Bangalore District Court
Sri.K.Gurappa vs Smt.G.Mydhili on 23 January, 2020
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JANUARY 2020
PRESENT : Smt. S. MAHALAXMI NERALE,B.A., L.L.B.(Hons.), L.L.M.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.5972/2018 C/w. M.V.C.No.5973/2018,
M.V.C.No.5974/2018 , M.V.C.No.6270/2018
PETITIONERS: 1. Sri.K.Gurappa,
(in MVC S/o.Balakrishnaiah,
5972/18) Aged about 39 years.
2. Master K.Retvik Guru,
S/o.K.Gurappa,
Aged about 6 years.
Minor represented by
Petitioner No.1/father/
Natural guardian
Both are residing at No.16/621
Sriramanagara Colony,
Panagal, Srikalahasti,
Chittoor dist., Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri . T.V.Ramesh, Advocate)
PETITIONER :
(in MVC 1. Sri.K.Gurappa,
5973/2018) S/o.Balakrishnaiah,
Aged about 39 years.
R/o.No.16/621,
Sriramanagara Colony,
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
Panagal, Srikalahasti,
Chittoor dist., Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri . T.V.Ramesh, Advocate)
PETITIONERS : 1. Sri V.E.Armugam,
(in MVC S/o. Late V.E.Vajravelu,
5974/2018) Aged about 51 years.
2. Smt.V.A.Indrani,
W/o.V.E.Arumugam,
Aged about 42 years.
3. Kumari V.A.Rajeswari,
D/o.V.E.Arumugam,
Aged about 19 years,
All are residing at
No.1010, Kranti Nagar,
Rajivnagar Panchayathi,
Tirupathi Urban,
Chittoor dist.,
Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri T.V.Ramesh , Advocate)
PETITIONER : 1. Kumari.Yerra Salomy
(in MVC Swarna Latha,
6270/2018) D/o.Chinna Muneiah,
Aged about 23 years,
R/o.No.24/379,Harijana street,
Jammalamadugu Moragudi
Mandal, Cuddapah district,
Andra Pradesh.
(By Sri. T.V.Ramesh, Advocate )
SCCH-1 3 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
V/s
Respondents: 1. Smt.G.Mydhili,
(Common in all W/o.L.V.Ramana Babu,
the cases) Major,
Mydhilli Hospital,
14/20, ICS road,
Near Veg Market,
Gudur,
Nellore dist524 101,
Andra pradesh.
(By Sri Chidananda H.M., Advocate)
2.The National Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Motor Claims HUB,
No.144, 2nd floor,
Shubharam Complex,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore 01.
(By Sri. B.T.Rudra Murthy, Advocate)
*******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions have arisen out of the same
accident and therefore, they are taken up together for
disposal by this common judgment.
SCCH-1 4 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions
invoking the provisions of Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking compensation of Rs.One
Crore and Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.40 lakhs and Rs.20 lakhs
for the death/injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident.
3. The brief facts of the case are that:
On 25.09.2018 at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased
Reddy Priya W/o K. Gurappa, her daughter Kumari
Siri Sahithi Guru and her friends Vennela and Yerra
Salomy Swarna Latha were were going in Car bearing
No.AP26AN4466 from Srikalahasti to Vijayawada. At
about 6.30 a.m. when they reached near Racherlapadu
Village, Kodavalur Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramulu District
Andra Pradesh NH16, the driver of the said Car drove
the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed the Car against the road divider. As a
result of the same, all the occupants of the car
sustained grievous injuries. K.Reddy Priya and her
SCCH-1 5 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
daughter Siri Sahithi Guru and Vennela succumbed to
the injuries. The accident occurred due to carelessness
and rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver.
4. It is contended that deceased K.Reddy Priya
was aged about 31 years and she had completed M.Sc.
in Nursing and M.Sc. in Psychology and was working
as Head of the Department in Nursing at Sri Sahaya
College of Nursing at Tirupathi and was earning a sum
of Rs.60,000/p.m. She was entitled for time bound
promotions and increments. The petitioners were
depending upon the earnings of the deceased and they
are put to lot of mental agony and untold misery due
to sudden demise of deceased. It is contended that the
petitioners have spent Rs.50,000/ towards
transportation of dead body and towards funeral
obsequies.
5. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5973/18 that his daughter K.Siri Sahithi
was aged about 1 ½ years and she succumbed to the
SCCH-1 6 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
injuries in the accident. The petitioner is put to lot of
mental agony and untold misery due to her sudden
demise. It is contended that the petitioner has spent
Rs.50,000/ towards transportation of dead body and
towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
6. It is the case of the petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5972/18 that immediately after the accident
injured Vennela was shifted to Government Hospital,
Nellore, but she succumbed to the injuries. Prior to the
date of accident the deceased was aged 24 years and
she was working as a Lecturer at Sri Sahaya College of
Nursing at Tirupathi, Andrapradesh since from 3
years. The petitioners being the parents and younger
sister of the deceased were depending upon the
earnings of the deceased and the petitioners are put to
lot of mental agony and untold misery due to sudden
demise of the deceased. The petitioners have spent
Rs.50,000/ towards transportation of dead body and
towards funeral and obsequies.
SCCH-1 7 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
7. It is the case of the petitioner Yerra Salomy
Swarnalatha that immediately after the accident
petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Nellore,
wherein first aid treatment was given and she was
referred to Simhapuri Hospital, Nellore. The petitioner
took treatment as an inpatient from 25.09.2018 to
22.102018 and she is still under treatment as an out
patient. It is contended that petitioner is physically
and functionally disabled and neurologically deficit. It
is contended that the petitioner was working as
Lecturer in Sahaya Nursing College, Tirupathi and she
was getting monthly salary of Rs.20,000/. After the
accident till today she is bed ridden and has lost her
earnings.
8. It is contended by the petitioners in all the
cases that the accident has occurred due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing
No.AP26AN4466 and the respondent No.1 being the
owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are
SCCH-1 8 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to
the petitioners in all the cases.
9. In response to the Court notices issued on
these claim petitions, the respondents have appeared
before the Court through their respective counsels and
have filed their Written statements.
10. The first respondent/Owner of the Car
bearing No.AP26AN4466 has denied the petition
averments. He has denied the date, time and mode of
accident, injuries sustained by the deceased and they
having succumbed to the injuries , the amount spent
for funeral and obsequies , avocation and income of
the deceased and the relationship of the deceased
with the petitioners and injuries sustained by the
petitioner in M.V.C.No.6270/18, treatment taken by
her and she sustaining permanent disability. It is
contended that she is the R.C.Owner of Maruthi Swift
Car and it is duly insured with the second respondent
and the policy was valid as on the date of accident. It
SCCH-1 9 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
is contended that, the compensation claimed is
excessive, exorbitant and unreasonable and has
prayed to dismiss the petition.
11. The respondent No.2Insurance Company
has filed its written statement denying the petition
averments. It has admitted the issuance of policy in
respect of Car bearing No.AP26AN4466 but has
contended that its liability is subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy. It is contended that the
petitioners have filed the above cases before this
Tribunal against law as this Tribunal has no
jurisdiction to entertain the above cases as the
accident has occurred in Chittoor District, Andhra
Pradesh, petitioners' are the residents of Chittoor
District, Andrapradesh, the respondent No.1 is a
resident of Nellore District and policy issuing office is
also situated in Nellore District. The Claims Tribunal
gets jurisdiction if the claimants reside or carry on
business or the respondent resides within the local
SCCH-1 10 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
limits of this Tribunal. Hence, the above claim
petitions are liable to be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
12. It is contended that the alleged accident was
not intimated by the owner of the vehicle and the
required documents were also not produced by him
and he has failed to comply with the requirements of
Section 134 (c) of M.V.Act and conditions of the policy.
Further it is contended that as per Section 158(6) of
M.V.Act, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned
Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to
the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of
information but they have failed to comply with the
same. Further , it has denied the date, time, mode of
accident, injuries sustained by the deceased and they
having succumbed to the injuries , the amount spent
for funeral and obsequies, avocation and income of the
deceased and the relationship of the deceased with
the petitioners,in M.V.C.No.6270/2018, the petitioners
SCCH-1 11 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
sustaining injuries, treatment taken by her and
disability said to have been suffered by her. It is
contended that the driver of the Car had no valid and
effective driving licence to drive the car allegedly
involved in the accident and that the owner has
entrusted her vehicle to a person who did not possess
driving licence to drive the same and thus, has violated
the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended
that, the insured car had no valid permit and F.C. on
the date of accident.It is contended that the
compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and
that in the event of the owner failing to contest the
case, then it may be permitted to defend the case on
all grounds including negligence as per Section 170 of
M.V.Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
13. Based on the above pleadings, the following
Issues have been framed :
SCCH-1 12 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
COMMON ISSUES
IN M.V.C.No.5972/18, 5973/18 and 5974/18
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that the
deceased succumbed to the injuries in a
Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on
2592018 at about 6.30 a.m. at
Racherlapadu village, NH16, Kodavalur
Mandal, Sri Potti Sriramuly District, (Nellore
District), AP within the jurisdiction of
Kodavalur Police Station on account of rash
and negligent driving of the Maruti Swift Car
bearing registration No.AP26AN4466 by
its driver ?
2. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order?
Additional Issue No.1:
Whether the respondent No.2 proves that
this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the
claim petition?
M.V.C.No.6270/2018
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she
sustained grievous injuries in a Motor
vehicle Accident that occurred on
2592018 at about 6.30 a.m. at
Racherlapadu village, NH16, Kodavalur
Mandal, SPSR , Nellore District, AP within
SCCH-1 13 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
the jurisdiction of Kodavalur Police Station
on account of rash and negligent driving of
the Maruti Swift Car bearing registration
No.AP26AN4466 by its driver ?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What order?
Additional Issue No.1:
Whether the respondent No.2 proves that this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the claim
petition?
14. In order to prove their case, the first
petitioner in M.V.C.No.5972/18 who is also the
petitioner in MVC.No.5973/2018 has examined
himself as PW1, the 2nd petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5974/2018 has examined herself as PW2,
the petitioner in M.V.C.No.6270/18 has examined
herself as PW3. The petitioners have also examined
PW4 and 5 and in all 40 documents have been got
marked at Ex.P.1 to 40. On the other hand, the
SCCH-1 14 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
respondents have not led any evidence either oral or
documentary.
15. Heard the arguments of learned Counsels for
the petitioner and respondent No.2 and also perused
the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in M.F.A.No.31880/2009 (MV) (The
Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. Mohammad Bee and
another) and also perused the records.
16. On the basis of the arguments addressed,
the pleadings and the evidence available on record, my
findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1( in all the cases )... In the Affirmative,
Additional Issue No.1
( in all the cases) ...In the Negative
Issue No.2 (in all the cases) ...Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.3( in all the cases )...
As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
17. Additional Issue No.1: (In all the cases)
Before discussing on the Issue No.1, Additional Issue
SCCH-1 15 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
No.1 is taken up for consideration. It is the contention
of the respondent No.2 that the petitioners have filed
the above case before this Tribunal against law as this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain these cases as
the petitioners' are residents of Chittoor District, Andra
Pradesh. The respondent No.1 owner of the car is a
resident of Nellore District and policy issuing office is
also situated in Nellore District. It is no doubt true that
the petitioners and the respondent No.1 are not
residing within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, but,
the respondent No.2, is situated within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
Malathi Sardar Vs. National Insurance Company
Ltd. and Others reported in 2006 ACJ 542 has held
that the provision of territorial jurisdiction has to be
interpreted consistent with the object of facilitating
remedies for the victims of accidents and that hyper
technical approach in such matters can hardly be
SCCH-1 16 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
appreciated and that there is no bar to a claim petition
being filed at a place where Insurance Company which
is the main contesting party in such cases has
its business. Hence, the Additional Issue No.1 is
answered in the negative.
18. Issue No.1: It is the case of the petitioners
in all the cases that when Reddy Priya, Siri Sahithi
guru, Vennela and Yerra Salomy were travelling from
Srikalahasti town to Vijayawada in the Car bearing
No.AP26AN4466, the driver of the said car drove the
same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the divider and caused the accident and as a
result of the same K.Reddy Priya, her daughter Siri
Sahithi Guru and her friend V.A.Vennela succumbed
to the injuries and Kumari Yerra Salomy sustained
grievous injuries.
19. The petitioners' in order to substantiate their
case have examined the 1 st petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5972/2018 who is also the petitioner in
SCCH-1 17 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
MVC.No.5973/2018 as PW 1, the 2nd petitioner in
M.V.C.No.5974/18 as PW2 and petitioner in
M.V.C.No.6270/18 as PW3 and in their affidavit
evidence filed in lieu of their examination in chief, they
have reiterated the averments of the petition . Apart
from that, PW1 has produced F.I.R. and complaint,
spot sketch, IMV report, Inquest mahazar and
P.M.Report of Reddy Priya, chargesheet, Inquest
mahazar and P.M.Report of baby Sahithi at Ex.P.1 to
9 and PW2 has produced the Inquest Mahazar and
P.M. Report of Vennela. Admittedly, PW1 and PW2
have not witnessed the accident. Admittedly, PW3 an
inmate of the car has stated the manner in which the
accident has taken place. Though she has been cross
examined by the learned Counsel for the respondent
No.2, nothing worthwhile has been brought out to
show that the accident has not occurred due to the
fault of the driver of the car.
SCCH-1 18 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
20. Ex.P.1, FIR and complaint discloses that the
accident has occurred on 25.09.2018 at about 6.30
a.m. and the petitioner in M.V.C.No.6270/18 while
taking treatment in the hospital has given the oral
complaint on the same day at 9.30 am. Based on the
complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered the
FIR and after completion of investigation have filed the
charge sheet against the driver of the Car bearing
No.AP26AN4466 for the offences punishable under
Section 278 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Ex.P.3 Spot Sketch
discloses the accident spot and Ex.P.4 the IMV Report
discloses that the Car bearing No.AP26AN4466 has
sustained the following damage:
1. Bonnet, front bumper, window side glass, front
doors and roof and dash board and front axle, front
both seats etc. are damaged.
The IMV Inspector has opined that the accident is
not due to any of the mechanical defects of the
vehicle.
SCCH-1 19 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
21. The Inquest and P.M. Reports of the deceased
K Reddy Priya, Siri Sahithi and Vennela show that as
a result of the injuries sustained by them in the
accident, they have succumbed to the same. The oral
evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and the documentary evidence
at Ex.P.1 to P.7 clearly prove that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Car bearing No.AP26AN4466 by its driver. Hence,
Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
22. Issue No.2( in M.V.C.No.5972/2018): It is
the contention of the petitioners that the deceased
Reddy Priya is survived by her husband and 6 years
old son. In order to prove the same, the petitioners
have produced notarized copies of Aadhar cards of
deceased, petitioner No.1 and 2 at Ex.P.27 to 29 and
they clearly reveal that the petitioner No.1 is the
husband and the petitioner No.2 is the minor son of
the deceased.
SCCH-1 20 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
23. The petitioner No.1, husband of the deceased
has stated that he is a social worker and he was
dependant on the income of his wife. The Petitioner
No.2 is the minor son of the deceased. Hence, they are
considered as dependents of the deceased.
24. It is the contention of the petitioners that the
deceased was working as Head of the Department of
Nursing at Sahaya Nursing College , Tirupathi and was
earning Rs.60,000/p.m. In order to prove the same,
they have produced Ex.P.10 Salary Certificate for the
months of May 2018 to September 2018 and they
disclose that the deceased was getting a gross salary of
Rs.60,000/ per month. They have also examined
Smt. T.Deepika, who is working as a lecturer in
Sahaya College of Nursing at Tirupathi as PW5 and in
her affidavit evidence filed in lieu of examinationin
chief she has stated that the deceased Reddy Priya was
the Head of the Department in faculty of Nursing in
Sahaya College of Nursing, Tirupathi and was drawing
SCCH-1 21 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
a gross salary of Rs.60,000/ . She worked as such for
3 years till 25/2/2018 and she was entitled to time
bound increments. In her crossexamination by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.2, PW5 has
stated that she is only a faculty member and she does
not have personal knowledge about the management
affairs of the College. She has stated that the salary
was being paid to the deceased by cash but she has
not seen the same.
25. Ex.P.10 are the Salary Certificates for the
months of May 2018 to September 2018. It is issued
by the General Secretary and Correspondent of Sahaya
Organization. The petitioners have not examined the
said person who has issued the Salary Certificates.
They have also not examined any other person from
the Administrative Branch and have also not produced
the appointment order, attendance register etc., The
S.S.L.C. Marks card, Bachelor of Science in Nursing
(Basic) Degree Certificate, Karnataka State Nursing
SCCH-1 22 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
Council Registration Certificate and Provisional Master
Degree Certificate in M.Sc., in Nursing have been
produced by the petitioners at Ex.P.23 to P.26. Hence,
as the petitioners have not proved the salary certificate
but as the deceased had done M.Sc. in Nursing, her
income is notionally taken as Rs.17,000/. p.m.
26. In so far as addition of income towards loss of
future prospects, the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and
Ors. reported in 2017 ACJ 2700(SC) has held, " In
case, the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed
salary, an addition of 40% of the established income
should be the warrant where the deceased was below
the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and
10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years should be regarded as the necessary method
of computation. The established income means the
SCCH-1 23 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
income minus the tax component". In Hemraj Vs.
Oriental Insurance Co. & others reported in (2018)
ACJ(5) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
future prospects is admissible where minimum income
is determined on guess work in the absence of proof of
income.
27. In the case on hand, the petitioners have
produced S.S.L.C. Marks Card of the deceased and it
discloses the date of birth of the deceased as
18.03.1987. The accident has occurred on 25/9/2018.
Thus, the deceased was aged about 31 years as on the
date of accident. Therefore, 40% of her income has to
be taken as loss of future prospects and 40% of the
present income of Rs.17,000/ would be Rs.6,800/
and if the same is added to her present income of
Rs.17,000/ it comes to Rs.23,800/ p.m..
SCCH-1 24 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
28. The first petitioner is the husband , the
petitioner No.2 is the minor son of the deceased. They
are 2 dependents in number. Therefore, 1/3rd of the
income of the deceased i.e,, Rs.8,000/ is deducted
towards her personal expenses. After deducting the
same, the monthly income of the deceased works out
to Rs.16,000/p.m. (Rs.24,0008,000) and her annual
income comes to Rs.1,92,000/(16,000x12). As
discussed above, the deceased was aged 31 years as
on the date of accident and the proper multiplier
applicable is 16 and if we multiply the annual income
of the deceased by the multiplier, the same works out
to Rs.30,72,000/ (1,92,000x16) to which the
petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of
dependency. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.30,72,000/
towards loss of dependency.
29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's
case referred supra has held that reasonable figures on
SCCH-1 25 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
conventional heads, namely loss of estate, loss of
consortium and funeral expenses should be
Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and Rs.15,000/
respectively. Hence, in the case on hand, I award
Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate, Rs.40,000/
towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/ towards
funeral expenses.
30. In the case of Magma General Inurance Co.,
Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Ors., in
Civil Appeal No.9581 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.3192 of 2018) (18.09.2018), the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that "Parental Consortium" is awarded to
children who lose their parents and that the amount of
compensation to be awarded as consortium will be
governed by the principles of awarding compensation
under "loss of consortium" as laid down in Pranay
Sethi's case. Therefore, I award Rs.40,000/ to the
SCCH-1 26 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
petitioner No.2 under the head Loss of Parental
Consortium.
31. The details of compensation to which the
petitioners are entitled is as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 30,72,00000
2 Loss of estate 15,00000
3 Loss of Consortium 40,00000
4 Funeral and ritual expenses 15,00000
5 Loss of Parental Consortium 40,00000
Total 31,82,00000
32. Issue No.2 (in M.V.C.No.5973/2018): The
petitioner is the father of the deceased Siri Sahithi
Guru and he has examined himself as PW1 and in his
affidavit evidence filed in lieu of his examination in
chief he has stated that his daughter Siri Sahithi Guru
was aged 1½ years and died at the spot due to the
impact of the accident. PW1 has produced notarized
copy of his Aadhar card at Ex.P.28 and the Inquest
SCCH-1 27 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
Mahazar of the deceased at Ex.P.8 discloses that the
deceased is the daughter of the petitioner.
33. As regards the quantum of compensation
which the petitioners are entitled to is concerned, it is
useful to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another Vs.
Lala and others reported in 2013 ACJ 2594. In the
said case the deceased was minor. The Hon'ble Apex
Court, after considering all the attending facts, has
awarded Rs.4,50,000/ towards loss of dependency
and Rs.50,000/ towards conventional heads and in
all, Rs.5,00,000/ as compensation for the death of a
minor. In the instant case, as the deceased was a
minor, aged 1½ year, I award Rs.5,00,000/ as
compensation.
34. Issue No.3 (in M.V.C.No.5974/2018): It is the
case of the petitioners that the deceased Vennela is the
daughter of petitioners No.1 and 2 and elder sister of
SCCH-1 28 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
petitioner No.3 and she has left them behind as her
legal heirs. They being her parents and unmarried
younger sister were depending upon the deceased for
their livelihood. Now due to her sudden demise they
have been put to mental shock and agony. The
petitioners in order to prove their relationship with the
deceased, have produced the notarized copy of their
Aadhar cards at Ex.P. 16 to Ex.P.18 and the Aadhar
card of deceased at Ex.P.15 which disclose their
interserelationship as the parents and younger sister
of the deceased and therefore, they are considered as
dependants of the deceased.
35. In so far as the age of the deceased is
concerned, the notarized copy of Aadhar card of the
deceased at Ex.P.15 discloses the year of birth of the
deceased as 1994. Therefore, the deceased was aged
24 years as on the date of accident.
36. It is the contention of the petitioners that the
deceased was working as Lecturer in Sahaya Nursing
SCCH-1 29 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
Home and was earning Rs.15,000/p.m.. In order to
prove the same, they have produced salary Certificates
for the months of July 2018 to September 2018 at
Ex.P.13 and the identity card of deceased at Ex.P.14.
They have also examined Smt. T.Deepika, who is
working as a lecturer in Sahaya College of Nursing at
Tirupathi as PW5 and in her affidavit evidence filed in
lieu of her examinationinchief, she has stated that
the deceased Vennela was working as a Lecturer in
facutly of Nursing at Sahaya College of Nursing,
Tirupathi and drawing a gross salary of Rs.16,880/
and she worked as a Lecturer for 3 years till
25/9/2018. In her crossexamination by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2, PW5 has stated that
she is only a faculty member and she does not have
personal knowledge about the management affairs of
the College. She has stated that the salary was being
paid to the deceased by cash but she has not seen the
same.
SCCH-1 30 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
37. Ex.P.13 are the Salary Certificates for the
months of July 2018 to September 2018. It is issued
by the General Secretary and Correspondent of Sahaya
Organization. The petitioners have not examined the
person who has issued the said Salary Certificates and
they have also not examined any other person from the
Administrative Branch and they have not produced the
Appointment Order, Attendance Register etc., The
SSLC Marks Card, Course completion Certificate of
B.Sc.(N) Degree Course, B.Sc. in Nursing Degree
Certificate, Nurse and Midwife Certification of
Registration have been produced by the petitioners at
Ex.P.30 to P.33. Hence, as the petitioners have not
proved the Salary Certificates but as the petitioner has
done B.Sc. Degree in Nursing, her income is notionally
taken as Rs.12,000/p.m. as the accident is of the year
2018 .
38. In so far as addition of income towards loss of
future prospects as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
SCCH-1 31 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and Ors. and in Hemraj Vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. & Others, 40% of the income has to be
taken as loss of future prospects as the deceased was
aged 24 years i.e., below the age of 40 years. Therefore,
40% of the present income of Rs.12,000/ would be
Rs.4,800/ and if the same is added to her present
income of Rs.12,000/ it comes to Rs.16,800/ p.m.. It
is not in dispute that the deceased was unmarried at
the time of accident. Hence, 50% of the income of the
deceased has to be deducted towards her personal
expenses. Therefore, 50% of Rs.16,800/ would be
Rs.8,400/. After deducting the same, the balance is
Rs.8,400/p.m. (16,8008,400) and the annual income
works out to Rs.1,00,800/(8,400x12). The deceased
was aged 24 years as on the date of accident and the
proper multiplier applicable is 18 and if we multiply
the annual income of the deceased by the multiplier,
SCCH-1 32 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
the same works out to Rs.18,14,400/ (1,00,800x18)
to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head
loss of dependency.
39. Further, as laid down in Pranay Sethi's case, I
award Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate and
Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses and further as
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (Magma
General Inurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias
Chuhru Ram and Ors.,) I award Rs.80,000/ to the
petitioners No.1 and 2 under the head Loss of Filial
Consortium @ Rs.40,000/each.
40. The details of compensation, to which the
petitioners are entitled is as under:
Sl.No Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 18,14,40000
2 Loss of estate 15,00000
3 Funeral expenses 15,00000
4 Loss of Filial consortium 80,00000
Total 19,24,400.00
Rounded off to 19,25,000.00
SCCH-1 33 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
The petitioners in M.V.C.No.5974/18 are entitled
for Rs.19,25,000/ as compensation .
41. ISSUE No.3 ( in M.V.C.No.6270/18): It
is the case of the petitioner that on account of the
accident, she has sustained grievous injuries. In order
to prove her contention, she has produced the wound
certificate issued by Simhapuri Hospital. It discloses
that the petitioner has sustained 1) reddish laceration
over left upper eyelid and eyebrow 2) chest
compression on left side, 3) laceration over left arm 4)
Avulsion injury over left forearm 5) tenderness over left
side of abdomen 6) swelling and deformity over left
thigh medial 3rd . The Doctor has opined that the
injuries No.1,3,4 are simple in nature and injuries
No.2,5,6 are grievous in nature. The Petitioner has
also produced the discharge summary at Ex.P.20
wherein the petitioner is diagnosed with poly trauma,
hypovolemic shock, blunt injury abdomen, splenic
SCCH-1 34 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
laceration, left femur shaft fracture, degloved wound
over left leg, lacerated wounds over right wrist and left
knee and that the petitioner has undergone CRIF with
ILIM femur nailing, wound debidement of left leg and
skin grafting. The Discharge summary further
discloses that the petitioner has taken treatment as
an inpatient in the said hospital from 25.09.2018 to
22.10.2018 for a period of 27 days. Taking into
consideration, the nature and gravity of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner and the duration of
treatment taken, I award a sum of Rs.40,000/
towards Pain and sufferings.
42. The petitioner has contended that due to the
accidental injuries she has suffered permanent
disability. In order to substantiate the same she has
examined Dr.Nagaraj B.. Orthopaedics at SOADS as
PW4 . The Doctor in the affidavit filed in lieu of his
examination in chief has stated about the injuries
SCCH-1 35 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
sustained by the petitioner and the treatment given to
her at Simhapuri Hospital. He has stated that on
14/6/2019, the petitioner had come to their hospital
for assessment of disability and complained of
weakness and pain in the left lower limb, unable to sit
down, squat and sit crossed leg. He has stated that on
examination he found tenderness in the mid shaft of
the left thigh, wasting of the left thigh muscles with
stiffness in the hip and assessed the disability to left
lower limb as 55% and to whole body as 18%. In the
crossexamination by the learned Counsel for the
respondent No.2 he has stated that he has not treated
the petitioner and he has not seen the case sheet. He
has stated that he has not taken any opinion from the
treated doctor. He has admitted that the fractures are
united. He has denied that by physiotherapy, the
disability can get reduced.
43. From the evidence of PW4, it is evident that
the fracture of the left femur has united and she has
SCCH-1 36 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
no difficulty to walk on plain surfaces, though has
difficulty to walk on slope and climb stairs etc., Hence,
the functional disability suffered by the petitioner is
taken as 15%.
44.It is contended by the petitioner that, at the
time of accident, she was aged 23 years and she was
working as Lecturer in Sahaya Nursing College and
earning Rs.20,360/. In order to prove the same, the
petitioner has produced Salary Certificates at Ex.P.21
for the period from July 2018 to September 2018. She
has also examined Smt. T.Deepika, who is working as
a lecturer in Sahaya College of Nursing at Tirupathi as
PW5 and in her affidavit evidence filed in lieu of her
examinationinchief, she has stated that the petitioner
was working as a Lecturer in Faculty of Nursing in
Sahaya College of Nursing and was drawing a gross
salary of Rs.20,360/ and that from 25/9/2018, she
has not been attending the college. In the cross
SCCH-1 37 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
examination by the learned counsel for the respondent
No.2, PW5 has stated that she is only a faculty
member and she does not have personal knowledge
about the management affairs of the College. She has
stated that the salary was being paid to the petitioner
by cash but she has not seen the same.
45. Ex.P.13 are the Salary Certificates for the
months of July 2018 to September 2018. It is issued
by the General Secretary and Correspondent of Sahaya
Organization. The petitioner has not examined the
person who has issued the said Salary Certificates.
She has also not examined any other person from the
Administrative Branch and has also not produced the
appointment order , attendance register etc. The SSLC
Marks Card and the Certificate of Registration in Nurse
and Midwife have been produced by the petitioner at
Ex.P.34 and P.35. Hence, as the petitioner has not
proved the salary Certificates but as the petitioner has
SCCH-1 38 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
done nursing course, her income is taken as
Rs.12,000/p.m. as the accident is of the year 2018 .
46. The petitioner has contended that she was 23
years at the time of accident. The SSLC marks card
produced at Ex.P.34 discloses her date of birth as
03.03.1995. Therefore, the petitioner was 23 years as
on the date of accident and the appropriate multiplier
applicable to the age group of 1525 years is 18.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the head of loss of future earning due to
permanent disability at : Rs.12000x12x18x15%/100 =
Rs.3,88,800/ . Hence, I award Rs.3,88,800/ towards
future loss of earning due to permanent disability.
47. Regarding the loss of income during the
period of treatment is concerned, the petitioner was
inpatient from 25.09.2018 to 22.10.2018 i.e., for a
period of 27 days as could be seen from the Discharge
Summary and IP Record and due to the grievous
SCCH-1 39 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
injuries sustained by the petitioner , the petitioner
might have taken three months bed rest and during
that period, the petitioner has suffered loss of income.
Hence, I award Rs.36,000/ towards loss of income
during the treatment period .
48. The petitioner's further case is that she has
incurred huge medical expenses for her treatment and
has produced 1 medical bill to the tune of
Rs.4,41,942/ at Ex.P.22 and 16 medical bills for
Rs.9,657/ at Ex.P.37. On verification of the same,
Ex.P.22 is an inpatient bill which is for Rs.4,74,943/
and the hospital authority has given concession of
Rs.33,000/. The medical bill at Ex.P.37 is for
purchase of medicines and consumables. Hence, the
medical bill for Rs.4,41,943/ and Rs.9,637=
Rs.4,51,580/ are accepted. Hence, I award
Rs.4,51,580/ towards medical expenses.
SCCH-1 40 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
49. The petitioner was inpatient in the hospital
for a period of 27 days. During that period, the
petitioner might have spent some amount towards
conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges.
By considering the nature of injuries, the period of
treatment, I award a sum of Rs.25,000/ as
compensation under the head of conveyance, food
and nourishment, attendant charges and other
incidental charges.
50. At the young age of 23 years, the petitioner
has suffered the physical disability of 18%. Hence, I
award Rs.30,000/ under the head of loss of
amenities.
51. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner
has undergone CRIF with ILIM nailing. The Doctor,
PW4 has stated in his evidence that petitioner needs
another surgery for removal of implants. The inpatient
records, discharge summary and xray speaks that
SCCH-1 41 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
the implants are in situ. Hence, I award a sum of
Rs.30,000/ towards future Medical Expenses,
which amount shall not carry any interest.
52. The details of compensation, to which the
petitioner is entitled to is as under:
Sl. Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,00000
2. Medical expenses Rs. 4,51,58000
3. Loss of income during the Rs. 36,00000
period of inpatient and period
of treatment.
4. Food and nourishment, Rs. 25,00000
conveyance , attendant
charges and other incidental
expenses
5. Future loss of earning due to Rs. 3,88,80000
disability
6. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,00000
7. Future Medical bills Rs. 30,00000
Total Rs. 10,01,38000
Rounded off to Rs. 10,01,50000
SCCH-1 42 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
The petitioner in M.V.C.No.6270/18 is entitled for a
sum of Rs.10,01,500/.
53. In so far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in MFA
No.103557/2016 (Sriram General Ins. Co. Ltd Vs Smt.
Lakshmi & others) (DD.20032018) the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka has held that as per Sec. 34 of
CPC, the rate of interest that can be awarded on
judgments cannot be more than 6% and since Sec. 149
of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for interest on
judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim
petitions has to be 6% per annum and not more than
that. Hence, in the case on hand, interest at the rate of
6% per annum is awarded.
54. As regards the liability is concerned,
respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is
the insurer of Car bearing No.AP26AN4466 . The
policy was valid from 30.01.2018 to 29.01.2018. The
SCCH-1 43 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
accident has occurred on 25.09.2018. Therefore, the
policy was valid as on the date of accident. Hence, both
the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. However, primary
liability is fixed on respondent No.2, insurance
company to satisfy the award. Accordingly, Issue No.2
is answered partly in the affirmative.
55. Issue No.3 ( in all the cases): In view of the
discussions made above, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
M.V.C.No.5972/2018:
The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.31,82,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. SCCH-1 44 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The compensation amount is apportioned as follows: Petitioner No.1 - Husband 40% Petitioner No.2 - Son 60% Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1.SCCH-1 45 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
As far as the minor petitioner No.2 is concerned, his portion of compensation amount is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of minor petitioner in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice petitioner No.1, till he attains majority or for a period of 5 years whichever is later. Petitioner No.1 shall not create any encumbrances on the F.D.amount of petitioner No.2. M.V.C.No.5973/2018:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 SCCH-1 46 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount , 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioners .
M.V.C.No.5974/2018:
The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.19,25,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with SCCH-1 47 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018 interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The compensation amount is apportioned as follows: Petitioner No.1 - Father 40% Petitioner No.2 - Mother 40% Petitioner No.3 - Sister 20% Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1 to 3 , 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioners No.1 to 3.SCCH-1 48 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
M.V.C.No.6270/2018:
The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,01,500/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on Rs.9,71,500/ from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, 25% with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice SCCH-1 49 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018 for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.5972/2018 and copies in other cases.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd day of January 2020) ( S. MAHALAXMI NERALE) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : K.Gurappa
P.W.2 : B.A.Indrani
P.W.3 : Kum.Yerra Salony Swarna Latha
P.W.4 : Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
P.W.5 : Smt.T.Deepika
SCCH-1 50 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P2 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P.2(a) : Translated copy of complaint Ex.P.3 Copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P.3(a) Translated copy of Spot sketch Ex.P4: Copy of IMV Report Ex.P5 : Copy of Inquest Mahazar in MVC No.5972/2018) Ex.P5(a) : Translated copy of Ex.P.5 Ex.P.6 Copy of P.M.Report of Reddy Priya Ex.P7 Copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 Copy of Inquest Mahazar of Siri Sahithi Guru Ex.P.8(a) Translated copy of Ex.P.8 Ex.P9 Copy of P.M.Reort of Siri Sahithi Guru Ex.P.10 Salary slips of deceased K.Reddy Priya for the month of May 2018 to September 2018 Ex.P.11 Copy of Inquest Mahazar of Vennela Ex.P.11(a) Translated copy of Ex.P.11 Ex.P.12 Copy of P.M.Report Ex.P.13 Pay slips of Vennela for the months of July to September 2018 Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of employment identity card of V.A.Vennela (original compared and returned) Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of SCCH-1 51 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018 V.A.Vennila (original compared and returned) Ex.P.16 to Notarized copies of Aadhar Card of 18 petitioners in M.V.C.No.5974/18 (original compared and returned) Ex.P.19 Copy of Wound Certificate in M.V.C.No.6270/2018 Ex.P.20 Discharge Summary Ex.P. 21 Salary Certificate of Yerra Salony Ex.P.22 Medical bill Ex.P.23 & Copy of SSLC Marks card and Degree 24 Certificate of deceased Reddy Priya Ex.P.25 Registration Certificate of deceased Reddy Priya Ex.P.26 Provisional Degree Certificate of deceased Reddy Priya Ex.P.27 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased K.Reddy Priya (original compared and returned) Ex.P.28 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 (original compared and returned) Ex.P.29 Notarized copy of Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2 in M.V.C.No.5972/18) (original compared and returned) Ex.P.30 to Original SSLC Marks card , 33 B.Sc.Nursing certificate, Certificate of registration of Nursing course, Faculty of Nursing Certificate of V.A.Vennela Ex.P.34 to B.Sc.Nursing Certificate, Certificate SCCH-1 52 MVC No.5972,5973,5974&6270/2018 36 of Registration of Nursing Course, Faculty of Nursing Certificate of Yerra Salomi Swarna Latha Ex.P.37 Medical bills in M.V.C.No.6270/18 Ex.P.38 Clinical notes in M.V.C.No.6270/18 Ex.P.39 New xray Ex.P.40 3 old xray Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
Nil Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Nil ( S. MAHALAXMI NERALE) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.