Bangalore District Court
P.Kavitha vs Chandramma on 30 June, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 30th DAY OF JUNE, 2015
PRESENT : Smt. K.KATYAYINI,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.91/2013 to 93/2013
Petitioner/s 1.P.Kavitha,
In MVC.91/2013 W/o Late B.Krishnakumar
Aged about 31 years
2.B.K.Sahana,
D/o Late B.Krishnakumar,
Aged about 11 years.
(Since the 2nd petitioner is
minor, represented by his
mother/natural guardian the
1st petitioner P.Kavitha)
All are r/at No.23,
3rd Cross, 17th main road,
Near Kashi Vishwanatha
Temple, Raghavanagara,
NTY Layout,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru - 560 026.
Petitioner/s 1.Prema,
In MVC.92/2013 38 years,
W/o Late B.Srikantegowda
2.B.S.Shwetha,
19 years,
D/o Late B.Srikantegowda
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.91 to 93/2013
3.B.S.Shruthi,
18 years,
D/o Late B.Srikantegowda
4.B.S.Nandisha @
B.S.Nandish Gowda,
S/o Late B.Srikantegowda
Aged about 16 years.
(Since the 4th petitioner is
minor, represented by his
mother/natural guardian the
1st petitioner Prema)
All are r/at No.23, 3rd Cross,
17th Main Road, Near Kashi
Vishwanatha Temple,
Raghavanagara, NTY Layout,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru - 26.
Alternative Address:
No.9-B, Bommanayakanahalli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District- 571 429.
Petitioner/s 1.B.S.Nandisha @
In MVC.93/2013 B.S.Nandish Gowda,
Aged about 16 years.
S/o Late B.Srikantegowda
Since the petitioner is
minor, represented by his
mother/natural guardian the
Smt.Prema,
W/o Late B.Srikantegowda,
Aged about 38 years.
R/at No.23, 3rd Cross,
17th Main Road, Near Kashi
(SCCH-15) 3 MVC.91 to 93/2013
Vishwanatha Temple,
Raghavanagara, NTY Layout,
Mysore Road,
Bengaluru - 26.
Alternative Address:
No.9-B, Bommanayakanahalli,
Channapatna Taluk,
Ramanagara District- 571 429.
(By Pleader - Sri.R.Chandrashekar.)
V/s
Respondent/s 1.Chandramma, Major,
In all the cases W/o Chikkathimmaiah,
Belur, Mandya Taluk,
Mandya District - 571 401.
(RC owner of goods tempo
No.KA-02-D.2812)
(By Pleader - Manjunath.G.Kandekar.)
2.United India Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishi Bhavana,
Nrupatunga Road,
Hudson Circle,
BEngaluru - 560 001.
Rep. by its Regional Manager.
(Insurer of goods tempo
No.KA-02-D.2812)
Policy No.
072001/31/11/01/00003563
Valid from 29.07.2011 to
28.07.2012)
(By Pleader - Sri.D.N.Manjunath.)
*****
(SCCH-15) 4 MVC.91 to 93/2013
COMMON JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed these petitions under Section
166 of MV Act seeking compensation on account of death
of B.Krishna Kumar in MVC.91/2013 and
B.Srikantegowda in MVC.92/2013 respectively husband
of 1st petitioner and father of rest of petitioners therein
and in MVC.93/2013 for the injuries suffered by minor
petitioner in the road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of petitioners in all the
petitions are that on 06.05.2012 at about 11:30 a.m., the
deceased B.Srikantegowda being the rider, deceased
Krishnakumar being the pillion rider and the minor
petitioner being another pillion rider were proceeding on
Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-05
EX-9331 on Bengaluru - Mysore road. When they came
near Hanakere gate, Mandya, the goods tempo bearing
registration No.KA-02 D-2812 came with high speed in
rash and negligent manner from the back side and
dashed against the motor cycle. Because of which, all the
(SCCH-15) 5 MVC.91 to 93/2013
riders fell down and suffered severe injuries all over the
body.
b) Immediately they were shifted to the District
hospital, Mandya wherein first aid was given and as per
advise of doctor, they were shifted to Columbia Asia
hospital wherein the deceased were declared dead.
Accident took place solely due to rash and negligent
driving of tempo driver. Therefore, 1st respondent being
the RC owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of the
tempo are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. Therefore, prayed to allow the petitions as
sought for.
3. In response to the due service of notice in all the
three petitions, both the respondents have put their
appearance through their respective common counsels
and filed their separate statement of objections denying
the petition averments and taking common objections.
b) However, 1st respondent has admitted her
ownership over the tempo and contended that the vehicle
was duly insured with 2nd respondent and the policy was
(SCCH-15) 6 MVC.91 to 93/2013
in existence and in force on the date of accident. It has
specifically contended that the tempo driver did possess
valid and effective driving licence.
c) She has contended that accident if any is because
of the negligent riding of the motor cycle rider. There is
no negligence on the part of tempo driver. Therefore,
prayed to dismiss the petition against her with costs.
d) 2nd respondent has admitted the policy and its
force on the date of accident but contended that liability
if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy
such as driving licence and vehicular documents. It has
specifically contended that tempo driver was not
possessing valid and effective driving licence and the
there were no valid vehicular documents.
e) It has also contended that the place of accident
and the place of residence of both the petitioners and 1st
respondent are out of territorial jurisdiction of this
Tribunal. Therefore, these petitions are out territorial
jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, these petitions are
not maintainable before this Tribunal.
(SCCH-15) 7 MVC.91 to 93/2013
f) It has also contended that accident if any is
because of the negligence of motor cycle rider. There
were admittedly 3 riders. The rider was unaware of
proper riding of two wheeler who lost control over it, due
to self skid the riders of motor cycle were exposed to the
accident. Therefore, the petitions are bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition against it with costs.
4. On the above said pleadings of the parties, this
Tribunal has framed the following common issues in all
the petitions.
ISSUE No.1 IN MVC.91/2013
1. Whether the petitioner prove that the
deceased B.Krishna Kumar succumbed to
injuries due to the RTA arising out of
accident alleged to have been taken place
on 06.05.2012 at about 11:30 a.m. near
Hanakere gate, Bengaluru - Mysore road,
Mandya due to the rash and negligent
driving of the goods tempo bearing
No.KA-02 D-2812?
ISSUE No.1 IN MVC.92/2013
1.Whether the petitioner prove that the
deceased B.Srikantegowda succumbed to
injuries due to the RTA arising out of
(SCCH-15) 8 MVC.91 to 93/2013
accident alleged to have been taken place
on 06.05.2012 at about 11:30 a.m. near
Hanakere gate, Bengaluru - Mysore road,
Mandya due to the rash and negligent
driving of the goods tempo bearing
No.KA-02 D-2812?
ISSUE No.1 IN MVC.93/2013
1. Whether the petitioner prove that he
sustained injury in RTA arising out of
accident alleged to have been taken place
on 06.05.2012 at about 11:30 a.m. near
Hanakere gate, Bengaluru - Mysore road,
Mandya due to the rash and negligent
driving of the goods tempo bearing
No.KA-02 D-2812?
IN MVC.91/2013 TO 93/2013
2. Whether the petitioner/s is/are
entitled for compensation? If so what is
the quantum and from whom?
3. What order?
5. To prove the above said issues and to
substantiate their respective contentions, 1st petitioner in
MVC.91/2013 has entered into witness box as PW-1; 1st
petitioner in MVC.92/2013 who is also the guardian of
minor petitioner in MVC.93/2013 has entered into
witness box as PW-2; the younger brother of both the
deceased by name B.Mallesh as PW-3; the doctor who
(SCCH-15) 9 MVC.91 to 93/2013
has treated and assessed the disability of minor
petitioner in MVC.93/2013 as PW-4 and an eyewitness
by name Sri.H.R.Yeshwanth as PW-5. Totally got
exhibited 46 documents and closed their side.
b) 2nd respondent has got examined its
Administrative Officer as RW-1; 1st respondent got
examined its driver as RW-2 and she herself has entered
into the witness box as RW-3 and RTO of Mandya as RW-
4. Totally got exhibited 6 documents and closed their
side. Heard arguments of both sides on merits of the case
and perused the record.
6. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above
said issues and answered in both the petitions in the;
1. Issue No.1: Affirmative
2. Issue No.2: Petitioners in MVC.91/2013,
MVC.92/2013 and
MVC.93/2013 are respectively
entitled for compensation of
Rs.38,16,500/- at the rate of
40:60; Rs.21,10,200/- at the
rate of 30:25:25:20 and
Rs.13,35,200/- together with
interest at 8% p.a. from the date
of petition till realization of the
amount in its entirety from 2nd
respondent.
(SCCH-15) 10 MVC.91 to 93/2013
3. Issue No.3: As per final order for the
following reasons.
REASONS
7. Issue No.1 in all the petitions:- Both the
respondents have took up the defence that accident if
any is because of negligent riding of the motor cycle rider;
there were 3 riders; loosing control over the vehicle; due
to self skid; accident took place and there is no fault on
the part of tempo driver. 2nd respondent in addition has
also contended that present petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties since RC owner and insurer
of the motor cycle are not made as parties to the
proceedings.
8. Therefore, absolutely there is no dispute between
the parties with regard to the alleged; the date, time and
place of accident; the vehicles involved in the accident;
the respective driver/riders of the vehicle at the time of
accident and the fact that there were 3 riders on the
motor cycle. So, the only point that remained for due
consideration of this Tribunal now is the rash and
negligent aspect.
(SCCH-15) 11 MVC.91 to 93/2013
9. To establish that as observed above, 1st petitioner
in MVC.91/2013 has entered into witness box as PW-1.
1st petitioner in MVC.92/2013 who is also guardian of
the minor petitioner in MVC.93/2013 has entered into
witness box as PW-2. Both of them have filed their
affidavit evidence wherein they have reiterated the
petition averments.
10. But admittedly it is in their cross-examination
that they did not see the accident personally. So they are
not an eyewitness to the accident and thereby whatever
they have deposed with regard to the rash and negligent
act and manner of the accident is nothing but hearsay
evidence.
11. However, they have also got examined
eyewitness to the accident as PW-5 who has filed his
affidavit evidence wherein he has stated that on
06.05.2012 at about 11:30 a.m., he was standing near
the bakery near bus stand along with Kadaiah, Rajesh
and Puttaswamy; at that time both deceased and minor
petitioner were proceeding on Hero Honda motor cycle
(SCCH-15) 12 MVC.91 to 93/2013
bearing registration No.KA-05 EX-9331 on Bengaluru -
Mysore road towards Mandya from Bengaluru side; at
that time near Hanakere gate a goods vehicle came from
backside and dashed against the motor cycle without
observing the humps, because of which accident took
place and it is because of sole negligence of the goods
vehicle driver.
12. In his cross-examination it is elicited that
deceased and the injured are his neighbour villagers
which situated at a distance of 8 to 10 kms from his
village and the accident spot situates in their village; he
was standing nearby Ramesh bakery, road humps
situate at a distance of 5 meters from the said bakery;
the said humps are of normal height and width. He has
denied the suggestion because of self skid of the motor
cycle rider accident took place, despite of that to help
petitioners he has given false evidence.
13. To establish their defence, 1st respondent got
examined the driver of tempo as RW-2 who has filed his
affidavit evidence wherein he has stated that motor cycle
(SCCH-15) 13 MVC.91 to 93/2013
along with two pillion riders came with high speed in
rash and negligent manner came all of a sudden from left
side to right side; due to which, motor cycle rider lost his
control and fell down in front of his vehicle; immediately
he stopped his vehicle; due to total negligence of the
motor cycle rider only the accident has taken place and
there is no negligence on his part and his vehicle did not
dash the motor cycle.
14. It is in his cross-examination that he did not
lodge any complaint against rider of two wheeler. But he
has denied the suggestion that since accident took place
on his own negligence; he kept quite and not lodged the
complaint against the opposite vehicle. But he has
admitted the suggestion that he has not complained
before the higher authority that he is falsely charge
sheeted.
15. He has denied the suggestion that after due
investigation only confirming his negligence, he is charge
sheeted and he has not challenged or made any
complaint about the charge sheet filed against him and
(SCCH-15) 14 MVC.91 to 93/2013
despite of that, to save his skin and to help the
respondents, came before this Tribunal and deposed that
accident is a self fall accident.
16. He has also denied the suggestion that after the
tempo hitting the motor cycle, motor cycle along with
rider was dragged at a distance of 10 to 12 feet which
categorically reveal that accident took place on his own
negligence. At this stage, it is important to go through
spot sketch and spot mahazar at Ex.P-2 and 3 wherein it
is specifically stated that there is dragging mark up to 56
feet about dragging of motor cycle from the accident spot
and both vehicles were stationed at a distance of 56 feet
from the accident spot.
17. So, even RW-2 has denied the suggestion of
petitioners observed above, it is pertinent on the face of
record that after accident, both vehicles moved at a
distance of 56 feet. It is the case of the petitioner as well
as apparent on the face of record that the tempo came
from backside and hit against back portion of the motor
cycle, it appears that there is every possibility of
(SCCH-15) 15 MVC.91 to 93/2013
suggestion put forth on behalf of petitioners that tempo
came with high speed.
18. 1st respondent also has entered into witness box
as RW-3 and she has filed her affidavit evidence wherein
she has stated that there is no negligence on the part of
her tempo driver. On the other hand, accident took place
because of motor cycle and there were 3 riders. But it is
also in her evidence that she did not see the accident
personally and thereby whatever she has deposed with
regard to the rash and negligent act and manner of the
accident is nothing but hearsay evidence.
19. To establish its defence, 2nd respondent got
examined its administrative officer as RW-1, who has
filed her affidavit evidence wherein she has specifically
deposed that accident took place because of negligent
riding of two wheeler, as there were 3 riders lost control
over the vehicle. It is rider of two wheeler who is an
architect of the present accident and accident is self skid.
But she did not see the accident personally and whatever
she has deposed basing on the record. So her evidence is
(SCCH-15) 16 MVC.91 to 93/2013
also nothing but hearsay evidence as well as manner of
the rash and negligent aspect.
20. In support of their defence, respondents have let
in no supportive documents. On the other hand, in
support of their case, petitioners have produced police
papers i.e. the true copies of FIR with complaint, spot
mahazar, spot sketch, MV report, inquest report, post
mortem report and charge sheet respectively at Ex.P-1 to
7 and inquest report and PM report of the deceased in
MVC.92/2013 at Ex.P-16 and 17.
21. All the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 7, 16 and 17
categorically reveal that the jurisdictional police have
initially registered criminal case against the tempo driver
for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and
304A of IPC as well as Section 187 of MV Act and after
the investigation, they have charge sheeted the tempo
driver for the offences alleged.
22. All the police papers categorically reveal that the
accident is because of negligent driving of the tempo
driver. Ofcourse, it is an admitted fact that there were 3
(SCCH-15) 17 MVC.91 to 93/2013
riders on the motor cycle and it is in the evidence of PW-2
i.e. 1st petitioner in MVC.91/2013 who is also the
guardian of minor petitioner in MVC.93/2013 that at the
time of accident, her son was one of the pillion rider who
was studying in 9th standard and was aged about 16
years. So, it is pertinent on the face of record that there
is violation of traffic rules. But, by that itself, it cannot be
concluded that there is negligent riding on the part of the
motor cycle which resulted in the accident.
23. Moreover the spot mahazar and spot sketch at
Ex.P-2 and 3 are taken note off, motor cycle riders were
proceeding ahead of the tempo and the same is also an
admitted fact. It is in the evidence of driver/RW-2 that
motor cycle all of a sudden came from left to right side
and due to skid, motor cycle fell down along with riders
and immediately he stationed the tempo.
24. But it is in the police papers that from the
accident spot both vehicles were proceeded further to a
distance of 56 feet. So, if the nature of vehicles and the
accident spot as well as the vehicles movement i.e. motor
(SCCH-15) 18 MVC.91 to 93/2013
cycle was ahead and it is the tempo which came from the
backside is taken into consideration, there is every
possibility of accident taking place in the manner as
contended by petitioners which is supported by police
papers.
25. Even both the respondents have contended that
accident took place because of negligent riding of two
wheeler and lengthy cross-examination is conducted on
their behalf to both PWs-1 and 2, there is no cross-
examination on their behalf about police papers. Of
course, it is suggested that in collusion with police, they
have got falsely implicated the tempo. But so far the
alleged collusion, they have not let in any iota of
evidence.
26. It is also the defence raised on behalf of 2nd
respondent in the course of cross-examination that since
two wheeler was not having valid insurance coverage and
there was no driving licence to the rider of two wheeler,
they have got falsely implicated the tempo. But no
(SCCH-15) 19 MVC.91 to 93/2013
supportive evidence is let in by it to substantiate that and
there is no pleading also in that regard.
27. Therefore, if the entire evidence on record is
taken in a nut shell preponderance of probabilities much
tilts in favour of the case of petitioners than the defence
raised on behalf of both the respondents with regard to
rash and negligent aspect. Hence, petitioners with their
oral evidence supported oral evidence of PW-5 and the
police papers observed above have successfully proved
that the accident took place because of negligent driving
of the tempo driver/RW-2.
28. So far the death of the deceased in both the
petitions and injuries suffered by the minor petitioner,
respondents have raised their objections and it is
suggested to petitioners that minor petitioner has not
suffered any injuries and there is no nexus between the
alleged accidental injuries and the death of both the
deceased.
29. Both PWs-1 and 2 have specifically deposed in
their affidavit evidence that death of both deceased is
(SCCH-15) 20 MVC.91 to 93/2013
because of accidental injuries and minor petitioner has
suffered injuries in the accident. In addition they have
also relied on the police papers to establish the nexus
between death of both deceased and accidental injuries.
30. Admittedly the accident took place on
06.05.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. It is in the police papers
and in the inquest mahazar and PM report at Ex.P-5, 6
as well as Ex.P-16 and 17 that death of both deceased
took place on the very day. Therefore, there is nothing on
record to disbelieve the case of petitioners supported by
police papers that the death of both the deceased is
because of accidental injuries.
31. So far the injuries suffered by minor petitioner
in the accident, petitioner with the oral evidence of
mother guardian has also got examined doctor who has
treated and assessed the disability as PW-4; got produced
medical records such as wound certificate; discharge
summary; medical records follow up treatment regarding
hospital and medical bills, future medical expenditure
respectively at Ex.P-27 to 32 and colour photographs at
(SCCH-15) 21 MVC.91 to 93/2013
Ex.P-37, x-ray film and CT scan film at Ex.P-34 and 35
in the evidence of his guardian and in the evidence of
PW-4, he got produced inpatient and outpatient files
respectively at Ex.P-45 and 46, which are in consonance
with the case of petitioner with regard to his suffering
injuries in the accident. Accordingly, issue No.1 in all the
petition is answered in the affirmative.
32. Issue No.2 in all the petitions:- In
MVC.91/2013 and 92/2013, it is the case of petitioners
that they are respectively wife and children of the
deceased. There is no dispute raised on behalf of other
side about relationship of the petitioners with the
deceased.
33. Moreover, to establish their relationship with
the deceased, petitioners in MVC.91/2013 have
produced Ex.P-8, notarized copies of aadhar cards of the
deceased and petitioners totally 3 in nos. The address of
the deceased and petitioners shown in Ex.P-8 are one
and the same and it is stated in those aadhar cards and
(SCCH-15) 22 MVC.91 to 93/2013
the husband and father respectively of petitioners is
B.Krishna Kumar, the deceased.
34. Ex.P-15 is the study certificate of 2nd petitioner
wherein her father's name is shown as B.Krishna Kumar.
In addition, there is statement of 1st petitioner in the
inquest mahazar of the deceased at Ex.P-5 wherein she is
shown as wife of the deceased and in the statement, 1st
petitioner has stated that she has identified the dead
body of the deceased who is her husband and she has
only one daughter by name Sahana i.e. 2nd petitioner.
35. In MVC.92/2013, petitioners have produced
Ex.P-18, the genealogical tree wherein petitioners are
shown as wife and children of the deceased. Ex.P-19 is
the voters' ID of the deceased and 1st petitioners totally 2
in nos. wherein the husband's name of 1st petitioner is
shown as Skrikantegowda i.e. the deceased and the
address in both the cards are one and the same.
36. Ex.P-20 and 21 are the notarized copies of
statement of marks of both 2nd and 3rd petitioners
wherein the parents names are shown as Srikantegowda
(SCCH-15) 23 MVC.91 to 93/2013
and Prema i.e. the deceased and 1st petitioner. Ex.P-22 is
the notarized copy of the aadhar card of 3rd petitioner
wherein his father's name is shown as Srikategowda i.e.
the deceased.
37. In the inquest mahazar of the deceased at Ex.P-
16 wherein the 1st petitioner is shown as wife of the
deceased and in the statement, 1st petitioner has stated
that she has identified the dead body of the deceased
who is her husband and she has three children i.e. 2
daughter by name Shwetha and Shruthi and only sone
Nandeesh i.e. 2nd to 4th petitioners.
38. So, all the above documents are in support of
petitioners and as observed above, other side also not
disputed their relationship with the respective deceased.
Therefore, petitioners being legal heirs of the respective
deceased in both the petitions are of course entitled to
file present claim petitions seeking compensation on
account of death of both deceased. In view of answering
issue No.1 in affirmative, in all the petitions, they are
(SCCH-15) 24 MVC.91 to 93/2013
also entitled for compensation. Now in respect of
quantum.
39. In MVC.91/2013, it is the case of petitioners
that the deceased was aged about 41 years; running a
printing press and had income of Rs.30,000/- p.m. In the
cross-examination of 1st petitioner, it is suggested that
the deceased was aged more than 52 years. The said
suggestion is of course denied by her.
40. However, to prove the age of the deceased,
petitioners with the oral evidence of 1st petitioner have
also produced the notarized copies of aadhar card at
Sl.No.1 of Ex.P-8, pan card at Ex.P-9 and driving license
at Ex.P-10 of the deceased.
41. The birth year of the deceased is shown as 1969
in the adhar card and the date of birth is shown as
10.05.1969 in both the pan card and the driving license.
The date of accident is 06.05.2012. So, as on the date of
accident the deceased was aged about 42 years for which
the proper multiplier applicable is 14.
(SCCH-15) 25 MVC.91 to 93/2013
42. With regard to the avocation and income of the
deceased, 1st petitioner has reiterated the petition
averments in her chief evidence. In her cross-
examination, she has specifically deposed that they were
running printing press in their house at Bengaluru in the
name and style Karthik Enterprises at door No.23,
Raghavanagar, NY Layout, Muneshwara Block,
Bengaluru and she has produced document in that
regard.
43. It is also in her cross-examination that they
have obtained due license from BBMP to run printing
press and she has no impediment to produce the copy
thereof and the said building belonged to her husband
and her brother in law B.Mallesh. But admittedly, she
has not produced any such documents.
44. It is suggested for 2nd respondent that even now
they are running the said printing press and having the
income. Of course the said suggestion is denied by 1st
petitioner but the suggestion indicates that 2nd
respondent did not deny the avocation of the deceased
(SCCH-15) 26 MVC.91 to 93/2013
but it is its defence that even now the said printing press
being running and petitioners are getting income by that.
45. But 1st petitioner has specifically deposed that
they have handed over the said printing press to her
brother in law B.Mallesh and now it is being run by
him/B.Mallesh. She has admitted that but she has not
produced any document with regard to their transferring
the ownership of the printing press to B.Mallesh.
46. It is elicited in the cross-examination of 1st
petitioner that even now they are residing in the joint
family. Basing on that, it is the suggestion that Karthik
Enterprises belongs to the joint family. But 1st petitioner
has specifically deposed that it was being run by her
husband on his own.
47. In support of her oral evidence, 1st petitioner
has produced Ex.P-11, the tax returns 3 in nos.
submitted for the assessment year 2010 - 11, 2011 - 12
and 2012 - 13. The first two are in the name of the
deceased and the third one is in the name of 1st
petitioner being the legal heir of the deceased. Those
(SCCH-15) 27 MVC.91 to 93/2013
documents demonstrate the declared income of the
deceased respectively of Rs.2,83,030/-, 2,61,037/-
3,08,454/- and the tax paid are shown as Rs.9,390/-,
Rs.8,316/- and 10,228/- respectively.
48. Ex.P-13 is Form No.16A submitted for the
assessment year of 2013 - 14 wherein tax paid is shown
as Rs.3,118/-. Ex.P-14 is the bank account statement of
M/s Karthik Enterprises. In the cross-examination of 1st
petitioner it is suggested that Ex.P-11 to 13 are created
documents. But they are public documents and 2nd
respondent has not brought in any such evidence to
doubt those documents.
49. The brother in law of 1st petitioner i.e. B.Mallesh
also entered into the witness box as PW-3 and filed his
affidavit evidence wherein he has deposed that he is
residing in Bengaluru since 1990 and having his
independent printing and publishing business under the
name and style M/s Nandhi Printers at No.24, 40 feet
Road, Raghavanagara, NYT Lay out, Mysore Road,
Bengaluru and earning more than Rs.3,10,000/- p.a.
(SCCH-15) 28 MVC.91 to 93/2013
50. It is also in his affidavit evidence that the
deceased is his younger brother and since 1995, he was
residing in Bengaluru City and was doing printing and
binding business independently under his proprietorship
in the name and style J/s Karthik Enterprises supplying
materials to M/s BOSCH Limited, Adugodi, Bengaluru.
After his demise, the said business was closed down and
he has purchased the established business of the
deceased and obtained new Pan on 13.07.2012.
51. At this stage itself it is pertinent to note that it
is also in his affidavit evidence that his elder brother
B.Srikantegowda i.e. the deceased in MVC.92/2013 was
doing agriculture and sericulture work. They own 15
acres of agricultural land at Bommanyakahanalli,
Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagar District.
52. It is also in his affidavit evidence that his elder
brother i.e. the deceased in MVC.92/2013
B.Srikantegowda was alone looking after the agricultural
affairs of the entire extent of 15 acres land and earning
around Rs.20,000/- per month and he was maintaining
(SCCH-15) 29 MVC.91 to 93/2013
his family independently out the same income. Since
himself and his younger brother B.Krishnakumar i.e. the
deceased in MVC.91/2013 have had been residing in
Bengaluru City having well established independent
business and substantial income, they have had been not
involved in the agricultural word and were not claiming
any part of agricultural income.
53. In support of his oral evidence, PW-3 has also
produced notarized copies of his pan card and adhar
card respectively at Ex.P-38 and 39; notarized copies of
registration certificated, certificate in Form No.4 and
provisional Vat registration respectively at Ex.P-40 to 42
in his name with regard to Nandi Printers; and Ex.P-43,
the notarized copies of tax returns 5 in nos. i.e. for the
assessment years from 2009 -10 to 2014 -14.
54. All those documents are in support of the oral
evidence of PW-3 with regard to his evidence that he has
been residing at Bengaluru and carrying on printing
business in the name and style Nandi printers and he is
(SCCH-15) 30 MVC.91 to 93/2013
the proprietor of the said Nandi Printers as well as having
substantial income.
55. Ex.P-44 is the notarized copy of the pan card in
the name of Karthik Enterprises. It is elicited in his
cross-examination that there is no mention of
owner's/proprietor's name in Ex.P-44. But admittedly the
said pan card is recent one. However, to substantiate its
defence that even now the said enterprises is being run
by petitioners/1st petitioner and it is of joint family, 2nd
respondent has not let in any supportive evidence.
56. On the other hand, if the oral evidence of 1st
petitioner and PW-3 and the supportive documents they
have produced at Ex.P-11 to 14 and Ex.P-38 to 44 are
taken note off, it is clear that the deceased in
MVC.92/2013 and PW-3 have had been residing in
Bengaluru City with their respective families and they
have had been carrying on the printing and binding
business.
57. It is evident on record that the deceased in
MVC.92/2013 B.Srikantegowda was doing agriculture. It
(SCCH-15) 31 MVC.91 to 93/2013
is important to note that the agricultural land the family
has, is not denied by the other side. On the other hand, it
is the defence that it is the joint family property which is
also not in dispute. But it is the case of petitioners that
all the three brother were maintaining their income
independently.
58. It is the evidence of PW-3 that the printing and
binding business carrying by himself and his younger
brother B.Krishnakumar i.e. the deceased in
MVC.91/2013 were their independent business and since
they were well settled and have had substantial income,
they were not claiming any share in the agricultural
income earned by their elder brother B.Srikantegowda
i.e. the deceased in MVC.92/2013 which appears
probable and also natural in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
59. This Tribunal can also take judicial notice that
generally in the families wherein one of the brothers
remains in the village taking care of the family properties
and other brothers left the house/village long back and
(SCCH-15) 32 MVC.91 to 93/2013
establish their own source of income and live for away
from the house/village, even they continued in the joint
family they won't claim right over the income of the
family properties that too when they are agricultural
lands considering the expenses incurred, efforts made to
get income and particularly the brother who remained in
the village taking care of the family properties and
thereby the existence of their family in their native village
that too the difficulties in carrying out the agricultural
operations in the villages now days in view of the
urbanization.
60. Hence, nothing is there is discard the income of
the deceased shown in Ex.P-11 to 14 and it was his own
income. The date of accident admittedly is 06.05.2012.
So, the relevant document to consider the income of the
deceased is the tax return for the assessment year 2012 -
13 wherein the declared income is shown as
Rs.3,08,454/- which comes to Rs.25,704.50 per month.
61. If the average income of all the three years is
taken (Rs.2,83,030/- + Rs.2,61,037/- + Rs.3,08,454/- =
(SCCH-15) 33 MVC.91 to 93/2013
Rs,8,52,521/-) Rs.23.681/- per month. So, it is thought
just and proper to take the income in between i.e.
Rs.24,693/- rounded off to Rs.24,700/- per month.
62. It is the case of petitioners that they were
depending on the income of the deceased. Even it is an
admitted fact that petitioners are even now in the joint
family, it is evident on record as observed above that both
the deceased and their brother PW-3 were maintaining
their income separately and taking care of their
immediate family.
63. There is also nothing on record to show that
petitioners particularly 1st petitioner having her own
income. Hence, it should be presumed that petitioners
being the wife and daughter of the deceased were
depending on the income of the deceased.
64. It is the case of petitioners that they are
respectively aged about 31 and 11 years. To prove that
they have produced the notarized copies of their adhar
cards in Sl.Nos.2 and 3 at Ex.P-8 series which
(SCCH-15) 34 MVC.91 to 93/2013
demonstrate their birth years respectively as 1981 and
2002.
65. Accident took place in the year 2012. So, as on
the date of accident, both the petitioners were
respectively of 31 years and 10 years. There is no cross-
examination by the other side with regard to their age.
Hence, their age is accepted as pleaded in the petition.
66. It is evident on record that the deceased died
leaving behind his wife and daughter totally 2 persons as
his dependents. Hence, 1/3rd of his income should be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Since, he died
at his age of 42 years, petitioners are entitled for 30% of
future prospectus.
67. Considering the age of petitioners and their
respective relationship with the deceased and the fact
that they have forced to loose the deceased respectively
the husband and the father in an unfortunate accident, it
is thought just and proper award some reasonable
compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and
affection and loss of estate.
(SCCH-15) 35 MVC.91 to 93/2013
68. In the result, petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads mentioned below and the
amount shown against them.
Loss of Dependency Rs.27,66,400/-
(Rs.24,700/- x 12 x 2/3 x 14)
30% of Future Prospectus Rs. 8,29,920/-
Loss of Consortium of P-1 Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection to P-2 Rs. 50,000/-
Loss of Estate to P-1 and P-2 Rs. 50,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- each)
For Transportation of Dead Body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total: Rs.38,16,320,/-
rounded off to Rs.38,16,500/-.
69. In MVC.92/2013, it is the case of petitioners
that the deceased was aged about 43 years; was an
agriculturist and sericulturist; had income of
Rs.20,000/- p.m. In the cross-examination of 1st
petitioner, it is suggested that the deceased was aged
more than 52 years. However, 1st petitioner had deposed
that he was aged 48 years.
70. However, to prove the age of the deceased,
petitioners with the oral evidence of 1st petitioner have
also produced the notarized copy of his voters' ID at
(SCCH-15) 36 MVC.91 to 93/2013
Sl.No.1 in Ex.P19 series which shows his birth years as
1967. Accident took place during 2012. So, as per the
voters' ID the deceased was aged 45 years as on the date
of accident.
71. It is in the police papers particularly the inquest
mahazar and PM report at Ex.P-16 and 17 that he was
aged 50 years. Hence, considering the entire evidence liet
in by petitioners themselves which are contradictory to
each other and in view of non production of specific age
proof document, it is thought just and proper to take the
age of the deceased in between at 48 years as deposed by
1st petitioner for which the proper multiplier applicable is
13.
72. With regard to the avocation and income of the
deceased, as observed above it is evident on record that
he was managing the agricultural lands of the joint
family and nothing is there to discard the case of
petitioners that he alone was utilizing the income derived
by the agricultural lands of the joint family.
(SCCH-15) 37 MVC.91 to 93/2013
73. To prove the quantum of income, petitioners
have produced Ex.P-23, the notarized copy of the loan
pass book in the name of the deceased for the year 2011-
12 and Ex.P-24, the sericulture pass books 2 in nos. in
the name of the deceased for the period from 16.10.2002
to 31.03.2003 and 20.06.2005 to 31.03.2006 to carry out
sericulture in 0.30 hector and 1.10 hector respectively.
74. They have also produced Ex.P-25, the auction
sale receipts 5 in nos. in the name of petitioner issued by
sericulture department; Ex.P-26, RTCs 8 in nos. in the
name of the deceased as well as in the name of joint
family members. It is there that the lands are dry lands;
there are mango trees in one survey number measuring 1
acre and add; the land in one survey number measuring
1 acre was being used to grow sericulture; in other lands
they grown ragi and for the present year i.e. for 2012 and
13 they laid fallow.
75. So, considering all the above facts, in view of no
specific evidence on record with regard to the quantum
of income, taking note of the cost of living on the date of
(SCCH-15) 38 MVC.91 to 93/2013
accident; the nature and quantum of agricultural land
the family has, it is thought just and proper to take the
income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/- p.m.
76. It is the case of petitioners that they were
depending on the income of the deceased. Even it is an
admitted fact that petitioners are even now in the joint
family, it is evident on record as observed above that both
the deceased and their brother PW-3 were maintaining
their income separately and taking care of their
immediate family.
77. There is also nothing on record to show that
petitioners particularly 1st petitioner having her own
income. Hence, it should be presumed that petitioners
being the wife and children who are still students and 4th
petitioner even minor were depending on the income of
the deceased.
78. It is the case of petitioners that they are
respectively aged about 38, 19, 18 and 16 years. To prove
that they have produced the notarized copy of the voters'
ID of 1st petitioner in Sl.No.2 of Ex.P-19 which reveals her
(SCCH-15) 39 MVC.91 to 93/2013
age as 28 years as on 01.01.2002. Accident took place on
06.05.2012. So, as per the voters' ID, 1st petitioner was
aged 38 years.
79. Ex.P-20 is the notarized copy of the statement of
marks of 2nd petitioner of the IV semester of vocational
education in Sericulture. It is dated 21.05.2008 and
Ex.P-21 is the second year PUC marks card of 3rd
petitioner which is dated 23.05.2012. They do not reflect
the age of 2nd and 3rd petitioners.
80. However, Ex.P-22, the notarized copy of adhaar
card of 3rd petitioner shows his birth year as 1997. It is in
the study certificate of 3rd petitioner at Ex.P-36, his date
of birth is 06.07.1997. Accident took place 06.05.2012.
So, as per Ex.P-22 and 23, 3rd petitioner was aged 15
years.
81. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are his elders sisters.
Hence, nothing is there is disbelieve the age of petitioners
as stated in the cause title. Moreover, there is no cross-
examination about the age of petitioners. So, their age is
accepted as stated in the cause title.
(SCCH-15) 40 MVC.91 to 93/2013
82. It is evident on record that the deceased died
leaving behind his wife and children totally 4 persons as
his dependents. Hence, 1/4th of his income should be
deducted towards his personal expenses. Since, he died
at his age of 48 years, petitioners are entitled for 30% of
future prospectus.
83. Considering the age of petitioners and their
respective relationship with the deceased and the fact
that they have forced to loose the deceased respectively
the husband and the father in an unfortunate accident, it
is thought just and proper award some reasonable
compensation for loss of consortium, loss of love and
affection and loss of estate.
84. In the result, petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads mentioned below and the
amount shown against them.
Loss of Dependency Rs.14,04,000/-
(Rs.12,000/- x 12 x 3/4 x 13)
30% of Future Prospectus Rs. 4,21,200/-
Loss of Consortium (P-1) Rs. 75,000/-
Loss of Love and Affection( P-2 to 4) Rs. 90,000/-
(Rs.30,000/- each)
(SCCH-15) 41 MVC.91 to 93/2013
Loss of Estate (P-1 to 4) Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- each)
For Transportation of Dead Body
and Funeral Expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total: Rs.21,10,200/-
85. In MVC.93/2013, it is the case of petitioner
that he is minor, aged about 16 years and a student. The
minor petitioner herein is the 3rd petitioner in
MVC.92/2013. As discussed above, he is aged about 15
years as on the date of accident as per Ex.P-22 and 36.
86. As per Ex.P-36, minor petitioner was at X
standard. The document is dated 02.01.2013. Accident
took place on 06.05.2012. So, it appears that at the time
of accident, minor petitioner was on summer vacation
after completing his IX standard and the same is in the
cross-examination of his natural mother guardian/PW-2.
Moreover, there is no cross-examination by the other side
with regard to the age of minor petitioner and the fact
that he was a student as on the date of accident.
87. It is the case of minor petitioner that he has
suffered multiple fractures as shown in the wound
certificate and discharge summaries; took treatment in
(SCCH-15) 42 MVC.91 to 93/2013
District hospital, Mandya, BGS Global hospital,
Bengaluru; was inpatient in BGS hospital from
06.05.2012 to 17.05.2012; already spent Rs.7,00,000/-
and became permanently became disabled.
88. In support of the case of minor petitioner, his
natural mother guardian/PW-2 has filed her affidavit
evidence wherein she has reiterated the entire petition
averments. In her cross-examination, her chief evidence
is denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied
by her.
89. However, it is elicited that at the time of
accident, minor petitioner was at 9th standard and now
he is at I PUC. Basing on that it is suggested that thus
there is no academic loss. But it is an admitted fact that
there is no academic loss since accident took place on
06.05.2012 and by that time minor petitioner was at 9th
standard and the above cross-examination of PW-2 was
done on 21.01.2014 by that time the minor petitioner
was at I PUC.
(SCCH-15) 43 MVC.91 to 93/2013
90. Moreover, as per the certificate at Sl.No.5 in
Ex.P-37 series, for the academic year, 2013 i.e. after the
accident, he has undergone computer course. Hence,
nothing is there to show the academic loss if any suffered
by the minor petitioner.
91. PW-4, the consultant plastic surgeon who has
treated the minor petitioner and also assessed disability
has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has deposed
that the minor petitioner was brought their hospital i.e.
BGS Global hospital on 06.05.2012 at around 1.45 p.m.
with a history of RTA on the very day.
92. On examination it is found that minor petitioner
had suffered open injuries to the face and head; he was
initially seen by team of doctors fin emergency
department, neurosurgery and plastic surgery. Minor
petitioner was initially resuscitated and was admitted in
ICU under neurosurgery.
93. It is also in his affidavit evidence that first he
saw the minor petitioner in ICU at around 7.30 p.m. and
noted that minor petitioner had suffered right parieto
(SCCH-15) 44 MVC.91 to 93/2013
occipital stellate laceration; complex left forehead,
eyebrow, left upper eyelid degloving injury with exposure
of frontal bone, torn upper eyelid and lateral canthus
area of bone exposure; bilateral eyelid odema; right eye
having normal vision with normal extra-ocular movement
and left eye having doubtful perception of light.
94. It is also in his affidavit evidence that
radiological reports demonstrated fracture of greater wing
of left sphenoid bone; left medical buttes of maxilla and
infra orbital rim and right temporal bone longitudinal
with fracture of mastoid with right ear bleed.
95. It is also in his affidavit evidence that minor
petitioner was treated conservatively from the
neurosurgery team and was taken for the immediate
exploration of the all facial and scalp wounds i.e. repair
of the right parieto-occipital scalp avulsion wound, repair
of complex left sided facial wound and left upper lid
repaid with left medial canthoplasty under GA on the
very day.
(SCCH-15) 45 MVC.91 to 93/2013
96. He has also deposed that minor petitioner was
treated by ophthalmologist for left eye vision. It was
found to have no perception of light in the left eye
possible due to the injury to the left optic nerve. Minor
petitioner was also treated for the head injury with
medical treatment. After improvement in the vision by
the treatment, and healing of injuries, he was discharged
in stable condition on 17.05.2012.
97. He has also deposed that initially petitioner was
evaluated on outpatient basis for the ophthalmic
assessment on 21.05.2012; later on 25.06.2013 and on
26.06.2013 wherein plastic surgery ENT consultations
were done for the assessment of facial deformity and also
function of the left nasolacrymal duct. Minor petitioner
was advised possible surgical treatment of the
Dacryocystorhinostomy or stenting of the nasolacrymal
duct and correction of the left supra orbital deformity.
98. He has also deposed that on 15.03.2014 himself
and ophthalmologist have assessed the disability as per
the guidelines and found that petitioner is having visual
(SCCH-15) 46 MVC.91 to 93/2013
disability corresponding to 30%; facial disability at
15.05% combined disability at 40.33%.
99. He has produced Ex.P-45 and 46 respectively IP
and OP file in his chief evidence. In his cross-
examination it is denied that whatever the disability he
has assessed is not permanent one and he has stated the
false disability to help the minor petitioner to get
compensation.
100. The minor petitioner has got produced the
medical records i.e. wound certificate at Ex.P-27 and the
discharge summary at Ex.P-28 issued by BGS Global
hospital which demonstrate that petitioner admitted to
their hospital on 06.05.2012 with a history of RTA on the
very day.
101. It is also there that minor petitioner was
diagnosed for traumatic brain injury; fracture of right
lesser wind sphenoid; fracture of cribriform plate of
ethomoid; fracture of inner table or left frontal bone and
left eye injury with visual loss.
(SCCH-15) 47 MVC.91 to 93/2013
102. They also show that minor petitioner
underwent emergency right parieto occipital scalp
avulsion repair and complex left facial wound repair with
left eyelid repair and left medial canthoplasty under GA
on the very day by plastic surgery team and was
discharged in stable condition on 17.05.2012. Thus he
was inpatient in the hospital for 12 days.
103. Ex.P-29 is medical reports 4 in nos.; Ex.P-34 is
x-rays 2 in nos. and Ex.P-35 is CT san films 7 in nos.
They are in support with each other and in consonance
with Ex.P-27 and 28. Ex.P-30 is the follow up treatment
record 8 in nos. which supports the contentions of minor
petitioner about follow up treatment.
104. Ex.P-45 and Ex.P-46 respectively the IP file
and the OP file produced by PW-4 are in corroboration
with the contents at Ex.P-27 to 30, 34 and 35 and
thereby the oral evidence of PW-4 as well. So, if the
above evidence is taken note off, it can be safely held
that in the accident, minor petitioner has suffered head
injury; injury to left eye with vision loss and facial
(SCCH-15) 48 MVC.91 to 93/2013
injuries as well; he was treated surgically and was
inpatient in the hospital for 12 days.
105. To prove the medical expenses, minor
petitioner got produced Ex.P-31, the hospital and medical
bills 16 in nos. amounting to Rs.1,81,412.50. In the
cross-examination of PW-2/the natural mother guardian
of minor petitioner it is suggested that those bills are
created and to get higher compensation, the advance
paid receipts are also included.
106. If those bills are gone through, the bill at
Sl.No.1 is the inpatient bill amounting to Rs.1,75,238/-.
There is no mention with regard to corporate bill.
Moreover, there is no cross-examination with regard to
medical reimbursement. In addition, minor petitioner has
also got produced the advance paid receipts 5 in nos.
amounting to Rs.1,75,000/-. It is in the inpatient bill
that settling the bill by adjusting the advance amount of
Rs.2,00,200/-, Rs.24,962/- is refunded.
107. The other bills are out patient cash
bills/receipts of BGS Global hospital, Karthi Netralaya,
(SCCH-15) 49 MVC.91 to 93/2013
MKallige hospital, Netradhamka hospital, Vasan Eye
Care hospital, KIMS hospital and KR hospital. All those
bills are in the name of minor petitioner.
108. Moreover, if the nature of injuries suffered by
minor petitioner, the nature of treatment he has
undergone, the inpatient period and the hospitals
wherein he took treatment are taken note off, nothing is
there to disbelieve the said medical expenses.
109. On the other hand, it appears that minor
petitioner/his parents have incurred expenses more than
of that. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, it is
thought just and proper to award Rs.1,85,000/- towards
medical expenses including the bills at Ex.P-31 series.
110. With regard future medical expenses, minor
petitioner got produced Ex.P-32, the certificate issued by
BGS Global hospital wherein it is stated that the
approximate cost for future surgery including
hospitalization for general ward would be Rs.1,50,000/-.
But the author of the said document is not examined
before this Tribunal. Moreover, the cost shown therein is
(SCCH-15) 50 MVC.91 to 93/2013
admitted an approximate costs. Therefore, considering
the nature of injuries, it is thought just and proper to
award some reasonable compensation for future medical
expenses as well.
111. The colour photographs of minor petitioner at
Ex.P-33 show that he has some scars on the face;
disfiguration and injury mark on the back side head.
Considering the same, it is thought proper to award some
compensation for the scars and disfiguration as well as
marriage prospectus.
112. It is in the evidence of PW-4 that because of
loss of vision to left eye, minor petitioner is having
disability at 30% and facial disability at 15.5% because of
which total disability at 40.33%. Considering the visual
disability, the age of petitioner and his long way of life to
live with the said disability, it is thought just to take the
whole body disability at 35% for loss of amenities and
comfort as well as permanent physical impairment.
113. In view of the admitted fact that petitioner was
aged about 16 years and was a student of 9th standard at
(SCCH-15) 51 MVC.91 to 93/2013
the time of accident and the disability he has because of
the loss of vision while will definitely affects his
functional ability in future of which this Tribunal can
take judicial notice, it is thought just and proper to taken
the notional income of minor petitioner at Rs.4,500/-
considering the cost of living as on the date of accident
for assessment of loss of future earning.
114. In the result, petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads mentioned below and the
amount shown against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/-
Loss of Income during laid up Rs. 30,000/-
period, Diet, Nourishment and etc.
Attendant Charges, Conveyance, Rs. 30,000/-
and Incidental Charges
Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,85,000/-
Future Medical Expenditure Rs. 1,00,000/-
For Ugly Scars, Disfigurement and Rs. 1,00,000/-
Marriage Prospectus
Loss of Future Earning Rs. 3,40,200/-
(4,500 x 12 x 35/100 x 18)
Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 1,50,000/-
For Permanent Physical Impairment Rs. 3,00,000/-
Total: Rs.13,35,200/-
115. Petitioners have sought interest at the rate of
12% p.a. Considering the cost of living on the date of
(SCCH-15) 52 MVC.91 to 93/2013
accident, it is thought fit to award interest at 8% p.a.
from the date of petition till the realization of the
compensation amount in its entirety.
116. Now, in respect of liability. There is no dispute
with regard to the fact that 1st respondent is the RC
owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of tempo. 2nd
respondent has admitted the policy and its force on the
date of accident but has contended that its liability if any
is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy.
117. But it has not let in any evidence to prove the
violation of policy conditions if any. On the other hand,
there is no charge sheet for either driving license or for
vehicular documents as per Ex.P-7, the charge sheet.
118. Moreover, as per Ex.R-3, 1st respondent is the
RC owner. Admittedly as Ex.R-5 and 6, the FC and
permit of the tempo were in existence and in force as on
the date of accident. Therefore, 1st respondent being the
RC owner is liable to pay the compensation and 2nd
respondent being the insurer is liable indemnify the said
liability.
(SCCH-15) 53 MVC.91 to 93/2013
119. In MVC.91/2013 and MVC.92/2013,
considering the age of petitioners and their respective
relationship with the deceased as well as the fact that the
daughters of the deceased are unmarried daughters, it is
thought just and proper to apportion the compensation
amount amongst them at 40:60 and 30:25:25:20
respectively.
120. Accordingly, petitioners in MVC.91/2013,
MVC.92/2013 and MVC.93/2013 are respectively
entitled for compensation of Rs.38,16,500/- at the rate
of 40:60; Rs.21,10,200/- at the rate of 30:25:25:20
and Rs.13,35,200/- together with interest at 8% p.a.
from the date of petition till realization of the amount in
its entirety from 2nd respondent. Accordingly, issue No.2
is answered in all the petitions.
121. Issue No.3 in both the petitions:-
Considering the age of petitioners, it is thought just and
proper to direct them to keep the considerable quantum
of compensation in FD for considerable length of time
whereby they can get some regular income by way of
(SCCH-15) 54 MVC.91 to 93/2013
interest. From the above discussions, this Tribunal
proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER
All the petitions filed by petitioners in MVC.91/2013, MVC.92/2013 and MVC.93/2013 under Section 166 of MV Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners in MVC.91/2013, MVC.92/2013 and MVC.93/2013 are respectively entitled for compensation of Rs.38,16,500/- at the rate of 40:60; Rs.21,10,200/- at the rate of 30:25:25:20 and Rs.13,35,200/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the amount in its entirety from 2nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
In MVC.91/2013, 1st and 2nd petitioners respectively shall deposit Rs.6,00,000/- and Rs.12,00,000/- in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years; Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.6,00,000/- out of the matured amount for another period of 5 years.
The remaining compensation amount together with proportionate interest and cost is ordered to be released in their favour through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
(SCCH-15) 55 MVC.91 to 93/2013 In MVC.92/2013, 1st to 3rd petitioners respectively shall deposit Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/- in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with proportionate interest and cost is ordered to be released in their favour through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
The share of compensation amount together with proportionate interest and cost of 4th petitioner who is minor shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru till he attains the majority and after his attaining majority he shall deposit Rs.2,00,000/- out of the matured amount for a period of 5 years.
In MVC.93/2013, Rs.10,00,000/- shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru till the minor petitioner attains the majority and after his attaining majority he shall deposit Rs.6,00,000/- out of the matured amount for a period of 5 years and Rs.3,00,000/- out of the matured amount for further period of 5 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- each in all the cases.
Draw a decree accordingly.
Office is directed to keep the original copy of the judgment in MVC.91/2013 and (SCCH-15) 56 MVC.91 to 93/2013 the copy thereof in MVC.92/2013 and MVC.93/2013.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this the 30th day of June, 2015.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
PW1: P.Kavitha PW2: Prema PW3: B.Mallesh PW4: Dr.Madhusudhan.G. PW5: H.R.Yashwanth
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: P.Vijayalakshmi RW2: M.J.Sashikumar @ Sashi RW3: Chandramma RW4: K.Anwar Pasha LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P.2 True copy of spot Mahazar Ex.P.3 True copy of Sketch Ex.P.4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.5 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P.6 True copy of PM report (SCCH-15) 57 MVC.91 to 93/2013 Ex.P.7 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.8 Notarised copy of Aadhar card (3 in nos.) (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P.9 Notarised copy of Pan card of the deceased (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P.10 Notarised copy of DL of the deceased (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P.11 Income tax returns for 2010-11 to 2012-13 (3 in nos.) Ex.P.12 Form No. 26 A S Ex.P.13 Form No. 16 A Ex.P.14 Account extract of the deceased Ex.P.15 Study certificate of petitioner No.2 Ex.P16 True copy of copy of inquest report Ex.P17 True copy of PM report Ex.P18 Genealogical tree issued by village Accountant Ex.P19 Notarised copy of Voters IDs (2 in nos.) Ex.P20 Notarised copy of Statement of marks of petitioner No.2 Ex.P 21 Notarised copy of PUC marks card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P 22 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.4 Ex.P 23 Notarised copy of loan pass book Ex.P 24 Silk Worm weavers license pass book (2 in nos.) Ex.P25 Auction sale receipts in the name of the deceased (5 in nos.,) Ex.P26 RTCs (8 in nos.) Ex.P27 True copy of Wound certificate of minor petitioner Ex.P28 Discharge summary Ex.P29 Medical reports (4 in nos.) Ex.P30 Follow-up-treatment record (8 in nos.) Ex.P31 Medical and hospital bills (16 in nos.) amounting to RS. 1,81,412.50ps) Ex.P32 Future medical expenditure estimation Ex.P33 Color photographs (4 in nos.) Ex.P33(a) CD (SCCH-15) 58 MVC.91 to 93/2013 Ex.P34 Xray films (2 in nos.) Ex.P35 CT scan films (7 in nos.) Ex.P36 Study certificate Ex.P37 Sports certificates (5 in nos.) Ex.P38 Notarised copy of PAN card (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P39 Notarised copy of Aadhaar cards (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P40 Notarised copy of registration certificate issued under Karnataka Sales Tax Act (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P41 Notarised copy of certificate in Form no . 4 (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P42 Notarised copy of provisional Vat registration (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P43 Notarised copy of Tax returns ( 5 in nos. ) fro the period from 2009-10 to 2013-14 (Original perused and returned back) Ex.P44 Notarised copy of PAN card of Karthik enterprises (Original perused and returned back) LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter, Ex.R2 Certified copy of policy. Ex.R3 Certified copy of "B" register extract.
Ex.R4 Covering letter, Ex.R5 Certified copy of "B" register extract with FC
validity endorsement as well as the details with regard to previous owner, Ex.R6 Certified copy of permit.
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.