Bangalore District Court
Anusha Chugh vs V. Reddappa on 7 June, 2024
KABC0B0009332022
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& Vth ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE Court of Small
Causes, Mayo Hall Unit Bangalore (SCCH-20)
Present : Sri. P. Shivaraj,
B.Com. LL.B.
Vth Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.M.M.
Dated this the 7th day of June 2024
MVC No.3395/2022
Petitioners: 1.Smt.Anusha chugh
w/o Late Jagadeep Singh
Aged about 32 years,
.
2.Kumari Gursimar Kaur
D/o Late Jagadeep Singh
Aged about 3 years,
3. Sri.Makhan Singh,
S/o Gian Singh
Aged about 60 years,
4. Smt.Rash Pal Kaur
W/o Makhan Singh
Aged about 58 years,
Petitioner No.2 is minor,
Rep by natural Guardian and mother
1st petitioner herein
All are residing at No.98,
Eastern portion,
16th cross, Vijayalakshmi Layout,
Kalkere Main Road,
Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru-560043
(By Pleader Sri.T.Manjunath)
/Vs/
2 MVC No.3395/2022
Respondents :- 1. Sri.V.Reddappa,
S/o Venkataravana
R/at Cheruvumaravapalli Village,
Mudimadugu post,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District,
(Owner of Tractor bearing No.KA-07-TA-
9943)
2. Iffco-Tokio GIC Ltd.,
Sri.Shanthi Towers
No.141, 3 rd main Road, East of NGEF
Layout, Kasturi Nagar,
Bengaluru-560001
C/o .H.Shankar
(Policy No.1-22PTH4KP P
400MM020168
Valid from 16.10.2021 to 15.10.2022)
(R1- Exparte)
(R1- By pleader Sri.SM)
(P. SHIVARAJ)
Vth Addl. S.C.Judge & 24th ACMM
SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed the petition U/sec.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, claiming compensation amount of Rs.2,50,00,000/- with interest from the respondents.
2. Petitioners case is as Follows:
Petitioner no.1 is the wife late Jagadeep Singh and petitioner No.2 is their daughter, petitioner no.3 and 4 are the husband and wife and parents of the Late Jagadeep Singh.3 MVC No.3395/2022
That on 24.06.2022 at 07.00 AM., the deceased Jagadeep Singh was riding the two wheeler bearing Reg No.KA-53-EC-6418 in the Kasturi Nagar, that is Ramamurthy Nagar service Road, wherein the driver of the tractor bearing Registration No.IA-07-TA-9943, drove it with high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed against the aforesaid two wheeler and caused the accident, in the accident Jagadeep Singh sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to K.R. Puram Hospital wherein he was died due to the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident. petitioners have performed the funeral and obsequies as per their customs and they have spent more than Rs.50,000/- for the same.
3. Petitioners alleged that deceased was 34 yeas of age as on the date of accident and prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and he was working as senior accountant in M/s J.P Murugan Pvt Ltd., and he was earning Rs.70,000/- per month. They alleged that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Tractor and the Jurisdictional police have registered the case against the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle in Cr.No.105/2022. Petitioners alleged that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer, accordingly they are jointly liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners and they prays 4 MVC No.3395/2022 this tribunal to award the compensation amount with interest by allowing the petition.
4. After filing of the petition, notice served to the respondents. Responded No.1 does not chosen to contest the petition and he placed exparte, Responded No.2 has appeared through his counsel filed power and written statement by denying the entire petition averments in toto.
They contended that the driver of the Tractor was having no valid and effective DL as on the date of the accident and the insured as knowingly and intentionally allowed the driver to drive the offending vehicle with out valid licence and insured has violated the policy conditions, accordingly responded No.2 is not liable to pay compensation and prays this tribunal to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to prove the case, the Petitioner No.3 examined himself as PW-1, and examined another witness as PW.2, produced and marked 25 documents which are at Ex.P1 to 25 and they are fully cross examined. Respondent No.2 has not chosen to lead the evidence, there is no material on record to show that the responded no.2 is prevented from appearing for this tribunal to lead his/its evidence. Hence, respondent no.2 evidence is taken as nil.
5 MVC No.3395/20226. I have heard the arguments form the counsels appearing for the sides and perused the entire record. Counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed the written arguments and list of authorities with authorities. I have perused the same.
Counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied on the following authorities:
1. Sunitha and others Vs Rajasthan state Road Transport corporation and another reported in - AIR 2019 SC 994
2. M/s ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd Vs Smt.Bharathi S Reddy and others reported in - ILR 2016 KAR 55
3. Saraswati Palariya and others Vs New India Assurance Co Ltd., and other reported in- 2019 ACJ 42
7. On the basis of pleadings I have framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 24.06.2022 at 07.00 AM., deceased Jagadeep Singh S/o Makhan Singh was riding on motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-EC-6418, wherein driver of Tractor bearing Reg No.KA-07-TA-
9943 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and without any signal suddenly taken left turn and dashed against the deceased motorcycle, due to which, deceased fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries and died on the same day at the Hospital?
6 MVC No.3395/20222. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8. After carefully going through the evidence placed on record and taking into consideration of facts and attending circumstances of the case, my findings to the above issues are as follows;
Point no.1: In the affirmative,
Point no.2: In partly affirmative,
Point No.3: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. Points No.1 & 2 :- I have taken both the issues together for common discussion, so as to avoid the repetition of facts and reasoning.
PW.1 being the petitioner no.3 he reiterated the petition averments in his examination-in-chief affidavit. Ex.P9 to 12 are the Adhaar cards of petitioner No.3 and 4 and the deceased. The entry therein it reveals that the petitioner No.3 and 4 are the husband and wife and parents of Late Jagadeep Singh.
10. In order to prove the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, Petitioners have tendered the complaint, FIR, PM, mahazar, Inquest, IMV report and final report which are at Ex.P1 to 7 and 8. Police agencies have filed the final report after the full 7 MVC No.3395/2022 investigation and same is not challenged by the repondents. As per final report one Irappa Mudiyappa Poojari S/o Mudiyappa Poojari was the driver of tractor and he has caused the accident and he failed to inform the same to near by police station and failed to provide the treatment to the injured. The said fact shows that he is guilty of the offence as stated in the final report and it is the substantive piece of the evidence of the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent no.2 has failed to elicit any material facts from the mouth of PW.1 and 2 to disprove the petition allegatiions and they failed to probabilise their contention as contended in the written statement. Respondent no.2 failed to lead the evidence to substantiate his defence inasmuch bare pleadings can not be accepted with out evidence
11. On perusal of the aforesaid police documents, which are not disputed by the respondents, it is evident that Jadgdeep singh died in the motor vehicle road accident caused by the negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle, Further Respondent no.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and he insured his vehicle with Respondent no.2. Evidently documents relied on by the petitioners remain un-impeached and unrebutted.
12. PW-1 being the father, PW-2 being the employer of the deceased, they clearly deposed that deceased was the permanent employee in JP Murugan Pvt Limited 8 MVC No.3395/2022 company, and Rs.46,909/- is the last salary drawn by the deceased. The oral testimony of the PW-1 and 2 corroborates with employment letter and salary slips of the deceased which are at Ex.P.18, 19 and 22. Accordingly the monthly income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.46,909/-. Admittedly deceased was not an income tax assessee.
13. Further more as per the entry in Aadhar card of the deceased which is Ex.P.11, the date of birth of the deceased is 03.07.1988. Accordingly the age of the deceased as on the date of the accident was 34 years and multiplier 16 is applicable.
14. Deceased was salaried person and he was less than 40 years of age, accordingly 50% should be added towards his monthly income for his future prospectus. Deceased left behind 4 dependents accordingly 1/4 should be deducted from his monthly income towards his personal expenses.
15. The loss of dependency is calculated as follows:
1 Monthly income Rs. 46,909/-
Add: 50% of income future prospectus Rs. 23,454/-
Rs. 70,363/-
2 Less; 1/4 for personal expenses Rs. 17,590/- 4 Monthly income Rs. 52,773/-
Rs.52,773 (income)X 12 (month) X 16 Rs.1,01,32,416/- (Multiplier ) 9 MVC No.3395/2022 Accordingly petitioners are entitled for Rs.1,01,32,416/- as compensation under the head Loss of Dependency.
16. Loss of estate;
As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranaya sethi case, Tribunal has to award Rs.15,000/- as compensation under this head.
17 . Funeral Expenses, transportation etc., Accordingly as per the judgment in Praneya sethi case, minimum amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded under this head.
18. Loss of Consortium :
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Magma GIC V/s Nanuram case, wherein the concept of consortium is categorically discussed. In the present case petitioner no.1 and 2 are the wife and daughter of the deceased and petitioner No.3 and 4 are the parents of deceased and they are entitled for consortium of Rs.40,000/- each. Accordingly petitioners are entitled for Rs.1,60,000/- as compensation under this head. Except the aforesaid compensation amount, petitioners are not entitled for compensation in any other heads.
19. In total the petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows;
10 MVC No.3395/2022Sl No. Compensation under the Head Amount 1 Loss of dependency Rs.1,01,32,416/-
2 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
3 Funeral expenses & transportation Rs. 15,000/- 4 Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,60,000/-
TOTAL Rs.1,03,22,416/- [S
In total petitioners are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,03,22,416/-.
20. Rate of Interest: The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Sarala Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, wherein it is held that it is just and proper to award interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Accordingly I award the interest at the rate of 6% P.A on the compensation amount form the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
21. Liability: Admittedly the validity of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle is not disputed nor denied by the respondent No.2. Ex.P14 is the driving license of the deceased and it was expired on 03.04.2016. Counsel appearing for petitioners has relied on Saraswathi palaray and others Vs New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and other-2019 ACJ 42, wherein Hon'ble supreme court of India has held that driving without a valid driving license will attract criminal liability but no inference of contributory negligence can be arrived on that basis. Counsel appearing for responded No.2 has not 11 MVC No.3395/2022 placed any contrary authority on the aforesaid fact. Responded No.2 being the insurer has to pay the compensation amount with interest. Accordingly respondent no.2 is directed to pay the compensation amount along interest before this tribunal with in one month from the date of the Judgment. Accordingly I am answering Point no.1 in the affirmative and Point no.2, in partly affirmative.
22. Apportionment:-
According to PW-1, Ex.P15 is the notarized copy of relinquishment deed, alleged to has executed by petitioner No.1 and 2 in favour of petitioner No.3 and 4. Evidently there is nso pleading in respect of the aforesaid fact and Ex.P15. It is also true that respondent No.1 has not entered the witness box to depose the details of th Ex.P.15. It is settled principle of law that evidence without pleading cannot be looked into. Accordingly petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for 20% each and petitioner No.3 and 4 are entitled for 30% each in compensation amount with interest.
23. Point No.3; For the foregoing reason and discussion, on the aforesaid points, I proceed to pass the following:
12 MVC No.3395/2022ORDER Petition filed by the petitioners U/s 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioners are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,03,22,416/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition, till realization.
The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within one month from the date of the judgment.
After depositing the compensation amount with interest, petitioner no.1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw 60% each from their respective share of compensation by complying the mandate of circular No.39/2020 dt. 17.01.2020 and balance 40% each of their share shall be deposited in nationalized bank for a period of 3 years, The compensation amount of petitioner no 3, shall be deposited in nationalized bank till she attained the age of majority.
Issue intimation to the banker not to allow the petitioners to create encumbrance on the deposited amount and not to permit them 13 MVC No.3395/2022 for premature withdrawal of their deposit amount.
Advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- is fixed. Any interim applications pending if any stands disposed off.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 7th day of June 2024) (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. S.C.Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore :A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioners:
PW.1 : Sri.Makhan Singh PW.2 : Sri.Sampad Kar
List of documents marked for Petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of Complaint
Ex.P2 : Copy of F.I.R,
Ex.P3 : Copy of Inquest report
Ex.P4 : Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P5 : Copy of PM report
Ex.P6 : Copy of IMVA report
Ex.P7 : Copy of Sketch
Ex.P8 : Copy of Final report
Ex.P9-11 : Notarized copy of Adhaar cards
Ex.P12-13: Certificates
Ex.P14 : Copy of DL
Ex.P15 : Copy of Relinquish deed
Ex.P16 : Copy of Birth Certificate
Ex.P17 : Copy of Bank account extract
Ex.P18 : Copy of appointment letter
Ex.P19 : Copy of Pay slip
14 MVC No.3395/2022
Ex.P20 : Copy of Form No.16
Ex.P21 : Copy of Death Certificate
Ex.P22 : Authorization letter
Ex.P23 : Appointment letter
Ex.P24 : Pay slips 2 in nos
Ex.P25 : Form No.16
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent:
NIL `List of Documents marked for Respondent:
NIL (P. SHIVARAJ) Vth Addl. S.C.Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore