Bangalore District Court
In : 1.Smt.K.Anusuya Bai vs Sri.C.S.Harish Rao @ C.S.Harish on 10 January, 2020
MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU CITY
SCCH4
PRESENT: Smt.Champaka., B.A (LAW)., LL.M.,
Member, MACT,
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 10th day of January, 2020
MVC No.2632/2018 C/W MVC.2633/2018,
MVC.2634/2018, MVC.2635/2018, MVC.2636/2018,
MVC.2637/2018, MVC.2638/2018, MVC.2639 &
MVC.2640/2018
PETITIONER IN : 1.Smt.K.Anusuya Bai,
MVC No. W/o Late Sidooji Rao,
2632/2018 Aged about 54 years.
2.Sri.C.S.Sathish Rao @
C.S.Sathish,S/o Late Siddoji Rao,
Aged about 36 years.
All are residing at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Sri.C.S.Sathish Rao @
MVC NO. C.S.Sathish,S/o Late Siddoji Rao,
2633/2018 Aged about 36 years.
Residing at Chowdanakuppe Village
at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
SCCH4 2 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
PETITIONER IN : 1.Sri.C.S.Sathish Rao @
MVC NO. C.S.Sathish,
2634/2018 S/o Late Siddoji Rao,
Aged about 36 years.
2.Baby Naveen Rao,
S/o C.S.Sathish Rao @
C.S.Sathish,
Aged about 5 years.
(Petitioner is minor in age, hence he
is represented by his father
petitioner No.1 as natural
guardian)
Both are r/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : 1.Sri.C.S.Sathish Rao @
MVC NO. C.S.Sathish
2635/2018 S/o Late Siddoji Rao,
Aged about 36 years.
2.Baby Naveen Rao,
S/o C.S.Sathish Rao @
C.S.Sathish,
Aged about 5 years.
(Petitioner is minor in age, hence he
is represented by his father
petitioner No.1 as natural
guardian)
SCCH4 3 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Both are r/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : 1.Baby Naveen Rao,
MVC NO. S/o C.S.Sathish Rao @
2636/2018 C.S.Sathish,
Aged about 5 years.
(Petitioner is minor in age, hence he
is represented by his father
petitioner No.1 as natural guardian
and next friend)
Sri.C.S.Sathish Rao @
C.S.Sathish
S/o Late Siddoji Rao,
Aged about 36 years.
Both are r/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Smt.Ashwini.N @ Ashwini Bai,
MVC NO. W/o C.S.Harish Rao @ C.S.Harish,
2637/2018 Aged about 22 years.
R/at No.52, Reshma Nivas,
3rd cross, Manjunathanagara,
Marakakadu Doddi Village,
SCCH4 4 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Mandya Town.
And also R/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : 1.Baby Likhitha Rao,
MVC NO. D/o C.S.Harish Rao @
2638/2018 C.S.Harish,
Aged about 5 years.
(Petitioner is minor in age, hence
she is represented by her mother
petitioner as natural guardian and
next friend)
Smt.Ashwini.N @ Ashwini Bai,
W/o C.S.Harish Rao @ C.S.Harish,
Aged about 22 years.
Both are R/at No.52,
Reshma Nivas, 3rd cross,
Manjunathanagara,
Marakadu Doddi Village,
Mandya Town.
And also R/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Smt.Ashwini.N @ Ashwini Bai,
MVC NO. W/o C.S.Harish Rao @ C.S.Harish,
2639/2018 Aged about 22 years.
SCCH4 5 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
2.Baby Likhitha Rao,
D/o C.S.Harish Rao @
C.S.Harish,
Aged about 5 years.
(Petitioner No.2 is minor in age,
hence she is represented by her
mother petitioner as natural
guardian and next friend)
Both are R/at No.52, Reshma
Nivas, 3rd cross,
Manjunathanagara, Marakakadu
Doddi Village, Mandya Town.
And also R/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : 1.Sri.K.Prabhakar Rao Sindhe,
MVC NO. S/o G.Krishnoji Rao Sindhe,
2640/2018 Aged about 43 years.
2.Smt.Poornima Bai.P.
W/o K.Prabhakar Rao Sindhe,
Aged about 35 years.
Both are R/at No.1265, Gokula
Badavane, Hunsur Town,
Chikkahunsur, Mysore District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,)
V/s
SCCH4 6 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
RESPONDENTS : 1.Sri.C.S.Harish Rao @ C.S.Harish,
IN ALL THE S/o Late Siddoji Rao, Aged about
CASES 31 years, R/at Chowdanakuppe
Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(RC owner of Maruthi Ertiga car
bearing Tem Reg No.KA
09/NT023043/201718)
(Exparte)
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundram Alliance
Ins.Co.Ltd., Office at No.186/7,
Complex, 1st Cross, Hosur Main
Road, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore 560027.
(Insurer to the Maruthi Ertiga car
bearing Temp. Reg.No.KA
09/NT023043/201718 Vide Policy
No.MOP4714160
Policy period from 21.12.2017 to
20.12.2018)
(By Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu, Adv.,)
3.Sri.Ravi Shankar,S
S/o Shanthaiah,
R/at Irakkasandra Village,
Janatha Colony, Chelur Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
(RC owner of canter No.KA06
D.3095)
(By Sri.Ravishankar.S.,adv.,)
SCCH4 7 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
4. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance
Office at 4/3/1 and 3/2 M,
11th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 061.
(Insurer to the canter No.KA06
D.3095 vide policy
No.140121723340022657. Policy
period from 17.10.2017 to
16.10.2018)
(By Sri.H.C.Betsur., adv.,)
******
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation amount for the
injuries sustained by all the petitioners in
MVC.2633/2018, 2636/2018, 2637/2018 and
2638/2018 and on account of death of Siddoji Rao in
MVC.2632/2018, Keerthana in MVC.2634/2018, Usha
Bai in MVC.2635/2018, Hithesh in MVC.2639/2018 and
Bhuvan in MVC.2640/2018 in a road traffic accident.
SCCH4 8 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
2. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioners
are as follows:
On 01.01.2018 at about 6.45 a.m. the deceased
Siddoji Rao, Keerthana, Usha Bai, Hitesh and Bhuvana
and the family members of the petitioners were travelling
in Maruthi Ertiga car bearing No.KA
09/NT023043/201718 along with other petitioners
from Chowdanakuppe to Goravanahalli Lakshmidevi
temple and when the car reached near Gavi Mutt Village,
SH33 road, H DurgaKunigal main road, at that time,
the driver of Ertiga car drove in rash and negligent
manner and dashed against another canter lorry bearing
No.KA06D.3095 which was wrongly parked by its driver
on the left side of the same road without giving any
signal. Due to impact, petitioners sustained injuries and
deceased succumbed to the injuries.
SCCH4 9 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
In MVC.2632/2018, the deceased Siddoji Rao
sustained fracture of head injury and wounds on all over
the body with bleeding and died on the spot.
Immediately, the body was shifted to Government
Hospital, Kunigal and postmortem was conducted and
the dead body was handed over to the petitioners and
conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
The deceased was hale and healthy and was
working as agriculturist cum coolie and earning
Rs.20,000/ per month. The deceased was the only
bread earner of the family. The petitioner No.1 is wife
and petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased. The
petitioners have lost their love and affection of the
deceased and were entirely depending upon the income
of the deceased. Due to the sudden and untimely death,
the petitioners have been put to great financial
difficulties and hardship.
SCCH4 10 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner in
MVC.2633/2015 was shifted to Sparsha hospital,
Bangalore, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for
12 days. He has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/ towards
medical expenses. Prior to the accident, the petitioner
was hale and healthy. He was aged 36 years and he was
agriculturist and also doing electrical work and earning a
sum of Rs.15,000/p.m.
In MVC.2634/2018, the deceased Keerthana
sustained fracture of head injury and wounds on all over
the body with bleeding and died on the spot.
Immediately, the body was shifted to Government
Hospital, Kunigal and postmortem was conducted and
the dead body was handed over to the petitioners and
conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged
about 8 years. She was a student. The petitioners have
SCCH4 11 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
lost their love and affection of the deceased and mental
agony. Due to the sudden and untimely death, the
petitioners have been put to irreparable loss and
hardship.
In MVC.2635/2018, the deceased Usha Bai
sustained fracture of head injury and wounds on all over
the body with bleeding and died on the spot.
Immediately, the body was shifted to Government
Hospital, Kunigal and postmortem was conducted and
the dead body was handed over to the petitioners and
conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
The deceased was hale and healthy and was house
wife and also doing tailoring working and earning
Rs.20,000/ per month. The deceased was the only
bread earner of the family. The petitioner No.1 is
husband and petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased. The
petitioners have lost their love and affection of the
SCCH4 12 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
deceased and were entirely depending upon the income
of the deceased. Due to the sudden and untimely death,
the petitioners have been put to great financial
difficulties and hardship.
Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner in
MVC.2636/2018 was shifted to Sparsha hospital,
Yeshwanthpur wherein he was admitted as an inpatient
for 3 days. Xrays reveal the fracture injuries and he was
discharged with an advise to take follow up treatment.
He has spent sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards treatment
and other incidental charges. Prior to the accident, the
petitioner was hale and healthy. He was aged 5 years
and was a student. After discharge he was not in a
position to lead normal life and unable to do work as
earlier.
Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner in
MVC.2637/2018 was shifted to Sparsha hospital,
SCCH4 13 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Yeshwanthpur wherein she was admitted as an inpatient
for 26 days. Xrays reveal the fracture injuries and she
was discharged with an advise to take follow up
treatment. She has spent sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards
treatment and other incidental charges. Prior to the
accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and she
was aged about 22 years. After discharge she was not in
a position to lead normal life and unable to do work as
earlier.
Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner in
MVC.2638/2018 was shifted to Sparsha hospital,
Yeshwanthpur wherein she was admitted as an inpatient
for 3 days. Xrays reveal the fracture injuries and she
was discharged with an advise to take follow up
treatment. She has spent sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards
treatment and other incidental charges. Prior to the
accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and she
SCCH4 14 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
was aged about 3 years. After discharge she was not in a
position to lead normal life and unable to do work as
earlier.
In MVC.2639/2018, the deceased Baby Hitesh
sustained fracture of head injury and wounds on all over
the body with bleeding and died on the spot.
Immediately, the body was shifted to Government
Hospital, Kunigal and postmortem was conducted and
the dead body was handed over to the petitioners and
conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged
about 2 years. The petitioners have lost their love and
affection of the deceased and mental agony. Due to the
sudden and untimely death, the petitioners have been
put to irreparable loss and hardship.
In MVC.2640/2018, the deceased Bhuvana @
Bhuvan.P.Sindhe sustained fracture of head injury and
SCCH4 15 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
wounds on all over the body with bleeding and died on
the spot. Immediately, the body was shifted to
Government Hospital, Kunigal and postmortem was
conducted and the dead body was handed over to the
petitioners and conducted funeral and obsequies
ceremonies.
The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged
18 years. He was a student cum paper vendor and
earning Rs.10,000/ per month. The deceased was the
only bread earner of the family. The petitioner No.1 is
father and petitioner No.2 is mother of the deceased. The
petitioners have lost their love and affection of the
deceased and were entirely depending upon the income
of the deceased. Due to the sudden and untimely death,
the petitioners have been put to great financial
difficulties and hardship.
The accident occurred due to the negligence of
maruthi Ertiga car bearing No.KA09/NT023043/2017
SCCH4 16 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
18 and canter bearing No.KA06D3095 and Kunigal
Police have registered the case against the offending
vehicle in Cr.No.1/2018 for offences punishable under
Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC r/w section 122
of MV Act. The respondent No.1 and 3 are the owners
and the respondent No.2 and 4 are the insurer of
maruthi Ertiga car and canter and they are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the
petitions.
3. After service of summons, the respondent No.1
remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent 2 to
4 appeared through their counsels and filed the written
statements. 1
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement
denied all the petition averments and contended that the
registration certificate in respect of Ertiga car bearing
No.KA09NT023043/201718 was not valid and current
to ply on the road on the date of alleged accident i.e.,
SCCH4 17 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
1.1.2018. The RTO has issued temporary registration
certificate in favour of C.S.Harish Rao in respect of Ertiga
car and was valid until 20.1.2018 and it was not got
registered till the date of accident i.e., 1.1.2018. Hence,
there is breach of terms and conditions of policy. It is
further contended that Ertiga car seating capacity is only
7 and 11 members were travelling in the car, further the
said vehicle was plied for hire and reward without any
permit. It is further contended that the accident took
place due to negligence of the driver of the lorry who was
parked the same without taking any precaution on the
center of the tar road early in the morning and without
putting proper tail lamp/parking lights at the time of
accident and thereby caused the accident. It is further
contended that they have issued policy in respect of
Ertiga car bearing No.KA09NT023043/201718 in
favour of respondent No.1 and the same was valid from
21.12.2017 to 20.12.2018. The respondent No.2 has
SCCH4 18 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
denied the age, occupation and income of the
deceased/petitioners and contended that the
deceased/petitioners have not sustained injuries as
stated in the petitions. The compensation claimed by the
petitioners is highly exaggerated and exhorbitant. Hence,
sought for dismissal of all petitions.
5. The respondent No.3 has filed written
statement by partly denying the petition averments. He
has contended that, driver of Ertiga car drove in rash and
negligent manner and without following the traffic rules
dashed against the canter lorry. It is denied that, the
lorry was wrongly parked by its driver on the left side of
the road without giving any signal. He further contended
that 4th respondent issued policy and it was valid on the
date of accident. Hence, he is not liable to pay
compensation and it may be fixed on respondent No.4.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions against him.
SCCH4 19 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
6. The respondent No.4 in its written statement
denied all the petition averments and contended that, the
accident took place due to negligence of the driver of the
Ertiga car. It is further contended that as per the
statement of complainant , the driver of car was driving,
suddenly a boy tried to cross the road, due to that, the
car driver tried to avoid that boy and suddenly car driver
dashed to the parked lorry, which was parked on the
extreme left side of the road by taking all precautionary
measures, as such there is no fault on the part of driver
of canter. It is further contended that, the driver of
canter was driving without possessing valid and effective
driving licence, FC, permit etc. The respondent No.4 has
denied the age, occupation and income of the
deceased/petitioners and contended that the
deceased/petitioners have not sustained injuries as
stated in the petitions. The compensation claimed by the
SCCH4 20 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
petitioners is highly exaggerated and exhorbitant. Hence,
sought for dismissal of all petitions.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, my
predecessor in the office has framed the following:
ISSUES IN MVC.2632/2018, MVC.2634/2018,
MVC.2635/2018, MVC.2639/2018 &
MVC.2640/2018
1. Whether Petitioner proves that
deceased Siddoji Rao, Keerthana, Usha
Bai, Hitesh and Bhuvan were died
due to RTA alleged to have been
occurred on 01.01.2018 at about 6.45
a.m., Gavi Mutt village, SH33 road,
H.DurgaKunigal main road, Kasaba
Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District,
due to the rash and negligent driving
of driver of the maruthi Ertiga car
bearing No.KA09/NT023043/201718
and canter lorry bearing registration
No.KA06D3095?
2. Whether petitioners prove that they are
dependents of the deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
the compensation? If so, from whom
and at what quantum
4. What Order or Award?
SCCH4 21 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
ISSUES IN MVC.2633/2018,
MVC.2636/2018, MVC.2637/2018 &
MVC.2638/2018
1. Whether Petitioner proves that they
have sustained injuries due to RTA
alleged to have been occurred on
01.01.2018 at about 6.45 a.m., Gavi
Mutt village, SH33 road, H.Durga
Kunigal main road, Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, due to
the rash and negligent driving of driver of
the maruthi Ertiga car bearing No.KA
09/NT023043/201718 and canter lorry
bearing registration No.KA06D3095?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, from whom and at
what quantum
3. What Order or Award?
8. As all the claim petitions are arising out of the
same accident, MVC No.2632/2018 is clubbed with
MVC.No.2633/2018 to MVC.2640/2018 for recording of
common evidence and for disposal.
9. In order to prove the above said issues, the
petitioner No.2 in MVC No.2632/2018 was examined as
SCCH4 22 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.15. The petitioner in
MVC No.2633/2018 was examined as PW.2 and got
marked Ex.P.16 to P.22. The petitioner No.1 in MVC
No.2634/2018 was examined as PW.3 and got marked
Ex.P.23 to P.28. The petitioner No.1 in MVC.
No.2635/2018 was examined as PW.4 and got marked
Ex.P.29 to P.34. The father of petitioner in
MVC.No.2636/2018 was examined as PW.5 and got
marked Ex.P.35 to P.42. The petitioner in
MVC.No.2637/2018 was examined as PW.6 and got
marked Ex.P.43 to P.49. The mother and natural
guardian of the petitioner in MVC No.2638/2018 was
examined as PW.7 and got marked Ex.P.50 to P.55. The
petitioner No.1 in MVC No.2639/2018 was examined as
PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.56 to P.58. The petitioner
No.1 in MVC No.2640/2018 was examined as PW.9 and
got marked Ex.P.59 to P.63. The medical record
technician is examined as PW.10 in MVC.2633/2018 and
SCCH4 23 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
got marked Ex.P.64 to 67. The medical record technician
is examined as PW.11 in MVC.2636/2018 and got
marked Ex.P.68 to 71. The medical record technician is
examined as PW.12 in MVC.2637/2018 and got marked
Ex.P.72 to 75. The doctor is examined as PW.13 in
MVC.2637/2018 and got marked Exs.P.76 to 78. The
doctor is examined as PW.14 in MVC.2633/2018 and got
marked Exs.P.79 and 80. The doctor is examined as
PW.15 in MVC.2637/2018 and got marked Exs.P.81 and
82. The doctor is examined as PW.16 in
MVC.2637/2018 and got marked Exs.P.83 to 85. In
order to prove the defence, Legal Officer of respondent
No.4 is examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
Respondent No.3 has examined state head legal
department as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.2. RTO of
Mandya is examined as RW.3 and got marked Ex.R.3 and
R.4.
SCCH4 24 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners and respondent.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under
ISSUES IN MVC.2632/2018, MVC.2634/2018,
MVC.2635/2018, MVC.2639/2018 & MVC.2640/2018
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
in all the following:
cases
ISSUES IN MVC.2633/2018, MVC.2636/2018,
MVC.2637/2018, & MVC.2638/2018
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
in all the following:
cases
REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES: In order to
prove these issues, the petitioners themselves examined
SCCH4 25 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
as PW.1 to PW.9 by filing the affidavits in lieu of chief
examination by reiterating the petition averments. They
have also produced 85 documents, which are marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.85.
13. The petitioner taken the specific contention
that on 01.01.2018 at about 6.45 a.m., the deceased
Siddoji Rao, Keerthana, Usha Bai, Hitesh and Bhuvana
along the petitioners were travelling in Maruthi Ertiga
car bearing No.KA09/NT023043/201718 from
Chowdanakuppe to Goravanahalli Lakshmidevi temple,
when the car reached near Gavi Mutt Village, SH33
road, HDurgaKunigal main road, at that time, the
driver of Ertiga car drove in rash and negligent manner
and dashed against the canter lorry bearing No.KA06D
3095 which was wrongly parked by its driver on the left
side of the same road without giving any signal. Due to
impact, petitioners sustained injuries and other inmates
of the car succumbed to the injuries.
SCCH4 26 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
14. It is the defence of the respondent No.2 that,
the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver
of the canter parked in the road without taking
precaution measures. On the other hand, the respondent
No.4 taken the defence that, the accident occurred only
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ertiga
car and seating capacity of car is also only 7, but 11
persons were proceeding in the car by violating rules and
regulations.
15. On perusal of the records, the Ex.P1 is FIR
registered by Kunigal Police station on the basis of
complaint marked at Ex.P.2. The Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 the
spot mahazar and sketch which discloses the occurrence
of the accident and spot of the accident. The Ex.P.5 is
the IMV report discloses the damages of the vehicle and
the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the
said vehicles. The Ex.P.6 and 7 are the notice under
Section 133 of MV Act and reply notice. The Ex.P.9, 24,
SCCH4 27 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
30, 57 and 60 are the PM reports. The Ex.P.10 is the
charge sheet filed by I.O after investigation against the
driver of the maruthi Ertiga bearing No.TP KA09
023043/201718 for the offences punishable under 279,
337 and 304(A) of IPC and driver of canter driver bearing
No.KA06D3095 for the offences punishable under
Section 122 and 177 of MV Act.
16. During the crossexamination of PW.1, he
deposed that, as on the date of accident, he and his
family members proceeding in the car to perform pooja at
Goravanahalli temple. He admitted that, even though
the seating capacity of the car is 7, there are 11 members
travelled in the car and his mother was lodged the
complaint by stating that her son drove the car in high
speed and suddenly taken left side in order to save child
as a result, the car was dashed to the back side of the
canter. He further admitted that, the accident was
occurred on the left side of the road. He further
SCCH4 28 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
categorically deposed that, the accident was occurred due
to the fault of both the drivers of car and canter. He
denied that in Ex.P.2 complaint, subsequently inserted
the word "the vehicle parked without the indicator."
17. In order to prove the defence, Legal officer of
the respondent No.4 is examined as RW.1 and she
reiterated the defence taken in the written statement and
also got produced copy of the insurance policy. During
her crossexamination she deposed that, they have not
personally investigated the matter, but only collected
police documents. She further deposed they issued
notice to the owner and driver but, not met with owner
and driver of the vehicle. She admitted, the charge sheet
also filed against their insured vehicle and there is no
allegation with regard to the licence, F.C., permit and
insurance against the insured vehicle in the charge
sheet. She denied that, the driver of the canter vehicle
parked on the road without taking precautionary
SCCH4 29 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
measures and the accident was occurred due to the fault
of the driver of their insured vehicle.
18. The state head, legal department of
respondent No.3 is examined as RW.2 and he reiterated
the defence taken in the written statement and also got
marked insurance policy. During his crossexamination
he admitted the insurance policy and the car was
temporary registered. He further admitted the accident
was occurred with in one month of temporary
registration. The respondent no.2 also examined RTO as
RW.3 and got marked driving license extract.
19. Even though these claim petitions are clubbed,
assessment of evidence needs to be done independently
regarding award of compensation. Since, these petitions
are filed under Sec.166 of the IMV Act, the burden is on
the petitioners to prove the factum of the accident.
Hence, this Court has to ascertain whether injuries
SCCH4 30 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
sustained by these petitioners and deceased are because
of the accident as alleged by them in their petitions.
20. It is the defence of the respondent No.2 that
Ertiga car not having RC, and FC without registration as
on the date of accident. However, temporary registration
is valid for 30 days. Hence, the accident occurred within
30 days. Admittedly, the seating capacity of the car is 6,
but 11 members of the petitioner family members
travelled. The respondents have also examined RTO of
Mandya. In his evidence he also deposed that the seating
capacity of maruthi Ertiga car is 6 + 1. He further
deposed children may sit on their lap. He further deposed
that from 27.2.2016 to 15.11.2034, the driver of the car
had driving licnece of LMV and motor cycle gear. He
further deposed that temporary registration is valid till 30
days and within 30 days, the permanent registration may
be done. Admittedly, the accident took place with in 30
SCCH4 31 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
days of the temporary registration is not disputed by the
respondent.
21. It is the argument of the respondent No.4 that,
a canter was parked on extreme left side of the road. In
the complaint, the mother of the petitioner herself stated
that, her son drove the car in rash and negligent manner
and also in order to avoid the accident, he took left side
and dashed to the canter. The charge sheet also discloses
one Anil Kumar 8 years child crossing the road at the
time of accident. If, the driver taken little care and slowly
observing the vehicle, he could have avoided the
accident. On going through the police records and
photographs, discloses the veracity of the proceeding
and speed of the car. The damages of car and injuries
sustained by the inmates of the car clearly discloses the
rash and negligent manner of the driving of the driver of
the car.
SCCH4 32 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
22. On going through the police records, the Ex.P.1
FIR was registered by the Kunigal PS based on the
complaint given by one of the inmate of the car
Smt.Ansuya Bai as on the date of accident. On perusal
of Ex.P.3 and 4 mahazar and sketch it reveals that the
mahazar and sketch were drawn on 01.01.2018 by the
police. On close perusal of the sketch it reveals that, the
car came from Kunigal and proceeding towards
Huliyurdurga on the accidental road. On the other
hand, the canter was also parked on the left side of the
road. The mahazar reflects 100 ft. tyre mark on the road
and the accidental road is about 36 ft. width. Hence, it
clear that the driver of the car in order to avoid the
accident put the brakes.
23. In the sketch it is very clear that, the canter
was parked on the left side of the tar road at the time of
the accident. Admittedly, it is not the parking place.
Further, it is also not the contention of the respondent
SCCH4 33 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
that, it is a brake down vehicle or a repaired vehicle. To
show that, the driver taken the precautionary measure
no documents before the court. Since, a child across the
road, the driver of the car wanted to save the child, so
suddenly taken the moving car from center of the road
towards left side, to avoid the life of the child, where the
lorry parked without precautionary measures. Hence,
the driver could not avoid the accident and there is a
negligence on the part of the driver of the canter also.
Hence, there is negligence on the part of the lorry he
supposed not to park the canter on road side without
taking precautionary measures. As per the sketch also
the lorry was parked on the road side and the IMV report
also discloses there is no mechanical defect of the lorry.
24. On perusal of the IMV report Ex.P.5, the IMV
inspector also opined that, the accident not due to
mechanical defects of the vehicle. Admittedly, the
accident took place at 6.45 a.m. which is not odd hours
SCCH4 34 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
by considering the manner and time of the accident and
also the damage caused to both the vehicles, it is clear
that there is rash and negligent on the major part of the
driver of the car. Further, after the investigation, the I.O
has filed the charge sheet Ex.P.10 against both the
drivers the driver of the car as well as canter. It also
prima facie discloses that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the
vehicles.
25. So, looking to these facts, this tribunal is of the
opinion that, the accident is caused due to the negligence
on the part of the driver of the car as well as driver of the
canter Lorry. Hence, there is composite negligence of
the part of the both drivers. If the composite negligence is
fixed to an extent of 70% to the driver of the car and 30%
fixed to the driver of the Canter Lorry it will meet the
ends of justice. In view of this, I hold that petitioners in
SCCH4 35 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
all these claim petitions have proved that this accident
occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the car as well canter lorry, as a result of which,
inmates of the car succumbed to injury and the other
petitioners have also sustained respective injuries, as
shown in the medical records. Hence, I answer issue No.1
in all the petitions in the affirmative.
26. Issue No.2 & 3 in MVC.2632/2018: These
issues relate to dependency, quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners and liable to pay the same.
27. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the
actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased
and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be
taken into consideration. It is the contention of the
petitioners that, they were solely depending upon the
income of the deceased and due to his death, they have
lost love and affection of the deceased.
SCCH4 36 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
28. The petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2
is son of the deceased is not in dispute. During the
crossexamination of PW.1 he deposed that, himself and
respondent No.1 are brothers. The Ex.P11 to 13 are
Aadhar cards of petitioner No.1 and 2 discloses the
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
Admittedly, the petitioner No.2 is the major son of the
deceased. As such, the petitioner No.1 only entitled for
the compensation on the ground of loss of dependency.
29. It is the contention of the petitioners that, the
deceased prior to the accident was an agriculturist cum
coolie and earning Rs.20,000/ per month. In order to
prove the same, the petitioners have not produced any
documentary evidence. So, in the absence of documents,
this Tribunal has to assess the income of the deceased
notionally. So, considering the age of the deceased and
the accident took place in the year 2018, this Tribunal
SCCH4 37 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
assessed the notional income of the deceased at
Rs.10,000/p.m.
30. The PW.1 has deposed that, before the accident
his father was hale and healthy at the time of accident
and aged 60 years. As per Ex.P11 aadhar card, the year
of birth of the deceased is shown as 1943. The accident
took place on 1.1.2018. So, this Tribunal has considered
age of the deceased as 75 years. The multiplier applicable
to this age is 5.
31. On perusal of the materials on record, i.e.,
Ex.P11 to 13 Aadhar cards discloses the name of the
deceased Siddoji Rao is the husband of the petitioner
No.1, father of the petitioner No.2. Since, the petitioner
No.2 being major son cannot be considered as the
dependent of the deceased. Moreover, to show that, the
petitioner No.2 also depended upon the income of the
deceased no documents before the court. Only the
SCCH4 38 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
petitioner No.1 being wife considered as dependent of the
deceased. The claim of the petitioner No.1 that, she was
depending upon the income of the deceased has not been
proved contrary by the respondent. Under such
circumstances, the claim of the petitioners in this regard
can be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 solely
depending on the income of the deceased and as such ½
of the income should be taken out towards personal
expenses of the deceased.
32. Considering recent judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petition
(Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and
others), in which it is observed that "in case if 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
SCCH4 39 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
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".
33. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem
Raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & others),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot
be distinction where there is evidence of income and
where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as
such addition on account of future prospects is
admissible where minimum income is determined on
guess work in the absence of proof of income.
34. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 75
years. His income was considered as Rs.10,000/ per
month and as per the decision stated above, it is clear
that, the tribunal has to consider future prospects even
SCCH4 40 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
for selfemployed or were engaged on fixed wages.
Admittedly, the deceased falls more than 60 years. So,
the future prospects is not taken into considerations.
Taking into consideration of the same, the income of the
deceased would be Rs.10,000/ per month. There is sole
dependent/wife. Hence, half of the income is to be taken
into consideration. So, half of Rs.10,000/ would be
Rs.5,000/. Income for consideration is Rs.10,000
5,000/ Rs.5,000/. Annual income is Rs.60,000/ =
(Rs.5,000 X 12). The appropriate Multiplier is "5". Thus
the loss of dependency works out to Rs.60,000/ X 5 =
Rs.3,00,000/.
35. So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
SCCH4 41 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National Insurance
Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/,
and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
Hence, the petitioner also entitle the same.
36. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance
Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the
various heads under which the
compensation it so be awarded in a
SCCH4 42 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
death case. One of these heads is "Loss
of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental
consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband -wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society, co
operation, affection and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to
the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
SCCH4 43 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral
in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationship.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value Further on
perusal of child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation
awarded in case of death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation
under loss of consortium on the death of
a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensating for loss of
love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.
37. The petitioners are the wife and son are
entitled for consortium for loss of "protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training. Therefore,
Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the petitioner No.1 and 2
under the head of loss of consortium.
SCCH4 44 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
38. The petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Loss of dependency Rs. 3,00,000/
b) Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/
c) Towards transportation of Rs. 15,000/
dead body and funeral
expenses
d) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Total : Rs.4,10,000/
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.4,10,000/.
39. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.2633/2018: The
petitioner produced wound certificate, discharge
summary, medical bills, prescriptions etc. On that basis
he is entitled for compensation on the following heads:
a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: The petitioner deposed
that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to
Sparsha hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient
for 12 days. In order to substantiate the same, the
SCCH4 45 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
petitioner has produced wound certificate marked at
Ex.P.16 issued by Sparsha hospital. The wound
certificate disclose that, the petitioner has sustained left
compound humerus shaft fracture.
The Doctor has opined that injury is grievous
injuries. The PW.14, Dr.S.A.Somashekara also reiterated
the injuries and it is supported by OPD and xray.
Hence, it is clear that, during the above said period the
petitioner suffered lot of pain and inconveniences.
Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal grants
compensation of Rs.50,000/. Accordingly, the same is
awarded.
b) MEDICAL EXPENSES: The petitioner produced
35 medical bills at Ex.P19 and 15 prescriptions at
Ex.P18, amounting to Rs.2,44,873/ along with advance
receipt Ex.P20 in which they are not included. Hence,
looking to the injuries sustained and treatment taken by
SCCH4 46 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
the petitioner, it shows that he might have spent that
much of amount. Hence, he is entitled for the said
medical expenses of Rs.2,44,873/ which is rounded off
to Rs.2,45,000/. Accordingly, same is awarded.
c) LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID UP
PERIOD: The petitioner produced two discharge
summaries as per Ex.P17(2) issued by Sparsha Hospital
which shows that he took treatment as an inpatient for
12 days, it is also supported by OPD and xray. Except
that, he has not produced any other documents to show
that, how many days he has taken bed rest.
Naturally, it shows that he might have taken atleast
4 months rest because of the said injuries. The age and
avocation of the petitioner is shown as 36 years and
working as agriculturist cum electrical work and earning
Rs.15,000/ p.m. To prove the income, he has not
produced any document. Hence, the notional income of
SCCH4 47 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
the petitioner is considered as Rs.10,000/ per month.
Hence, 4 months is to be considered as loss of income.
Hence, he is entitled for compensation of (Rs.10,000/ x
4 months) =Rs.40,000/, under the head loss of income
during the laid up period.
d) DISABILITY: The petitioner has examined the
Dr.S.A.Somashekara as P.W.14. The PW.14 deposed that,
he has not treated the petitioner. On examination he
found left compound grade III B shaft humeral fracture.
He deposed that, the petitioner underwent surgery in the
form of debridement + AD Ex.Fix application under GA
on 2.1.2018 and ORIF with 6 holed philos plating and
bone grafting on 27.2.2018. The petitioner has pain and
difficulty in using left upper limb for activities of daily
living and inability to lift weight and carry out over head
activities and in ability to work as an agriculturist. He
recently examined the petitioner for assessing disability.
SCCH4 48 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
He assessed disability to an extent of 42% to the left
lower limb and 21% to the whole body. Considering the
evidence of the PW.14 and the treatment taken by the
petitioner, this tribunal considered the disability to an
extent 14% to the whole body it will meet the ends of
justice.
The age of the petitioner as per the petition is 36
years. The Adhar card discloses the year of birth of
petitioner as 1981. The accident took place on 1.1.2018.
Hence, the age of the petitioner is considered as 37 years
and appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group
between 36 to 40 years is '15'. Hence, Rs.10,000 x 12 x
15 x 14%= Rs.2,52,000/ under the head disability.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDANT
CHARGES: Further as the petitioner was treated as an
inpatient for about more 12 days and he sustained
grievous injuries. Hence, looking to the injuries
SCCH4 49 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
sustained and the period of treatment taken, he is
entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/ under the head
food and nourishment. Accordingly, same is awarded.
f) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS: The petitioner was aged 37 years at the
time of accident. He has sustained grievous injuries. It
shows that, he finds difficulty in doing daytoday
activities as he might have suffered loss of pain, loss of
amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the
age, nature of injuries and percentage of disability and
also nature of work Rs.40,000/ is awarded under this
head.
f) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: PW.14 Deposed
that petitioner needs another surgery for removal of
implants, which would cost Rs.40,000/. However, he
SCCH4 50 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
has not produced any esitmation. Hence, an amount of
Rs.20,000/is awarded under this head.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/
b) Medical expenses Rs. 2,45,000/
c) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 40,000/
period
d) Disability Rs. 2,52,000/
e) Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 15,000/
attendant charges
f) Loss of future amenities and Rs. 40,000/
happiness
g) Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/
Total Rs.6,62,000/
Hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of
Rs.6,62,000/.
40. Issue No.2 & 3 in MVC.2634/2018: These
issues relate to dependency, quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioner and liable to pay the same.
a) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: The specific contention
of the petitioners is that, they are father and brother of
SCCH4 51 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
deceased Keerthana and as such, they are the legal
representative of deceased. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, due to untimely death of his daughter,
they are put to great mental shock and agony. On the
other hand, the respondent has denied the above
contention of the petitioner in toto.
To prove the relationship, the petitioner has relied
upon the notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased and
petitioners and the same is marked at Ex.P.25 to 27 and
ration card at Ex.P.28. On perusal of the contents of
those documents, it reveals that, the petitioners are
father and brother of the deceased and they are the legal
representative of deceased. Considering the above facts
and on perusal of evidence of PW.1 coupled with
documents, the petitioner has proved the issue by
producing oral and documentary evidence. The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, deceased Keerthana
was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about
SCCH4 52 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
8 years, due to untimely death of his daughter, he is put
to great mental shock and agony. On the other hand, the
respondents have also disputed the above contention of
the petitioners.
To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioner has
relied upon the aadhar card marked as Ex.P.25 to 27.
On perusal of the same, it shows the date of birth of
deceased as 16.05.2010 and accident was occurred on
01.01.2018, then it is clear that, as on the date of
accident deceased Keerthana was aged about 8 years.
Considering the above facts and looking to the contents
of documents, one thing is clear that, as on the date of
accident, deceased Keerthana was minor girl.
At this juncture this court has drawn its
attention on the decision reported in 2013 AIR SCW
5037 in between Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala
and others, which reads like thus;
SCCH4 53 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, (59 of 1988) S.
168--CompensationDeceased boy of 10
years Assisting father in agricultural
operationsNotional income in view of fall
of rupee value has to be taken as Rs.30,000/
... Applying multiplier of 15 in view of young
age of parents compensation of Rs.4.5 lacs
held payableadding Rs.50,000/ towards
loss of love and affection, funeral expenses,
last rites etc., total compensation of Rs.5
lacs held liable to be paidCompensation
directed to carry interest @ 9% in view of
long contest put by insurance company.
On perusal of the said decision, it is observed that
the deceased was girl of 8 years assisting the father in
agricultural operation, the notional income in view of fall
of rupee value has to be taken as Rs.30,000/ p.a by
applying multiplier of 15.
Admittedly, in the instant case the deceased girl
was aged about 8 years is a nonearning member. Hence,
SCCH4 54 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
this Tribunal considers the notional income at
Rs.30,000/ per annum in order to assess the loss of
dependency. Further the petitioner No.1 is the father of
deceased. He has produced the aadhaar card, if the
same is considered as year of birth of the father of
deceased, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident,
the petitioner was aged about 37 years. Considering the
above facts and for the above reason, this tribunal is of
the opinion that, to assess the loss of dependency, if
younger parent age is considered for applying the
multiplier, then the proper multiplier applicable to the
case on hand is 15.
The income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.30,000/ p.a. and multiplier 15 is applied, then, the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/. Considering
the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the
SCCH4 55 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of
Rs.4,50,000/ under the head of loss of dependency.
41. So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.),
wherein it is held that as far as conventional heads are
concerned, the petitioners are entitled funeral expenses
of Rs.15,000/, and under the head of loss of estate at
Rs.15,000/. Hence, the petitioner also entitle the same.
42. At this juncture relied the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018) in case of
SCCH4 56 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Muama General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias
Chuhru Ram and Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various
heads under which the compensation it so be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads is
"Loss of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental consortium
and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would include
the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which
is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally defined
as rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband -wife which allows compensation
to the surviving spouse for loss of
"company, society, cooperation, affection
and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation."
SCCH4 57 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent,
for loss of "parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training."
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of an
accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great
shock and agony to the parents and family
of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their
lifetime. Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral in
the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the status
and worth of actual relationship. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized
that the value Further on perusal of child's
consortium far exceeds the economic value
of the compensation awarded in case of
death of a child. Most jurisdictions
therefore permit parents to be awarded
compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensating for loss of
SCCH4 58 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
love, affection, care and companionship of
the deceased child.
43. The petitioner are the father and the brother of
the deceased are entitled for consortium for loss of "
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the
petitioner under the head of loss of consortium.
44. Considering the above facts and for the above
reason, the petitioners are entitled compensation under
the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,50,000/
Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/
body, funeral & obsequies
ceremony expenses
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Towards the consortium Rs. 80,000/
Total Rs.5,60,000/
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.5,60,000/.
SCCH4 59 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
45. ISSUE No.2 and 3 IN MVC.2635/2018: This
issue relates to dependency, quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners and liable to pay the same.
46. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the
actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased
and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be
taken into consideration. It is the contention of the
petitioners that, they were solely depending upon the
income of the deceased and due to her death, they have
lost love and affection of the deceased.
The petitioner No.1 is husband and petitioner No.2
is son of the deceased are not in dispute. The Ex.P31 to
33 are aadhar cards of petitioners discloses the
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. As
such, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for the
compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. The
claim of the petitioners that, they were depending upon
SCCH4 60 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
the income of the deceased has not been proved contrary
by the respondents. Under such circumstances, the
claim of the petitioners in this regard can be accepted.
Hence, it is clear that, all the petitioners are depending
on the income of the deceased. There are two
dependents, hence, 1/3rd of the income should be taken
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
Considering recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petition (Civil
No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others),
in which it is observed that "in case if 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
SCCH4 61 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
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".
In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj V/s
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & others), wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot be
distinction where there is evidence of income and where
minimum income is determined on guesswork, as such
addition on account of future prospects is admissible
where minimum income is determined on guess work in
the absence of proof of income.
In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 29
years and housewife cum tailor and earning Rs.20,000/
p.a. In order to prove the age, the petitioners have
produced ration card. As per the ration card, the age of
the deceased is shown as 27 years as on 3.12.2014. The
accident took place on 01.01.2018. Hence, the age of the
SCCH4 62 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
deceased is considered as 31 years as on the date
accident. Hence, the income was considered as
Rs.10,000/ per month and as per the decision stated
above, it is clear that, the tribunal has to consider future
prospects on actual salary less tax and even for self
employed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly,
the age of the deceased falls below the age group of 40
years. So 40% of the future prospects is taken into
consideration. Taking into consideration of the same, if,
40% is added to the income of the deceased it would be
Rs.10,000/ + 40% (4,000/) = Rs.14,000/ per month.
Admittedly there are two dependents,, hence 1/3rd of the
income has to be deducted towards personal expenses.
So, 1/3rd of Rs.14,000/ would be Rs.9,333/(14,000
4,667). Annual income is Rs.1,11,996/ = (Rs.9,333/ X
12). The appropriate Multiplier is "16". Thus the loss of
dependency works out to Rs.1,11,996/ X 16 =
SCCH4 63 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Rs.17,91,936/ which is rounded off to
Rs.17,92,000/.
47. So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National Insurance
Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/,
and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
48. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
SCCH4 64 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance
Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the
various heads under which the
compensation it so be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is "Loss
of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental
consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband -wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society, co
operation, affection and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation."
SCCH4 65 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Parental consortium is granted to
the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral
in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationship.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value Further on
perusal of child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation
awarded in case of death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation
under loss of consortium on the death of
a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensating for loss of
love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.
SCCH4 66 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
49. The petitioners are the husband and son of the
deceased are entitled for consortium for loss of
"protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the
petitioner No.1 and 2 under the head of loss of
consortium.
50. The petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Loss of dependency Rs.17,92,000/
b) Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/
c) Towards transportation of Rs. 15,000/
dead body and funeral
expenses
d) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Total : Rs.19,02,000/
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.19,02,000/.
51. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.2636/2018: The
petitioner produced wound certificate, discharge
SCCH4 67 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
summary, medical bills, prescriptions etc. On that basis
he is entitled for compensation on the following heads:
a) TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: In the
petition as well as in evidence, the petitioner contended
that, after the accident he was shifted to Sparsha
hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for a
period of 3 days. The petitioner has produced the wound
certificate marked at Ex.P.35 and Discharge summary
marked at Ex.P.36 issued by Sparsh hospital, it reveals
that, the petitioner had sustained mild head injury with
scalp laceration. The doctor has opined that injury is
simple in nature.
In order to prove the disability, the petitioner has
not examined the doctor. In order to prove the medical
expenses, he has produced 4 Medical bills for a sum
Rs.60,091/ as per Ex.P38. The petitioner has produced
discharge summary marked at Ex.P.36. As per discharge
SCCH4 68 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
summary the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient for
3 days. Looking to the injuries sustained and treatment
taken by the petitioner, it shows that he might have
spent the medical expenses.
The PW.5 has deposed in his affidavit evidence that,
due to the accident, his son is in deep mental gony, still
suffering with gross deformity, he has become too weak,
cannot do his regular activities and cannot do his normal
duties and as such, he has lost the future education.
Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and treatment
taken by the petitioner in the hospital, it is just and
proper to award Global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/
to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is awarded.
52. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.2637/2018: The
petitioner produced wound certificate, discharge
summary, medical bills, prescriptions etc. On that basis
she is entitled for compensation on the following heads:
SCCH4 69 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: The petitioner deposed
that immediately after the accident, she was shifted to
Sparsha hospital wherein she was treated as an inpatient
for 26 days. In order to substantiate the same, the
petitioner has produced wound certificate marked at
Ex.P.43 issued by Sparsha hospital. The wound
certificate disclose that, the petitioner has sustained
1. Severe head injury
2. Diffuse axonal injury.
3.Compound facial bone injury.
4. Left both bones fracture forearm.
The Doctor has opined that injuries are grievous in
nature. The PW.13 Dr.K.M.Kumaraswamy and PW.15
Dr.S.A.Somashekara also reiterated the injuries and it is
supported by OPD and xray. Hence, it is clear that,
during the above said period the petitioner suffered lot of
pain and inconveniences. Considering all these aspects,
SCCH4 70 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
the Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.50,000/.
Accordingly, the same is awarded.
b) MEDICAL EXPENSES: The petitioner produced
62 medical bills at Ex.P46 and 44 prescriptions at
Ex.P45, amounting to Rs.9,38,526/ along with 21
advance receipt marked at Ex.P.47. Hence, looking to
the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the
petitioner, it shows that she might have spent that much
of amount. Hence, she is entitled for the said medical
expenses of Rs.9,38,526/ which is rounded off to
Rs.9,39,000/. Accordingly, same is awarded.
c) LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID UP
PERIOD: The petitioner produced discharge summary as
per Ex.P44 issued by Sparsha Hospital which shows that
she took treatment as an inpatient for 26 days, it is also
supported by OPD and xray. Except that, she has not
SCCH4 71 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
produced any other documents to show that, how many
days she has taken bed rest.
Naturally, it shows that she might have taken
atleast 6 months rest because of the said injuries. The
age and avocation of the petitioner is shown as 22 years
and doing tailoring work and earning Rs.15,000/ p.m.
To prove the same, she has not produced any document.
Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered
as Rs.10,000/ per month. Hence, 6 months is to be
considered as loss of income. Hence, she is entitled for
compensation of (Rs.10,000/ x 6 months) =Rs.60,000/,
under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
d) DISABILITY: The petitioner has examined the
Dr.K.M.Kumaraswamy as PW.13 and
Dr.S.A.Somashekara as P.W.15. The PW.13 deposed
that, he has not treated the petitioner. On examination
the petitioner complaints pain in the temporo mandibular
SCCH4 72 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
joint both the sides, scar present in the right side of the
face near right eye extending to right corner of the lip,
swelling present and not able to close the eye, mobility of
the teeth, rearrangement of teeth, disocculsion of teeth
and general weakness and giddiness. He has conducted
clinical and radiological examination. He has assessed
the disability totally 25%.
The PW.15 deposed that, he has not treated the
petitioner. The petitioner was treated at Sparsha
hospital and sustained severe head injury with diffuse
axonal injury, right pan facial fractures. Compound and
comminuted. Fracture both bones with DRUJ dislocation
left side and underwent surgery in the form of ORIF with
DCP for fracture of both bones and Kwire pinning for
DRVJ left side and ORIF for right sided pain facial
fractures. He has gone through wound certificate and
discharge summary before assessing the disabilities. On
SCCH4 73 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
examination the petitioner complaints pain and difficulty
in using left upper limb for activities of daily living and
inability to lift weight and work as a tailor. He recently
examined the petitioner for assessing disability. He
assessed disability to an extent of 32% to the left lower
limb and 16% to the whole body. Considering the
evidence of the PW.13 & PW.15 and the treatment taken
by the petitioner, this tribunal considered the disability
to an extent 16% to the whole body it will meet the ends
of justice.
The age of the petitioner as per the aadhar card is
22 years. The Adhar card discloses the date of birth of
petitioner as 14.2.1995. The accident took place on
1.1.2018. Hence, the age of the petitioner is considered
as 23 years and appropriate multiplier applicable to the
age group between 20 to 25 years is '18'. Hence,
Rs.10,000 x 12 x 18 x 16%= Rs.3,45,600/ which is
SCCH4 74 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
rounded of to Rs.3,46,000/ under the head of disability.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDANT
CHARGES: Further as the petitioner was treated as an
inpatient for about 26 days and she sustained grievous
injuries. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the
period of treatment taken, she is entitled for
compensation of Rs.25,000/ under the head of food and
nourishment. Accordingly, same is awarded.
f) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS: The petitioner was aged 23 years at the
time of accident. She has sustained grievous injuries. It
shows that, she finds difficulty in doing daytoday
activities as she might have suffered loss of pain, loss of
amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the
age, nature of injuries and percentage of disability and
SCCH4 75 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
also nature of work Rs.40,000/ is awarded under this
head.
g) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: PW.13 deposed
that petitioner needs another surgery for removal of
metal plates which is placed in lower jaw near symplysis
menti in two places, for this surgery petitioner needs
Rs.90,000/ to 95,000/ in private hospital. PW.15
deposed that petitioner needs another surgery for
removal of implants which cost Rs.40,000/. However,
they have not produced any estimation. Hence, an
amount of Rs.30,000/ is awarded under the head
future medical expenses.
53. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/
b) Medical expenses Rs. 9,39,000/
c) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 60,000/
period
SCCH4 76 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
d) Disability Rs. 3,46,000/
e) Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 25,000/
attendant charges
f) Loss of future amenities and Rs. 40,000/
happiness
g) Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000/
Total Rs.14,90,000/
Hence the petitioner is entitled to compensation of
Rs.14,90,000/.
54. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.2638/2018: The
petitioner produced wound certificate, medical bills,
prescriptions etc. On that basis he is entitled for
compensation on the following heads:
a) TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: In the
petition as well as in evidence, the petitioner contended
that, after the accident she was shifted to Sparsha
hospital, wherein she was admitted as an inpatient for a
period of 3 days. The petitioner has produced the wound
certificate marked at Ex.P.50 issued by Sparsh hospital,
SCCH4 77 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
it reveals that, the petitioner had sustained cut lacerated
wound on the scalp. The doctor has opined that injury is
simple in nature.
In order to prove the disability, the petitioner has
not examined the doctor. In order to prove the medical
expenses, she has produced 9 Medical bills for a sum
Rs.12,827/ as per Ex.P52. The petitioner has not
produced discharge summary to show that she has taken
treatment for 3 days. Looking to the injuries sustained
and treatment taken by the petitioner, it shows that she
might have spent Rs.12,827/ towards medical expenses.
The PW.7 has deposed in her affidavit evidence that,
due to the accident, her daughter is in deep mental
agony, still suffering with gross deformity, she has
become too weak, cannot do her regular activities and
cannot do her normal duties and as such, she has lost
the future education. Hence, looking to the injuries
SCCH4 78 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner in the
hospital, it is just and proper to award Global
compensation of Rs.50,000/ to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the same is awarded.
55. Issue No.2 & 3 in MVC.2639/2018: These
issues relate to dependency, quantum of compensation to
be awarded to the petitioners and liable to pay the same.
56. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:The specific
contention of the petitioners is that, they are mother and
sister of deceased Keerthana and as such, they are the
legal representative of deceased. Further the contention
of the petitioner is that, due to untimely death of her
daughter, they are put to great mental shock and agony.
On the other hand, the respondent has not denied the
above contention of the petitioner in toto.
To prove the relationship, the petitioner has not
produced any documents. However, respondents have
SCCH4 79 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
not disputed the relationship. Considering the above
facts and on perusal of evidence of PW.8 coupled with
documents, the petitioners have proved the issue by
producing oral and documentary evidence.
The specific contention of the petitioner is that,
deceased Hitesh was hale and healthy at the time of
accident, aged about 2 years, due to untimely death of
her son, she is put to great mental shock and agony. On
the other hand, the respondents have also not disputed
the above contention of the petitioners.
To prove the age of the deceased, the petitioner has
not produced any document. As per PM report, the age
of the deceased is 2 years. Considering the above facts
and looking to the contents of documents, one thing is
clear that, as on the date of accident, deceased Hitesh
was minor girl.
At this juncture this court has drawn its
attention on the decision reported in 2013 AIR SCW
SCCH4 80 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
5037 in between Kishan Gopal and another Vs. Lala
and others, which reads like thus;
(B) Motor Vehicles Act, (59 of
1988) S. 168--Compensation
Deceased boy of 10 years Assisting
father in agricultural operations
Notional income in view of fall of rupee
value has to be taken as Rs.30,000/...
Applying multiplier of 15 in view of
young age of parents compensation of
Rs.4.5 lacs held payableadding
Rs.50,000/ towards loss of love and
affection, funeral expenses, last rites
etc., total compensation of Rs.5 lacs
held liable to be paidCompensation
directed to carry interest @ 9% in view
of long contest put by insurance
company.
On perusal of the said decision, it is observed that
the deceased was boy of 10 years assisting the father in
agricultural operation, the notional income in view of fall
SCCH4 81 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
of rupee value has to be taken as Rs.30,000/ p.a by
applying multiplier of 15.
Admittedly, in the instant case, the deceased boy
was aged about 2 years is a nonearning member. Hence,
this Tribunal considers the notional income at
Rs.30,000/ per annum in order to assess the loss of
dependency.
Further the petitioner No.1 is the mother of
deceased. He has produced the aadhaar card, if the
same is considered as year of birth of the mother of
deceased, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident,
the petitioner was aged about 23 years. Considering the
above facts and for the above reason, this tribunal is of
the opinion that, to assess the loss of dependency, if
younger parent age is considered for applying the
multiplier, then the proper multiplier applicable to the
case on hand is 15.
SCCH4 82 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
The income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.30,000/ p.a. and multiplier 15 is applied, then, the
loss of dependency comes to Rs.4,50,000/. Considering
the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the
opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for an amount of
Rs.4,50,000/ under the head of loss of dependency.
So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National Insurance
Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is held
that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/,
and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
SCCH4 83 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
At this juncture relied the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising
out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018) in case of Muama
General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru
Ram and Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various
heads under which the compensation it so be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads is
"Loss of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental consortium
and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would include
the company, care, help, comfort, guidance,
solace and affection of the deceased, which
is a loss to his family. With respect to a
spouse, it would include sexual relations
with the deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally defined
as rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband -wife which allows compensation
SCCH4 84 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
to the surviving spouse for loss of
"company, society, cooperation, affection
and aid of the other in every conjugal
relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the
child upon the premature death of a parent,
for loss of "parental aid, protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training."
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of an
accidental death of a child. An accident
leading to the death of a child causes great
shock and agony to the parents and family
of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their
lifetime. Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral in
the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the status
and worth of actual relationship. Modern
jurisdictions world-over have recognized
that the value Further on perusal of child's
consortium far exceeds the economic value
of the compensation awarded in case of
death of a child. Most jurisdictions
therefore permit parents to be awarded
SCCH4 85 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded
to the parents is a compensating for loss of
love, affection, care and companionship of
the deceased child.
57. The petitioner are the mother and sister of the
deceased are entitled for consortium for loss of "
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the
petitioner under the head of loss of consortium.
58. Considering the above facts and for the above
reason, the petitioners are entitled compensation under
the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 4,50,000/
Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/
body, funeral & obsequies
ceremony expenses
Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Towards the consortium Rs. 80,000/
Total Rs.5,60,000/
SCCH4 86 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.5,60,000/.
59. Issue No.2 & 3 in MVC.2640/2018: This issue
relates to dependency, quantum of compensation to be
awarded to the petitioner and liable to pay the same.
60. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the
actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased
and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be
taken into consideration. It is the contention of the
petitioners that, they were solely depending upon the
income of the deceased and due to his death, they have
lost love and affection of the deceased.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents of the
deceased are not in dispute. The Ex.P61 to 63 are aadhar
cards petitioners and the deceased discloses the
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. As
SCCH4 87 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
such, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for the
compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. The
claim of the petitioners that, they were depending upon
the income of the deceased has not been proved contrary
by the respondents. Under such circumstances, the
claim of the petitioners in this regard can be accepted.
Hence, it is clear that, both the petitioners are depending
on the income of the deceased. Since, the deceased was
bachelor at the time of the accident, half of the income
should be taken towards personal expenses of the
deceased.
Considering recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petition (Civil
No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National
Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & others),
in which it is observed that "in case if the deceased was
selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40%
SCCH4 88 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
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".
61. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem
Raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & others),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, there cannot
be distinction where there is evidence of income and
where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as
such addition on account of future prospects is
admissible where minimum income is determined on
guess work in the absence of proof of income.
In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 18
years and was a student cum newspaper vendor and
earning Rs.10,000/p.m. In order to prove the age, the
SCCH4 89 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
petitioners have produced the Ex.P63 adhar card of the
deceased which discloses the year of birth of the
deceased as 2001. The accident took place on
01.01.2018. Hence, the age of the deceased is
considered as 17 years as on the date accident. The
petitioners have not produced any document to prove the
income of the deceased.
62. Further in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs
R.Vimala on 8 September, 2015 in C.M.A.Nos.713 to
715 of 2015 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2015 & M.P.No.2 of
2015 it was held that:
"The claimants have filed Ex.A12, the
Diploma Certificate issued to the deceased
which indicates that the deceased had
completed his Diploma in Welder from D'Silva
Engineering Works, Chennai. Ex.A13 is the
Certificate issued by a private organization in
favour of the deceased which would indicate
that the deceased had successfully completed
SCCH4 90 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
a course in basic FireFighting and Rescue
Operation conducted by Safety and Fire
Department. The deceased, at the time of his
death, was 27 years. Therefore, if we assume
that the deceased was in employment at
India, befitting to his qualification, he could
have earned not less than Rs.10,000/ per
month".
63. In this context, we are fortified by the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Reshma
Kumari V. Madan Mohan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 6 (SC):
2009 AIR SCW 6999, wherein it was held that,
"while determining the quantum of
compensation, the future prospects of the
deceased also has to be taken in relation to his
qualification and income".
64. Therefore, in the light of the above decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and having regard to the age
and qualification possessed by the deceased, this Court
SCCH4 91 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
notionally take a sum of Rs.10,000/ as income of the
deceased per month would be sufficient to calculate
quantum of compensation. It is clear that, the tribunal
has to consider future prospects on actual salary less tax
and even for selfemployed or were engaged on fixed
wages. Admittedly, the age of the deceased falls below the
age group of 40 years. So, 40% of the future prospects is
taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the
same, if, 40% is added to the income of the deceased it
would be Rs.10,000/ + 40% (4,000/) = Rs.14,000/ per
month. Admittedly, the deceased was a bachelor, hence,
½ has to be deducted towards personal expenses. So, ½
of Rs.14,000/ would be Rs.7,000/. Annual income is
Rs.84,000/ = (Rs.7,000/ X 12). The appropriate
Multiplier is "18". Thus the loss of dependency works out
to Rs.84,000/X 18 = Rs.15,12,000/.
SCCH4 92 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
65. So, far as awarding compensation under other
conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners have
stated that, they have spent amount towards shifting of
dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies
ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment passed in Special Leave petition (Civil)
No.25590/2014 dated 31102017 (National Insurance
Co. Ltd., V/s Pranaya Sethi and Ors.), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/,
and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
66. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil)
No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance
Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and
Others.
SCCH4 93 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the
various heads under which the
compensation it so be awarded in a
death case. One of these heads is "Loss
of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a
compendious term which encompasses
'spousal consortium; parental
consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection
of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it
would include sexual relations with the
deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband -wife which
allows compensation to the surviving
spouse for loss of "company, society, co
operation, affection and aid of the other
in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to
the child upon the premature death of a
parent, for loss of "parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline,
guidance and training."
SCCH4 94 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Filial consortium is the right of the
parents to compensation in the case of
an accidental death of a child. An
accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the
parents and family of the deceased. The
greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their oral
in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism
reflection changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationship.
Modern jurisdictions world-over have
recognized that the value Further on
perusal of child's consortium far exceeds
the economic value of the compensation
awarded in case of death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit
parents to be awarded compensation
under loss of consortium on the death of
a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensating for loss of
love, affection, care and companionship
of the deceased child.
67. The petitioners are the parents of the deceased
are entitled for consortium for loss of "protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and training.
SCCH4 95 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
Therefore, Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the petitioner
No.1 and 2 under the head of loss of consortium.
68. The petitioners are entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
a) Loss of dependency Rs. 15,12,000/
b) Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/
c) Towards transportation of Rs. 15,000/
dead body and funeral
expenses
d) Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
Total : Rs.16,22,000/
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.16,22,000/.
69. Liability: As discussed above, the accident
was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of Ertiga car temporary registration No.KA
09/NT023043/1718 and driver of canter bearing No.KA
06D3095. As discussed in the issue No.1, the
composite negligence fixed in the ratio of 70:30, the
respondents are being the owners and insurers of the
SCCH4 96 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
offending vehicles are liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners. However, respondent No.2 and 4 being the
insurers are liable to indemnify the owners. This Court
has gone through the decision laid down by the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016
(MV). In the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka observed that the rate of interest is to be 6%
p.a., keeping in line with statutory ceiling limit.
Accordingly, I answered issue No.2 in the affirmative and
issue No.3 in the partly affirmative in MVC.2632/2018,
2634/2018, 2635/2018, 2639/2018 and 2640/2018
and issue No.2 in partly affirmative in MVC.2633/2018,
2636/2018, 2637/2018 and 2638/2018.
70. Issue No.3 & 4 in all the cases: On detailed
discussions made herein above, this Tribunal proceeds to
pass the following:
SCCH4 97 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018
::ORDER::
Claim petition of Petitioners in MVC.2632/2018, MVC.2634/2018, MVC.2635/2018, MVC.2639/2018, MVC.2640/2018 MVC.2633/2018, MVC.2636/2018, MVC.2637/2018 and MVC.2638/2018 are partly allowed with cost as against Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2632/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The petitioner in MVC
No.2633/2018 is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.6,62,000/ with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2634/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ with interest at the rate of SCCH4 98 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2635/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,02,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The petitioner in MVC
No.2636/2018 is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The petitioner in MVC
No.2637/2018 is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.14,90,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioner in MVC No.2638/2018 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.50,000/ with interest at the rate of SCCH4 99 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2639/2018 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2640/2018 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,22,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The Respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.However, the Respondent No.2 and 4
insurance company has to indemnify the Respondent No.1 & 3 and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of compensation amount, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay 70% and SCCH4 100 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 respondent No.4 is liable to pay 30% of the amount to the petitioners. After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2632/2018, 90% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 10% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.2 is meager, entire amount shall be released in his favour through e payment on proper identification and verification.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner in MVC SCCH4 101 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 No.2633/2018 and 2637/2018, 75% of compensation shall be released through epayment, on proper identification and balance 25% shall be deposited in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of three years in their names. After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2634/2018, 30% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 70% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 is meagre, entire amount shall be released in his favour through e payment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in his name in any nationalized or schedule bank until he attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being natural guardian of minor petitioner is at liberty SCCH4 102 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2635/2018, 10% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 90% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 is meager, entire amount shall be released in his favour through e payment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in his name in any nationalized or schedule bank until he attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being natural guardian of minor petitioner is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon SCCH4 103 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner.
In MVC.2636/2018 and 2638/2018, out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioners, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank until they attain the age of majority and the petitioners being natural guardian of minor petitioners are at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioners.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2639/2018, 70% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 30% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a SCCH4 104 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank until she attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being natural guardian of minor petitioners is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2640/2018, 20% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 80% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% SCCH4 105 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 25% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in all the cases.
(Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2632/2018 and copy of the same in MVC No.2633/2018 to MVC.2640/2018) Draw an award accordingly in all the claim petitions.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 10th day of January, 2020) (Champaka) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru SCCH4 106 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 K.Anusuya Bai PW.2 C.S.Sathish Rao @ C.S.Sathish PW.3 C.S.Sathish Rao @ C.S.Sathish PW.4 C.S.Sathish Rao @ C.S.Sathish PW.5 C.S.Sathish Rao @ C.S.Sathish PW.6 Ashwini.N. @ Ashwini Bai PW.7 Ashwini.N. @ Ashwini Bai PW.8 Ashwini.N. @ Ashwini Bai PW.9 K.Prabhakar Rao Sindhe PW.10 Srinivas PW.11 Srinivas PW.12 Srinivas PW.13 Dr.K.M.Kumaraswamy PW.14 Dr.S.A.Somashekara PW.15 Dr.S.A.Somashekara PW.16 Dr.Sreedhara.K.C. Respondent/s RW.1 Thrinethra.M.N RW.2 Sandeep RW.3 T.S.Purushotham SCCH4 107 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 Petitioner/s Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar Ex.P4 : Sketch Ex.P5 : IMV report Ex.P6 : Notice u/s 133 of MV Act Ex.P7 : Reply notice Ex.P8 : Inquest report Ex.P9 : PM report Ex.P10 : Charge sheet Ex.P11 : 3 adhar cards to13 Ex.P14 : 4 photos Ex.P15 : CD
Ex.P16 : Wound certificate Ex.P17 : 2 discharge summaries Ex.P18 : 15 prescriptions Ex.P19 : 35 medical bills of Rs.2,44,873/ Ex.P20 : Advance receipt Ex.P21 : 4 xrays Ex.P22 : Adhar card Ex.P23 : Inquest report Ex.P24 : PM report Ex.P.25 3 adhar cards to 27 Ex.P.28 Ration card Ex.P.29 Inquest report Ex.P.30 PM report Ex.P.31 3 adhar cards to 33 Ex.P.35 Wound certificate Ex.P.36 Discharge summary SCCH4 108 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 Ex.P.37 2 prescriptions Ex.P.38 4 medical bills of Rs.60,091/ Ex.P.39 2 advance receipt Ex.P.40 2 adhar cards & 41 Ex.P.42 Ration card Ex.P.43 Wound certificate Ex.P.44 Discharge summary Ex.P.45 44 prescriptions Ex.P.46 62 medical bills of Rs.9,38,526/ Ex.P.47 21 advance receipt Ex.P.48 2 xrays Ex.P49 Aadhar card Ex.P.50 Wound certificate Ex.P.51 3 medical prescriptions Ex.P.52 9 medical bills of Rs.12,827/ Ex.P.53 2 advance receipt Ex.P.54 2 xrays Ex.P55 Adhar card Ex.P56 Inquest report Ex.P57 PM report Ex.P.58 3 adhar cards Ex.P.59 Inquest report Ex.P60 PM report Ex.P.61 3 adhar cards to 63 Ex.P.64 Authorisation letter Ex.P.65 Police intimation Ex.P. 66 MLC extract Ex.P.67 Case sheet (2 in nos.) Ex.P.68 Authorisation letter Ex.P.69 Police intimation Ex.P.70 MLC extract Ex.P.71 Case sheet (2 in nos.) Ex.P.72 Authorisation letter SCCH4 109 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 Ex.P.73 Police intimation Ex.P.74 MLC extract Ex.P.75 Case sheet (2 in nos.) Ex.P.76 Outpatient card Ex.P.77 Xray OPG and Xray lateral Caphaligram Ex.P.78 Xray IOPA (3 in nos.) Ex.P.79 OPD card Ex.P.80 Xray Ex.P.81 OPD card Ex.P.82 Xray Ex.P.83 Recent examination report Ex.P.84 Neuropsychological report Ex.P.85 Recent CT scan film with record Respondent/s :
Ex.R.1 : Copy of insurance policy Ex.R.2 Copy of insurance policy Ex.R.3 Authorisation letter Ex.R.4 DL extract XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH4 110 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate order) ::ORDER::
Claim petition of Petitioners in MVC.2632/2018, MVC.2634/2018, MVC.2635/2018, MVC.2639/2018, MVC.2640/2018 MVC.2633/2018, MVC.2636/2018, MVC.2637/2018 and MVC.2638/2018 are partly allowed with cost as against Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2632/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The petitioner in MVC No.2633/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,62,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2634/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
SCCH4 111 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 Petitioners in MVC No.2635/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.19,02,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The petitioner in MVC No.2636/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The petitioner in MVC No.2637/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,90,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioner in MVC No.2638/2018 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.50,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2639/2018 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,60,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
Petitioners in MVC No.2640/2018 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,22,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The Respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 and 4 insurance company has to indemnify the Respondent No.1 & 3 and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of compensation amount, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay 70% and SCCH4 112 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 respondent No.4 is liable to pay 30% of the amount to the petitioners.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2632/2018, 90% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 10% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.2 is meagre, entire amount shall be released in his favour through epayment on proper identification and verification.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner in MVC No.2633/2018 and 2637/2018, 75% of compensation shall be released through epayment, on proper identification and balance 25% shall be deposited in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of three years in their names.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2634/2018, 30% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 70% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 is meagre, entire amount shall be released in his favour through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in his name in any nationalized or schedule bank until he attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being SCCH4 113 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 natural guardian of minor petitioner is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner. After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2635/2018, 10% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 90% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 is meagre, entire amount shall be released in his favour through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in his name in any nationalized or schedule bank until he attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being natural guardian of minor petitioner is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner. In MVC.2636/2018 and 2638/2018, out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioners, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank until they attain the age of majority and the petitioners being natural guardian of minor petitioners are at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioners.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2639/2018, 70% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 30% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2. Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, t SCCH4 114 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank until she attains the age of majority and the petitioner No.1 being natural guardian of minor petitioners is at liberty to withdraw interest accrued thereon periodically for welfare of the minor petitioner.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.2640/2018, 20% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 80% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2. Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 25% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in all the cases.
(Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.2632/2018 and copy of the same in MVC No.2633/2018 to MVC.2640/2018) Draw an award accordingly in all the claim petitions.
(Champaka) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru SCCH4 115 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 AWARD SCCH NO.4 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC.2632/2018 PETITIONER IN : 1.Smt.K.Anusuya Bai, MVC No. W/o Late Sidooji Rao, 2632/2018 Aged about 54 years.
2.Sri.C.S.Sathish Rao @ C.S.Sathish,S/o Late Siddoji Rao, Aged about 36 years.
All are residing at Chowdanakuppe Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District (By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah,Adv.,) VS RESPONDENTS : 1.Sri.C.S.Harish Rao @ C.S.Harish, S/o Late Siddoji Rao, Aged about 31 years, R/at Chowdanakuppe Village at Post, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(RC owner of Maruthi Ertiga car bearing Tem Reg No.KA09/NT023043/201718) (Exparte)
2. The Manager, Royal Sundram Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd., Office at No.186/7, Complex, 1st Cross, Hosur Main Road, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560027.
(Insurer to the Maruthi Ertiga car bearing Temp. Reg.No.KA09/NT023043/201718 SCCH4 116 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 Vide Policy No.MOP4714160 Policy period from 21.12.2017 to 20.12.2018) (By Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu, Adv.,)
3.Sri.Ravi Shankar,S S/o Shanthaiah, R/at Irakkasandra Village, Janatha Colony, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District.
(RC owner of canter No.KA06D.3095) (By Sri.Ravishankar.S.,adv.,)
4. The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Office at 4/3/1 and 3/2 M, 11th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 061.
(Insurer to the canter No.KA06D.3095 vide policy No.140121723340022657. \ Policy period from 17.10.2017 to 16.10.2018) (By Sri.H.C.Betsur., adv.,) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees SCCH4 117 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Champaka, XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER Claim petition of Petitioner is partly allowed with cost as against Respondents.
Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,10,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realization of same from Respondents.
The Respondents No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 and 4 insurance company has to indemnify the Respondent No.1 & 3 and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of compensation amount, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay 70% and respondent No.4 is liable to pay 30% of the amount to the petitioners. SCCH4 118 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 After deposit of compensation amount, 90% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 10% share is apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.2.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1, 50% shall be deposited as F.D. in her name in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of three years and the remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1, through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Since the amount awarded to the petitioner No.2 is meagre, entire amount shall be released in his favour through epayment on proper identification and verification.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2020.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 SCCH4 119 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0100 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH4 120 MVC Nos.2632 to 2640/2018