Bangalore District Court
Smt. Anjinamma vs Waris Khan on 3 October, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 5522/2015 C/w. M.V.C.No. 1519/2016
Petitioners: 1. Smt. Anjinamma,
(in MVC 5522/15) W/o Late Nagaraju,
Aged 45 years.
2. Vanajakshi,
W/o Yogesh Kumar,
Aged 26 years.
3. Manjula,
W/o Sathish Kumar,
Aged 24 years.
All are residing at
No.100,
Bharatharathna Indira Colony,
Industrial Area,
Bangalore -560 079.
And also residing at
Thalekere,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
PETITIONERS : 1. Smt.Lakshmi,
(in MVC 1519/16) W/o Late Rakesha,
Aged 20 years.
2. Chikkamma,
W/o Siddagangaiah,
Aged 37 years.
3. Siddagangaiah,
S/o Lakshmaiah,
Aged 49 years.
All are residing at :
Byadarahalli Colony,
Byadarahalli Dhakale,
T.Begur Post,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri Venkateshaiah, Advocate)
- V/s -
Respondents: 1. Waris Khan,
(in both the cases) Father name not known,
Aged Major,
No.1-22, Bheem Nagar,
Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar,
Telangana-509125.
(owner of the lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-12-U-5578)
Respondent No.2 2. The Manager,
TATA AIG General Insurance
Co.Ltd., 3rd floor,
SCCH 1 3 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
Janbukeshwara Archede,
Millers Road,
Bangalore -560 052.
(Policy No.Year 015543113500
Valid from 04-06-2015 to 03-06-
2016)
(By Sri K.Prakash, Advocate)
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are arising out of the same accident and
therefore, they are disposed off by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under Section 166
of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation for the
death of Srinivas and Rakesha in the road traffic accident.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 21.11.2015 at about 5.30
p.m., when the deceased Rakesha was riding motor cycle bearing
NO.KA-52-K-8127 along with a pillion rider by name Srinivas near
B.H.Road, in front of Byraweshwara Chiken Center, Lohithnagar,
Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural district, at the
SCCH 1 4 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
same time the driver of lorry bearing NO. AP-12-U-5578 came in
high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motor cycle of the Rakesha in which Srinivas was pillion rider. As a
result of the same, both rider and pillion rider fell down and wheel of
the lorry ran over them and Rakesha died on the spot itself and
Srinivas sustained grievous head injuries.
4. Immediately, after the accident injured Srinivas, petitioner in
M.V.C. No.5522/15 was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon
hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient for 10 days and he
succumbed to the injuries on 02.12.2015. Post mortem was conducted
and body was handed to the petitioners who in turn conducted funeral
and obsequies ceremonies. Petitioners have spent Rs.1,80,000/-
towards medicine, treatment, transportation, funeral and obsequies
ceremonies. It is further contended that deceased Srinivas was 24
years and he was hale and healthy and was working as a
coolie(Mason) and was earning Rs.15,000/p.m. and he used to
contribute his entire earnings to the family. He was the sole bread
earner of the family. The deceased was having good prospectus of
higher maintenance in his future as he was a hard worker. Due to the
SCCH 1 5 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
untimely death of the deceased Srinivas the petitioners have lost love
and affection.
5. It is the case of the petitioners in M.V.C. No. 1519/16 that
Rakesha died on the spot itself and post mortem was conducted and
body was handed to the petitioners who in turn conducted funeral and
obsequies ceremonies by spending Rs.80,00/-. It is further contended
that deceased Rakesha was 22 years and he was hale and healthy and
was working as a driver and was earning Rs.15,000/p.m. and he used
to contribute his entire earnings to the family. He was the sole bread
earner of the family. The deceased was having good prospectus of
higher maintenance in his future as he was a hard worker. Due to the
untimely death of the deceased Rakesha the petitioners have lost love
and affection.
6. The accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-12-U-5578 and the
same was insured with the second respondent and hence, both the
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation .
7. In pursuance of these claim petitions, this Court has
issued notices against the respondents. Respondent No.1 did not chose
SCCH 1 6 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
to appear before the Court in both the cases and he was placed
exparte. The respondent No.2 has appeared before the Court through
his counsel and filed objection statement in both the cases denying the
petition averments. This respondent has admitted the issuance of
policy in respect of the lorry bearing No. AP-12-U-5578 and the
liability of this respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the
policy and compliance of 64 VB of Insurance Act.
8. It is contended that the petitioners have not come before this
Court with clean hands and the accident has been twisted with
malafide intentions to get compensation from this Court by misusing
the judicial process. A false complaint has been lodged against the
insured vehicle after though by twisting the facts and colluding
concerned persons in order to get compensation. It is also contended
that the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-52-K-8127 was riding
the said motor cycle without knowledge of riding and without
possessing valid vehicle documents in a rash and negligent manner
with high speed and they have fallen down on their own and insured
vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident. However, if it
is proved that the insured vehicle was involved and drivers of both
SCCH 1 7 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
vehicles are responsible for the alleged accident, the liability may
kindly be reduced to the extent of the negligence of the deceased. The
driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving
licence to drive the lorry and the owner of the vehicle had entrusted
the vehicle to a person who did not possess valid and effective driving
licence and the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the
policy. It is further contended that the second respondent reserves its
right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the
defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest the
proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. The compensation
claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. This respondent
denied the date, time and mode of accident, involvement of the
vehicle in the accident, age, avocation, income of the deceased. It is
further contended that the first respondent owner has not complied the
statutory obligation under section 134(c) of M.V.Act and the
concerned police have not complied the provisions of section 158(b)
of M.V.Act. It is further contended that the second respondent
reserves its right to amend its statement of objection and also to take
over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not
SCCH 1 8 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
contest the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. Hence, prays
to dismiss the petition.
9. Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the following
common issues in both the cases:-
ISSUES in both the cases
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased
succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 21-11-2015 at about 5.30 p.m, on Old B.H.
Road, Infront of Byraweshwara Chicken Centre,
Lohithnagar, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District, within the jurisdiction of
Nelamangala Town Police Station on account of rash and
negligent driving of the Lorry bearing registration
No.AP-12-U-5578 by its driver?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident was
occurred on account of negligent act of the rider of the
motor cycle?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If
so, how much and from whom?
4. What order?
10. In order to prove their cases, the second petitioner in
M.V.C. No.5522/15 is examined as PW1 and second petitioner in
M.V.C. NO.1519/2016 is examined as PW-2 and one more person is
examined as PW-3 and they have got marked the documents at
Ex.P.1 to 22 . The respondents have not led any evidence.
SCCH 1 9 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
11. I heard the arguments of petitioner counsel and respondent
No.2 counsel.
12. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the
evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues
as under:-
1) Issue No.1( in both the cases )... In the Affirmative,
2) Issue No.2( in both the cases )... In the negative
3) Issue No.3 (in both the cases) ... Partly in the Affirmative,
4) Issue No.4( in both the cases )... As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
13. Issue No.1 and 2 ( in both the cases): These two issues are
inter-connected to each other and taken up together for discussion in
order to avoid repetitions.
The petitioners in both the cases have contended that on
21.11.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., when the deceased Rakesha was
riding motor cycle bearing NO.KA-52-K-8127 along with a pillion
rider by name Srinivas near B.H.Road, in front of Byraweshwara
Chiken Center, Lohithnagar, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural district, at the same time the driver of lorry bearing
NO. AP-12-U-5578 came in high speed and in rash and negligent
SCCH 1 10 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the Rakesha in which
Srinivas was pillion rider. As a result of the same, both rider and
pillion rider fell down and wheel of the lorry ran over them and
Rakesha died on the spot itself and Srinivas sustained grievous head
injuries and died in the hospital.
14 In order to prove their cases second petitioner in M.V.C.
No.5522/2015 is examined as PW-1 and second petitioner in M.V.C
NO.1519/16 is examined as PW-2 and one eye witness is examined as
PW-3. PW1 got marked the documents F.I.R., P.M.Report, Inquest
report, mahazar, sketch, IMV report, charge sheet as per Ex.P.1 to 7 .
The PW1 was subjected to cross-examination and in the cross-
examination, regarding negligence is concerned she says she has not
witnessed the accident and she came to know the accident over the
phone and immediately after the information she went to hospital. It
is elicited that she is the sister of deceased and they are 4 children to
her parents and the deceased brother was not married and other
children are married. Her elder brother is residing separately. It is
suggested that, she is staying along with her husband after the
marriage and the said suggestion was denied. She says she has
SCCH 1 11 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
produced the Adhaar card to show that she was staying along with her
brother. It is suggested that, her brother Srinivas was riding the motor
cycle and the said suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that
her brother Srinivas and another deceased Rakesh were talking each
other and hence the accident was occurred due to their negligence and
the same was denied. It is suggested that, the accident road NH road.
It is elicited that she has not seen the place of accident and hence she
cannot tell the sketch is properly drawn or not and the said suggestion
was denied. It is also suggested that the accident was occurred in the
middle of the road and the same was denied. She admits that she has
not given any complaint and the public who have witnessed the
accident have given the complaint. The police have not recorded her
statement. It is suggested that the accident is not on account of
negligence of the driver of the lorry and the said suggestion was
denied. She says she has not seen the damages caused to the motor
cycle and she went and saw her brother at Bowring hospital and he
was talking. It is further suggested that, her brother has not died on
account of the accidental injuries and he died for some other reasons
and the same was denied. It is elicited that her brother passed away
SCCH 1 12 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
after 10 days of the accident. It is also suggested that in collusion
with the police a false case is registered against the driver of the lorry
since the rider of the motor cycle was not having the driving licence
and no insurance to the said motor cycle and the same was denied.
15. One Kantharaju is an eye witness and examined as PW-3.In
his affidavit he states that he was working as a Mechanic in S.L.N.
Motors and he is an eye-witness to the accident and he gave the
complaint to the Police. He says on 21.11.2015 at about 5.30 p.m.
himself and his friend Manjanna were standing near Byraweshwara
Chiken Centre , at that time one Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle bearing
No.KA-52-K-8127 was coming from Nelamangala towards Joss Toll
road on B.H.Road, infront of Byraweshwara Chiken centre, Kasaba
Hobli, Nelamangala taluk, at that point of time the driver of lorry
bearing No. AP-12-U-5578 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed against the back side of the bajaj
Pulsar motor cycle and rider and pillion rider fell down on the road
and wheel of the lorry ran over them and as a result of the same rider
of the motor cycle died on the spot and pillion rider succumbed to the
injuries in the hospital after 10 days. He was subjected to cross-
SCCH 1 13 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
examination. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that he is not
the resident of Nelamangala and the said suggestion was denied. He
admits he is having the auto garage in the name of SLN motors near
the place of accident. He has given the complaint to police. He
further says he has taken the injured to hospital immediately after the
accident to Government hospital, Nelamangala and police have noted
how an accident was taken place when he informed the police and he
has signed the said complaint. It is elicited that width of the road
around may be 40 feet. He has not produced any document to show
that the SLN auto garage belongs to him. It is further elicited that he
was standing outside the showroom and the distance between the
place where he was standing and the place of accident is around 20
feet and his brother Manjuanth was also there along with him. His
brother is staying separately at Nelamangala. He admits that he did
not see both the vehicle prior to the accident and after having heard
the sound he went to spot. He admits that he cannot tell exactly how
an accident was taken place. He has not given any evidence in the
Criminal Court. It is suggested that he was not in the place of accident
and he is giving false evidence before the Court and the said
SCCH 1 14 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that even though he
was not there in the place of accident, in order to help the family of
the deceased, he is giving false evidence before the Court and the
same was denied.
16. On the other hand, respondents have not adduced either oral
or documentary evidence.
17. Now, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
available before the Court. The Police, after investigation have filed
charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 279, 304(A) of
IPC as per Ex.P.7. The sketch which is marked at Ex.P.5 discloses
that the motor cycle of deceased was proceeding from Nelamanga to
Jasstoll and the accident was taken place in the middle of the road and
the driver of the lorry who was coming from Nelamangala side in the
same direction, he came and hit the motor cycle from back side and
caused the accident and it is 30 feet tar road towards north side at a
distance of 40 feet there is Byraweshwara Chicken center and towards
south there is S.L.N. Motors garage. Though in the written statement
respondent has contended that the rider of the motor cycle was riding
the motor cycle without knowledge of riding and without possessing
SCCH 1 15 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
valid and effective driving licence and in a high speed and in rash and
negligent manner and they have fallen down on their own and
succumbed to the injuries. It is important to note that the lorry came
from back and hit the motor cycle from behind. The respondent NO.2
counsel has concentrated more on the fact that deceased was not
having driving licence. In the cross-examination PW-2 the mother of
the deceased Rakesha who was riding the motor cycle at the time of
accident, says that her son had driving licence to drive the motor
cycle and the same was lost at the time of accident. It is suggested
that her son was not having driving licence and her son and his friend
Srinivas both were talking each other and they themselves fell down
from the motor cycle and the same was denied. For having taken note
of the facts and circumstances of the case, I have already pointed out
that the lorry went and dashed the hind portion of the motor cycle , the
question of contributory negligence does not arise. More over the
evidence of the PW-1 to 3 remains unchallenged and the respondents
have not led in either oral or documentary evidence. The driver of the
lorry has not been examined before the Court. He is the right person to
speak regarding the negligence of the deceased rider of the motor
SCCH 1 16 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
cycle . In order to consider the contributory negligence there must be
cogent evidence as held in the judgment reported in (2014
Kant.M.A.C. 330 (SC) ( Meera Devi and another )-No cogent
evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, doctrine of
common law cannot be applied. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the
affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative.
18. Issue No.3 ( in M.V.C. No.5522/2015) : It is the claim of
the petitioners that first petitioner is the mother of the deceased and
petitioner No.2 and 3 are the married sisters of the deceased. It is the
contention of the PW-1 that she and her sister were residing along
with the deceased. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that she is
staying along with her husband after marriage and the same was
denied. It is also elicited that her sister Manjula is also married and
she is staying along with them and her husband is not doing any work
as his leg was broken. It is further suggested that herself and her
husband, her sister and her husband are staying separately in their
respective husband's house and same was denied. It is the contention
of the respondent counsel that the married daughters are not the
SCCH 1 17 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
dependants. Though they claim that they were residing along with the
deceased, in the evidence it has emerged that they are having their
respective husbands. PW-1 says her sister's husband is not doing any
work as his leg was broken and these aspects will not come to the aid
of the petitioners to show that they are the dependants of the deceased.
Hence, as the sisters are married and their husbands are alive, they are
not considered as dependants of the deceased. However, petitioner
No.1 is the mother of the deceased and she is only the dependant of
the deceased .
19. It is contended that as on the date of the accident the
deceased was doing coolie(mason) work and earning Rs.15,000/-p.m.
and he used to contribute his entire income towards the family. In the
cross-examination, it is suggested that her brother was not doing any
coolie work and not earning Rs.15,000/p.m. and the said suggestion
was denied. The petitioner has not produced any document to show
that her brother was earning Rs.15,000/p.m. Therefore, in the absence
of any documentary evidence regarding his income, this Court has to
SCCH 1 18 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
take the income of the deceased at Rs.7,500/-p.m. as the accident is
of the year 2015.
20. It is important to note that in the recent judgment reported
in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC)( Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National
Insurance company Ltd. And others) Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that:
Quantum - fatal accident -principles of
assessment-multiplier-choice of -deceased
aged 26 and claimants are father , mother and
sister who got married during pendency of
claim application -Tribunal adopted
multiplier of 17-High Court reduced
multiplier to 13 -whether multiplier of 17
based on the age of the deceased be applied -
Held:yes, the age of dependants has no nexus
with the computation of compensation .
As per the above judgment in this case also, I have taken the
age of the deceased, to arrive the proper multiplier.
21. The petitioners have produced notarized copy of election
identity card of the deceased at Ex.P.10, wherein his date of birth is
mentioned as 11.5.1993 . Ex.P.11 notarised copy of Aadhar card
discloses date of birth of the deceased as 11.5.1993 i.e, 22 years as on
the date of accident. Ex.P.12 notarised copy of election identity card
SCCH 1 19 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
of the first petitioner, i.e., mother, discloses her date of birth as
25.8.1969 i.e, 46 years as on the date of accident. In the P.M.Report ,
Inquest report , age of the deceased is shown as 22 years. The age
mentioned in aadhar card , election identity card and P.M.Report ,
Inquest report tallies, hence, I accept the age of the deceased as 22
years at the time of accident and in between the age group of 20-25
years the appropriate multiplier is 18 .
22. In view of the principles laid down 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. The income of the deceased is taken as
Rs.7,500/- per month, 50% of which works out to Rs.3,750/- and thus
the total works out to Rs.11,250/-. p.m.
23. The deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, hence,
50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal income.
It works out to be Rs.5,625/-p.m. (11,250-5,625) . Then the annual
income is Rs.67,500/-. (5,625x12). The proper multiplier applicable is
18 and if we multiply the annual income of the deceased by the
multiplier, the same works out to Rs.12,15,000/- (67,500x18), to
SCCH 1 20 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
which the petitioner No.1 is entitled to under the head loss of
dependency on account of death of her son in the accident. Hence, I
award a sum of Rs.12,15,000/- towards loss of dependency.
24. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800
(Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad 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., and Rs.50,000/- as
compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and
affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred
on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the
deceased has left behind his mother and sisters , I deem it proper to
award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the mother and sisters for
loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security
etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and
ritual expenses.
SCCH 1 21 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
25. The petitioners have produced medical bills to the tune of
Rs.24,031/- at Ex.P.8 and 51 prescriptions at Ex.P.9. In the cross-
examination, PW-1 says her brother passed away after 10 days of the
accident. It is suggested that, bills which are produced before the
Court are created for getting more compensation and the said
suggestion was denied. The medical bills are supported by
prescriptions. Hence, I have accepted the medical bills. The same is
rounded off to Rs.24,100/-. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.24,100/-
towards medical expenses.
26.The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 12,15,000-00
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 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
4. Medical bills 24,100-00
Total 13,49,100-00
27. Issue No.3 ( M.V.C. No.1519/2016) : It is the case of the
petitioners that the first petitioner has lost her husband , 2nd and 3rd
SCCH 1 22 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
petitioners have lost their son at the very young age. The petitioners
have produced notarized copy of election identity card of petitioner
No.1 at Ex.P.18 which discloses the name of her husband as Rakesha.
Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 are the election identity card of the parents of the
deceased.
28. The was hale and healthy and he was working as driver and
earning Rs.15,000/p.m. To substantiate the same the petitioners have
not produced any document. In the cross-examination, PW-2 admits
that her son was having driving licence and the same was lost at the
time of accident. It is suggested that her son was not having the
driving licence to ride motor cycle and the said suggestion was
denied. She admits that motor cycle belongs to her son and she can
produce the R.C. and insurance but she has not produced the same.
Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence regarding his
income, this Court has to take the income of the deceased at
Rs.7,500/-p.m. as the accident is of the year 2015.
29. Regarding age of the deceased, no documentary proof is
produced. Ex.P.17 is produced but it belongs to one Rajesh S. Hence,
SCCH 1 23 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
this Court has to rely upon the medical records. The P.M.Report
which is marked at Ex.P.15 discloses the age of the deceased as 22
years and in the Inquest report also his age is mentioned as 22 years
and this accident was occurred in 2015, hence, it is clear that he is
aged 22 years and the relevant multiplier applicable is 18.
30. In view of the principles laid down 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 and hence, as the deceased was aged 22
years at the time of accident, 50% of the income has to be added to the
said amount towards loss of future prospects. It comes to Rs.11,250/-.
(7,500+3,750/-). There are three dependants, hence, 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased is to be deducted for personal expenses i.e.,
Rs.3,750/-. It comes to Rs.7,500/-. (11,250-3,750/-). Thus, the
annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.90,000/-. The relevant
multiplier applicable to the case on hand would be 18. If we
multiply the annual income of the deceased with the 18 multiplier, it
SCCH 1 24 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
works out to Rs.16,20,000/-, to which the petitioners are entitled to
under the head loss of dependency.
31. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800
(Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad 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., and Rs.50,000/- as
compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and
affection, pain and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred
on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the
deceased has left behind wife and parents, 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., and Rs.50,000/- as
compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and
affection, pain and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of
SCCH 1 25 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred
on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
32.The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 16,20,000-00
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 Compensation to the widow of the 50,000-00
deceased for loss of love and
affection, pains and sufferings,
loss of consortium, deprivation of
protection , social security etc.
4 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00
funeral and ritual expenses
Total 17,80,000-00
33. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna
Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on
the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court
held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also
SCCH 1 26 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481: (AIR
2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of
Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with
regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while
awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take
into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate
of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly,
the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
34. As regards the liability to be fixed on the respondents,
admittedly the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is
the insurer of lorry bearing No.AP-12-U-5578, hence, both
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.2,
insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, this issue is answered
accordingly.
35. Issue No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
SCCH 1 27 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016
ORDER
MVC 5522/2015 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.13,49,100/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The petitioner No.1 is mother, she is entitled for Rs.12,49,100/-. The amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded under the head of loss of love and affection is divided between the petitioner NO.2 and 3 and the same is ordered to be released to them along with interest.
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1, 50% is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in her name in any of the nationalized or scheduled SCCH 1 28 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016 bank of her choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to her . MVC 1519/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.17,80,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and he is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 60%
Petitioner No.2 - mother - 20%
Petitioner No.3 - father - 20%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1 to 3, 50% is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the SCCH 1 29 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016 nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case. Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.5522/2015 and its copy is kept in MVC No.1519/2016.
Draw decree accordingly (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of October 2016) (H.P.SANDESH,) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Vanajakshi P.W.2 : Smt.Chikkamma P.W.3 : Kantharaju
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P-2 : Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P-3 : Copy of Inquest report Ex.P-4 : Copy of mahazar SCCH 1 30 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016 Ex.P-5 : Copy of sketch Ex.P-6 : Copy of IMV report Ex.P-7 : Copy of charge sheet Ex.P-8 : Medical bills(43) Ex.P-9 : Prescriptions (51)
Ex.P-10 : Notarised copy of Election Identity card (original compared) Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card (original compared) Ex.P.12 Norarised copy of Election identity card of mother (original compared) Ex.P.13 Notarised copy of Election Identity card (original compared) Ex.P.14 Notarised copy of Election Identity card of sister of PW1(original compared) Ex.P.15 Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P.16 Copy of Inquest report Ex.P.17 Notarised copy of Election Identity card of deceased son(original compared) Ex.P.18 Notarised copy of Election Identity card daughter-in-law(original compared) Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Election Identity card of her husband(original compared) Ex.P.20 Notarised copy of Election Identity card (original compared) Ex.P.21 Notarised copy of Aadhar card (original compared) Ex.P.22 Notarised copy of Election Identity card of her husband(original compared) SCCH 1 31 MVC No.5522/15 & 1519/2016 Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
-Nil-
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore