police have registered the case against the car driver in their police station crime No.98/2009 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. Ex.P2 is the requisition filed by the PSI of Doddaballapur Rural Police Station and sought for permission to add Section 304(A) of IPC, as the injured by name Madhu while treatment was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. Ex.P5 is the second complaint filed by one Byregowda, son of Late Ramegowda in which he has stated that one Madhu has sustained grievous injuries, while treatment at Colombia Asia Hospital has succumbed due to the accidental injuries on 11-04- 2009 at about 3.00 p.m. So case was registered against the offending vehicle driver for the offences punishable under Section 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P6 is the order sheet relating to the Crime No.98/2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Doddaballapura clearly reflects that the I.O., after conducting the investigation has filed the abated charge sheet. So it was challenged by the complainant by filing a memo for protest as per Ex.P9 by producing the witnesses, so the case was registered against the accused Lakshminarayana who was the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. So one thing is clear though the I.O., has submitted the abated charge sheet, but it was not accepted by the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Doddaballapura and directing the office to register the case against the Lakshminarayana who was the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while cross examination of the PW1 has suggested that as on the date of the alleged accident his son was the driver of the offending vehicle for which he has denied the same. The PW2 being the driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of the alleged accident in his evidence has clearly stated that as on the date of the alleged accident he was the driver of the offending vehicle, that itself is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the PW2 was the driver of the offending vehicle not the deceased. Ex.P26 filed by the PW2 clearly reflects that he has filed the claim petition before the 12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 SCCH-4 and the said claim petition was came to be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that as on the date of the alleged accident the petitioner himself is the driver, so the petitioner cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him on account of his own negligence under section 166 of M.V. Act, but the reasons best known to the respondent No.2, though he has appeared in that case and filed the written statement has not challenged the finding of SCCH-4, but the second respondent has deposited an amount of Rs.15,000/- as per the orders of SCCH-4 under Section 140 of M.V. Act under no fault of liability. So, the Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P4 are clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, that is the reason why the SCCH-4 has dismissed the claim petition filed by the PW2 and finding of the said court was not challenged by the respondent No.2 who is the insurer of the offending vehicle. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and Ex.P20 are clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. The respondents have not led any rebuttal evidence to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners. On the other hand the petitioners have proved their case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 offending vehicle driver. Hence, I am of the opinion that the issue No.1 is answered as affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that on 03-04-2009 at about 1.00 p.m., his son along with others were proceeding in a Mahendra car, the driver of the car by name Lakshminarayana has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and he lost the control and the said car was turned turtled. So, his son has sustained grievous injuries, though he was shifted to Columbia Hospital for treatment, but during the course of treatment, he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a meson and getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/- and their family depending on the income of his son and he is physically handicapped by birth and the second petitioner being the mother of the deceased and they were depending on the income of the deceased. Due to the untimely death they were depressed and put to great financial hardship, without any earning member in the family. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the deceased was his eldest son and he has not produced any document to show about the relationship of the deceased with them and he has denied that as on the date of the alleged accident his son was the driver of the offending vehicle. Though, the learned 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 counsel for the respondent No.1 and 2 have cross examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama clearly reflects that the petitioners are none other than the parents of the deceased. The respondents have not much disputed about the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, even while cross examination of the PW1 they have not suggested that the deceased is not the son of the petitioners, that itself is clear that the deceased is none other than the son of the petitioners. The PW1 though he has stated that prior to the accident his son was hale and healthy working as a meson and getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/-, but the reasons best known to the petitioners have not placed any materials nor examined the owner with whom the deceased was working to show the income of the deceased as shown in the claim petition. In the absence of the materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the income of the deceased as alleged in the claim petition. So considering the age and skill of the deceased and the present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month it will meet the ends of justice. The PW1 being the father of the deceased in his evidence has clearly stated that he is physically handicapped by birth and the second petitioner being the mother of the deceased, they were solely depending upon the income of the deceased, but 15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 the reasons best known to the respondents have not elicited anything from the mouth of the PW1 that they are not depending on the income of the deceased. In the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner No.1 and 2 are the financial dependants of the deceased. Ex.P3 is the inquest panchanama clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident the deceased was aged about 22 years. The petitioners in their claim petition also they have shown the deceased age as on the date of the accident as 22 years, so deceased age is taken into consideration as 22 years as on the date of the alleged accident.
16. The learned counsel for the petitioners while canvassing his arguments has submitted that by virtue of Sarlaverma case reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 the future prospects adopted for the persons with permanent jobs only, but by virtue of Rajesh and others Vs. Rajabir Singh and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held by virtue of Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the future prospects adopted for persons with permanent jobs, may also be applied to the persons who are self employed or were engaged on fixed wages and requested the court to apply the principles of the Rajesh and others Vs. Rajabir Singh and Others to consider the future prospects of the deceased while considering the loss of dependency. So this court drawn its attention on the
16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 in between the Rajesh and others Vs. Rajabir Singh and Others reads like thus;
Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment - Future prospects - Whether formula for increase of income for future prospects adopted for persons with permanent jobs in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), may also be applied to the persons who are self employed or were engaged on fixed wages - Held:
yes; 50 per cent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30 per cent for age group of 40-50 years; 15 per cent for age group of 50-60 years; but no addition thereafter.
17. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision their lordship held that by virtue of Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the future prospects adopted for persons with permanent jobs, may also be applied to the persons who are self employed or were engaged on fixed wages. 50 per cent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30 per cent for age group of 40-50 years; 15 per cent for age group of 50- 60 years; but no addition thereafter. In the instant case the petitioners in their claim petition, were clearly stated that the deceased was skilled labourer and getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/-, but the petitioners have failed to establish the income of the deceased through oral and documentary evidence. However they have established through oral and documentary evidence that 17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 the deceased was skilled labourer. It is an admitted fact the deceased was died in a road traffic accident when his age was 22 years and the decision as stated above is clear that the Tribunal has to consider about future prospects even self-employed or were engaged on fixed wages. So if 50% of the future prospects is taken into consideration it comes to Rs.6,000/- + 50% = Rs.9,000/-. Then annual income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. Now the question arises whether the court has to consider the age of the deceased or the youngest parent of the deceased. So, this court has drawn its attention on the decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 548 in between Radhakrishna and another Vs. Gokul and others , which reads like thus;
Motor Vehicles act S.168---Compensation--Claim by parents---Deceased at the time of accident was 19 years old and was a student of Engineering course---Keeping in view of his estimated earning and having regard to age of parents of deceased, i.e., 45 and 42 respectively---Ends of justice would be served by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to parents.
18. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision the deceased when his age was 19 years was met with an accident and his parents have filed the claim petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per annum and allowed the claim petition in partly and claimants were challenged the award of the Tribunal 18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 by filing the appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to pay the additional compensation of Rs.8,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. So, the claimants were challenged the order of the Hon'ble High Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the claimants by awarding the lumpsum compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- to the appellant by apply the yardstick having regard to the age of the parents of the deceased is 45 and 42 years respectively.
19. In the instant case as on the date of the alleged accident the deceased was bachelor and his age was 22 years. The petitioners in their cause title have shown the age of the petitioner No.1 and 2 who are said to be the parents of the deceased as 43 and 38 respectively. Though, the respondents have cross examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve the age as shown in the cause title. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the petitioner No.2 is younger than the petitioner No.1 and as on the date of the alleged accident her age was 38 years. So, her age is taken into consideration as 38 years as on the date of the alleged accident. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners in their claim petition nor in their evidence nowhere stated that the deceased was married, so one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the deceased was bachelor. So 19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 in case of bachelor 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses and 50% as the contribution to the family. So after deduction of 50% towards his personal expenses which comes to Rs.54,000/-. So, his mother age is taken into consideration as 38 years, as per Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Corporation Limited reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 15. So, Rs.54,000X15=Rs.8,10,000/- towards loss of dependency. So, the petitioners are entitled for the said amount towards loss of dependency.
20. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are none other than the parents of the deceased, so Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of love and affection. Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies.
21. The PW1 in his evidence has clearly stated that his son was sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. So immediately he was shifted to Janatha Nursing Home, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted to Colombia Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 03- 04-2009 to 11-04-2009. Ex.P11 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the deceased prior to his death was took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 9 days. Ex.P10 is the final inpatient bill issued by the Colombia Hospital and the Ex.P15 is the medical 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 bills clearly reflects that the parents of the deceased have spent an amount of Rs.2,00,622/- and Rs.440/- respectively for the treatment of the deceased prior to his death. Though, the respondents have disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioners, but nothing is placed on record to disbelieve the medical bills produced by the petitioners. So, Ex.P10 to Ex.P16 are clearly reflects that the deceased has took the treatment prior to his death for that the petitioners have spent an amount of Rs.2,01,062/-. Therefore, Rs.2,01,062/- is granted towards medical expenses.
22. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Loss of dependency Rs. 8,10,000-00
2.Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000-00
3.Loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00
4.Transportation of dead body and Rs. 20,000-00 funeral expenses
5.Medical expenses Rs. 2,01,062-00 Total Rs. 10,61,062-00
23. The respondent No.2 being the insurer in its written statement has not stated about the issuance of the policy nor the policy period, but the respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement has stated that he has insured the offending vehicle with the second respondent. The petitioners in the cause title of the claim petition have shown the policy number and its validity from 20-02-2009 to 19-02-2010, but 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 being the insurer has not disputed the policy number nor the policy period as shown in the cause title, that itself is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence, as the accident was occurred on 03-04-2009 and the policy was valid from 20-02-2009 to 19-02-2010. The respondent No.1 being the owner in his written statement has admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No.2 being the insurer has totally disputed that as on the date of the alleged accident one Lakshminarayana was not the driver, but the deceased himself was the driver of the offending vehicle, but the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 nothing is placed on record to prove that as on the date of the alleged accident the deceased was the driver of the offending vehicle. On the other hand the petitioners have proved that as on the date of the alleged accident one Lakshminarayana was the driver of the offending vehicle. If at all the PW2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence, the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident, that itself is clear that as on the date of the alleged 22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 accident the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
24. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,61,062/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009 till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 50% each allotted to the share of petitioner No.1 and 2 by way of apportionment of compensation amount.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioners in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to them by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of January 2015.
(P.J.Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 Sri Muniraju PW2 Sri Lakshminarayana 24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of police requisition to include offence
under Section 304(A)
Ex.P3 True copy of Inquest mahazar
Ex.P4 & True copies of statements recorded by police
Ex.P5
Ex.P6 Certified copy of the order sheet in Cr. No.98/2009
Ex.P7 Certified copy of the sworn statement of CW1
Ex.P8 Certified copy of the sworn statement of CW2
Ex.P9 Certified copy of the memo of protest
Ex.P10 Final inpatient bill (back up wise) of Columbia Asia
Hospital amounting to Rs.2,00,622/-
Ex.P11 Discharge summary
Ex.P12 Radiologist report
Ex.P13 Lab reports
Ex.P14 Medical prescription of Janatha Nursing Home
Ex.P15 Medical bills of Rs.440/-
Ex.P16 Medical record of Janatha Nursing Home
Ex.P17 RTC Extract of survey No.62/1
Ex.P18 RTC extract of survey No.62/2
Ex.P19 RTC extract of Survey No.62/5
Ex.P20 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P21 Notarised copy of the disability certificate
Ex.P22 Notarised copy of the LIC copy
Ex.P23 Certified copy of order sheet in MVC 5643/2009
Ex.P24 Certified copy of petition in MVC 5643/2009
Ex.P25 Certified copy of petitioner evidence in MVC
5643/2009
25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5518/2009
Ex.P26 Certified copy of Judgment in MVC 5643/2009
Ex.P27 Certified copy of Award in MVC 5643/2009
Ex.P28 Certified copy of judgments in MVC 5619/2009
and 5620/2009
Ex.P29 Certified copy of Awards in MVC 5619/2009 and
5620/2009
Ex.P30 Certified copy of order sheet in Cr. No.98/2009
Ex.P31 Certified copy of judgment in MVC 7135/2011
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.