Bangalore District Court
Lakshmidevamma vs United India Ins Co Ltd on 9 December, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.5996/2022
KABC020320862022
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 09th day of December, 2024
Present : SRI. D.RAMESH.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.5996/2022
Petitioners: 1.Smt. Lakshmidevamma
W/o Bairareddy,
Aged about 38 years.
2. Sruthi B.
D/o Bairareddy,
Aged about 17 years,
3.V.B.Varshith,
S/o Bairareddy,
Aged about 10 years.
4. Muniyamma
SCCH-14 2 MVC.5996/2022
W/o Venkateshappa,
Aged about 67 years,
5.Venkateshappa,
S/o Late Venkataravanappa,
Aged about 75 years.
All are residing at
Varthuru,
Basettihalli,
Shidlaghatta Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District,
Karnataka -562105.
Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are
minors all are Rep.by their
natural mother petitioner No.1
as natural guardian.
(By Sri.Bhootaiah.R Adv)
Vs.
Respondents : 1.United India Ins Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
Motor Third Party Claims Hub,
5th and 6th Floor, Krushi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle, Bengaluru.
(Insurer of the goods carrier
Tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-07-5028
Vide policy No.0731023121P110595938
Valid from 18.01.2022 to 17.01.2023)
(By Sri.K.R.Shivananda, Adv)
SCCH-14 3 MVC.5996/2022
2.Mr.Shankarappa
S/o Ashwathnaryana Reddy,
Gangare Kaluve Village and Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Chikkaballapura,
Taluk and District-56210.
(Owner of the goods carrier tempo
bearing Reg.No.KA07-5028)
(By Sri.B.Hanumatharayappa, Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Bairareddy S/o Venkateshappa in the Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 12-10-2022 at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased Bairareddy was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-I-9979 along with his friend on Golluchinnappanahalli, Doddathammanahalli road, near Chalakayalaparthy gate, at SCCH-14 4 MVC.5996/2022 that time, one goods carrier tempo bearing No.KA-07-5028 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased the bike of Bairareddy. Due to the said accident, both rider and pillion rider fell down on the road along with bike. As a result, the deceased Bairareddy sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately he was shifted to Government hospital, Chikkaballapur and on the way succumbed to the injuries.
Prior to the accident, said Bairareddy was hale and healthy and he was working as flower grower and flower vending business was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month.
Entire family of the deceased was depending on the income of the deceased. The cause of death is due to accidental injuries.
The said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of goods carrier tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-
07-5028. The Respondent No.1 is the insurer and the Respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-07-5028. Therefore, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the SCCH-14 5 MVC.5996/2022 Petitioners.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, the Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and filed objection statement.
Respondent No.1 in the Objection Statement to the main petition denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods carrier tempo. Further, it admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the goods carrier tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-07-5028. Further it contended that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further it contended that owner of the insured tempo has not intimated the alleged accident to this respondent and there is violation of 134(c) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. Further contended that the deceased was riding without wearing a helmet, without having a driving licence unmindfully and he is main architect for the unfortunate accident. On these grounds, SCCH-14 6 MVC.5996/2022 Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
Respondent No.2 in the Objection Statement to the main petition denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods carrier tempo. Further, contended that the driver of vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.1. On these grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following Issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that Bairareddy S/o Venkateshappa was died in the Road Traffic Accident which occurred on 12.10.2022 at about 2.45 to 2.50 p.m. at Chalakayalaparthy Cross, Kasaba Hobli, Chikkaballapura, Karnataka, due to rash and SCCH-14 7 MVC.5996/2022 negligent driving of goods carrier tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-07-5028?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Baira Reddy?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What award or order?
5. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 26 and also examined a witness as PW.2 and got marked a document at Ex.P.27 and closed their side evidence. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 company has got examined its administrative officer as RW.1 and got marked two documents at Ex.R.1 and 2. The Respondent No.2 got himself examined as RW.2 and got marked four documents at Ex.R.3 and 6.SCCH-14 8 MVC.5996/2022
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. I have perused the depositions, documents exhibited, citation relied by the learned counsels and materials available on record.
7. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: It is the case of the Petitioners that the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods carrier tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-07-5028 and in the said accident, Bairareddy had succumbed to the injuries.
9. On the other hand, the Respondents have denied the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the SCCH-14 9 MVC.5996/2022 driver of the offending goods carrier tempo.
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and she has filed her chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and re-iterated the petition averments.
11. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, PW.1 has relied on Ex.P-1 to Ex.P26. Ex.P-1 and 2 are the certified copy of FIR and complaint, which show that Chikkaballapura Rural Police have registered the case against the driver of goods carrier tempo bearing No.KA-07-5028 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC. Ex.P3 and 4 are the Spot Mahazar and spot sketch, which show that the concerned police have drawn Mahazar and prepared the sketch at the spot in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of notice issued under Section 133 of MV Act. Ex.P.6 is the reply given to the police. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of IMV report which shows that accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Ex.P.8 is the certified copies SCCH-14 10 MVC.5996/2022 of photos, Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of requisition given by IO, Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of RC of offending vehicle, Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of DL of Driver of offending vehicle. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of Fitness certificate of offending vehicle, Ex.P13 and 14 are the certified copy of insurance policy of offending vehicle, Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of permit of the offending vehicle, Ex.P.16 is the certified copy of Emission certificate of offending vehicle, Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of Inquest report with witnesses statement, Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of PM report which shows that cause of death is due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of head injury. Ex.P.19 is the certified copy of the Charge-sheet, which shows that the Chikkaballapura Rural Police have submitted Charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC and Sec.3, 180, 181, 196, 129, 194D of MV Act.
Ex.P.20 is the notarised copy of ration card, Exs.P.21 to 27 are the notarised copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners and SCCH-14 11 MVC.5996/2022 deceased Bairareddy.
12. PW1 is subjected for cross examination by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 has adopted the same. During her cross examination she has denied all the suggestions made by the counsel for respondent No.1. Admittedly, PW.1 is not the eye witness to the said accident. Hence, she is not competent person to speak about the negligence of drivers.
13. Further, the Petitioners have examined an eye witness to the accident who was the pillion rider of the bike as PW.2. He deposed in his examination in chief about the occurrence of accident. He specifically deposed that the said accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of tempo bearing No.KA-07-5028. He also produced his copy of Aadhar card to show his identity. In his cross examination nothing is elicited to prove that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased Baira Reddy. Infact in his cross examination he clearly says that at the time of accident their SCCH-14 12 MVC.5996/2022 bike was going on the left side of the road.
14. The respondent No.1 has examined its Administrative officer as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and 2 i.e., Authorisation letter and copy of policy. Admittedly, his evidence is based on police documents and he had no personal knowledge about accident.
15. The respondent No.1 has examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R.3 to 6 i.e., notarised copy of Aadhar card, RC, insurance policy and permit. In his cross examination by the learned counsel for the petitioner he clearly admits that charge sheet is filed against him. Further he admits that the road where the accident has occurred was width about 40 feet. Further he admits that there were no other vehicles between his vehicle and vehicle of deceased on the road at the rime of accident. Therefore, it is clear that he had chance to see the vehicle of the deceased before the accident and he could have avoided the accident if he would have taken sufficient cause.
SCCH-14 13 MVC.5996/2022
16. It is pertinent to note that the spot sketch prepared by the police at the time of the spot mahazar is produced at Ex.P4 and the spot mahazar is produced at Ex.P3. These two documents constitute basis for assessing whether any contributory negligence can be attributed on the part of the deceased or not. A careful perusal of Ex.P3 and P4 show that it is the main road connects the Chikkabllapura from Dibbur. The deceased was coming towards Chikkaballapura and the driver of the offending vehicle was coming from the Chikkaballapura. It was the head on collision. As per the sketch the accident has occurred at the left side of the deceased road. The sketch further proves that the deceased Bairareddy was riding on his left side by following the traffic rules and the driver of the offending vehicle has gone to right side and hit the bike of deceased from opposite side. The report of the motor vehicle inspector also supports this circumstance and therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending SCCH-14 14 MVC.5996/2022 vehicle.
17. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-1-9979 had no driving licence, no insurance and RC to his bike at the time of accident and had not wore helmet. Hence, contributory negligence attributed on the part of the rider of the motor cycle.
18. Admittedly, the petitioners have not produced DL of the deceased, insurance copy and RC of the motor cycle. They say that the said documents were misplaced at the time of accident. Admittedly, all these documents are available in public domain, if the petitioners have made efforts, definitely they would produced the certified copies. But, they did not do. Hence, it could be presumed that the rider of the motor cycle was not having DL at the time of accident. Hence, this Tribunal holds that rider of the motor cycle had no DL at the time of accident.
19. Now a question would arises that if a rider of a vehicle SCCH-14 15 MVC.5996/2022 had no DL at the time of accident would amounts a contributory negligence on part of him. In this regard the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 relied on the following judgments.
1. MFA No.7074/2016 (MV) between Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Naresh & another, wherein it is held that:
"Though the claimant states that he was having a licence to drive the vehicle, he had not produced and marked it in evidence. Though it is a specific ground taken in the appeal at least the claimant might have produced it before this Court. An inference shall have to be drawn that he was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in the public road in contravention of Section 3 of the MV Act which also again disentitles the claimant from claiming compensation."
2. MFA No.4756/2015 C/w MFA No.1877/2015, MFA No.4757/15 & MFA No.1251/2015 (MV) between Sri.Manjunath Vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & another.
Wherein it is held that: "This stringent enactment has been made in the public interest. This was made public by the Government of Karnataka and in most of the cases death taken place due to negligence and also because of without obtaining driving licence under section 3 or without complying section 129 of the Act, which mandates SCCH-14 16 MVC.5996/2022 that the person driving two wheeler, they should have headgear or helmet and the inmates of the vehicle should insert seat belt. It was made clear that when the death or injury occurs without complying requirement of having headgear as prescribed under Section 129 of the Act or without inserting seat belt, they are not entitled for compensation before the Tribunal."
3. MFA No.3297/2019 (MV-D) between Sm.Adilakshmamma & another Vs Raju & another.
Wherein it is held that if the driver of offending vehicle ad not driving licence at the time of accident the liability has to be fastened on owner of the vehicle.
20. With due respect, this tribunal opines that the said judgments would not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
21. On the other hand the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that mere non possession of driving licence by the deceased would not amounts to contributory negligence. In this regard he has relied upon the following judgments.
SCCH-14 17 MVC.5996/2022
1. 2018 ACJ 535 (SC) between Dinesh Kumar.J V/s National Insurance Co.Ltd., Wherein it is held that:
"8. Insofar as the judgment of the High Court is concerned, the Division Bench has placed a considerable degree of importance on the fact that there was no visible damage to the lorry but that it was the motor cycle which had suffered damage and that there was no eyewitness. We are in agreement with the submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant that plea of contributory negligence was accepted purely on the basis of conjecture and without any evidence. Once the finding that there was contributory negligence on the part of appellant is held to be without any basis, the second aspect which weighed both with the Tribunal and the High Court, that the appellant had not produced the driving licence, would be of no relevance. This aspect has been considered in a judgment of this court in Sudhir Kumar Rana, 2008 ACJ 1834(SC), where it was held as follows:
"(8) If a person drives a vehicle without a licence , he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the mini truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not SCCH-14 18 MVC.5996/2022 having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."
2. 2008 ACJ 1834 (SC) between Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh. Wherein it is held that:
" 8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of the mini truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."
3. 2020 ACJ 1025 between Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Madu Bala and others. Wherein it is held that:
"3. As regards the plea raked up by the appellant that in the absence of the DL held by deceased, it be construed as his contributory negligence in the occurrence of the accident, the submission raised, this court observes, does not find support from either any statute or case-law. At least, Ms.Sachdeva has not drawn any attention to it. In this background, when, in the given facts and circumstances, it is well established that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the mere absence of driving licence of the driver of the other SCCH-14 19 MVC.5996/2022 vehicle involved in the accident cannot be assumed to be a case of contributory negligence. Submission raised to the contrary is, therefore, rejected."
4. 2020 ACJ 925 between New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Sangeeta Gogoi and others. Wherein it is held that:
"20. Thus, the mere assertion that just because the deceased did not have a driving licence at the time of accident he should be deemed to have contributed to the accident by his rash and negligent act would not succeed in absence of any evidence on record to reach a finding that the deceased, like in the instant case, was riding the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and that some part of the fault for the accident was also attributed to him. In the absence of such evidence and finding of fact, the plea of contributory negligence in the instant case does not merit acceptance consequently, the fact that the deceased did not have any driving licence would be of no relevance."
5. 2021 ACJ 2409, between Tijiya Bai and others Vs. Gangaram Sahu and others. Wherein it is held that:
"13. In the case at hand, the non-applicants- respondents failed to establish negligent driving on the part of deceased, therefore, the law laid down in Dinesh Kumar's case (supra) squarely applies in the present case. This being the position, the Claims Tribunal should not have held the deceased to be contributory negligent to the extent of 50 per cent for the accident merely on the ground that at the time of accident the deceased was not SCCH-14 20 MVC.5996/2022 possessing licence."
22. The above said judgments are aptly applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, it is well settled that mere non possessing the driving license by a deceased or injured as the case may be does not amount contributory negligence.
23. In the same way the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that mere non wearing of head guard by a rider would not amounts to contributory negligence. In this regard he has relied upon the following judgments.
1. 2021 ACJ 733, between Mira Devi and another Vs. Mohd. Khalil and others. Wherein it is observed that:
"11. As far as deduction of 50 per cent on account of contributory negligence by the Tribunal is concerned, I find that evidence of eyewitness Rahul (PW-1), who was also injured in this accident, is unambiguous regarding the negligence of insured vehicle in causing the accident in question. There is no worthwhile cross examination of this witness (PW1) on the aspect of contributory negligence.
Otherwise also, driver of insured vehicle has not come forward to set up a version contrary to the one given by the injured. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in deducting 50 per cent on account of SCCH-14 21 MVC.5996/2022 contributory negligence. Merely because the deceased was not possessing a driving licence, would not justify a finding of contributory negligence. It is so said in view of Supreme Court decision in Sudhir Kumkar Rana, 2008 ACJ 1834 (SC). In view of above, it is held that negligence in causing the accident in question was of the driver of insured vehicle. Hence, no deduction on this account is called for."
2. 2023 ACJ 1234, (Dharwad bench) Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Amrutha and others. Wherein it is observed that:
17. Section 129 of the Motor Vehciles Act reads as under:
"129, Wearing of protective headgear - Every person driving or riding (otherwise than in a sdie car, on a motor cycle of any class or description) shall, while in a public place, wear protective headgear conforming to the standards of Bureau of Indian Standards.
Provided that the provision of this section shall not apply to a person who is a Sikh, if he is, while driving or riding on the motor cycle, in a public place, wearing a turban:
Provided further that the State Government may, by such rules, provide for such exceptions as it may think fit.
Explanation:- 'Protective headgear' means helmet which,
(a) by virtue of its shape, material and construction, SCCH-14 22 MVC.5996/2022 could reasonably be expected to afford to the person driving or riding on a motor cycle a degree of protection from injury in the event of an accident:
and
(b) is securely fastened to the head of the wearer by means of straps or other fastenings provided on the headgear."
It is very clear from the provision that even though the rider of the motor cycle has violated section 129 of MV Act, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. The MV Act contemplates wearing of helmet as mandatory and the non wearing of helmet with specifications mentioned as per section 129 of the MV Act is illegal and the Act provides with a fine for Rs.1,000 and the department can also disqualify the driving licence for three months. However, the Act does not provide for absolving the liability of the insurance company on the ground of non-wearing of helmet by the rider. However, bearing in mind the number of deaths and grievous injury sustained due to non wearing of helmet by the motorists, even though there being no attributable negligence on the part of the rider, we cannot turn a blind eye to non- wearing of helmets despite legal stipulation. In order to maintain some social measure, it is necessary that the rider should wear a helmet in order to save himself from the consequence of the accident. Driving without helmet is risking one's own life.
Thus, it is difficult to agree with the contention of the insurance company that non wearing of helmet could be taken as a ground for fixing SCCH-14 23 MVC.5996/2022 contributory negligence on the part of the rider, though non wearing of helmet is an offence under the relevant provisions of MV Act, what is relevant to consider with regard to apportionment of negligence is whether the party concerned had any role/part in contributing to the accident. Negligence cannot be fixed on the shoulders of the rider of the vehicle merely for not wearing the helmet. Non- wearing of helmet and resulting death due to the injury, is only a consequence leading to the death of deceased. Probably wearing a helmet, his life could have been saved of the severity of the injury could be less. However, the said accident is not due to the non wearing of helmet, therefore, it cannot be said that accident is not due to the non wearing of helmet, therefore, it cannot be said there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider due to which the accident has occurred. Thus, this contention of the insurance company is not acceptable. In order to have social legislation the fact should be ordinated that the wearing of helmet is a prime objective of the legislation to see that even if an accident has occurred, he would have been saved from the accident, if he had worn the helmet. Though there being no negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle, but due to non- wearing of helmet he had to succumb to the injuries sustained due to the accident. Thus, there may be a lapse which could be attributable to the deceased. But however, in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons stated supra, we are of the considered view that non wearing helmet by the deceased will not absolve the liability of the insurance company." SCCH-14 24 MVC.5996/2022
3. 2023 ACJ 346 between Anjana Narayan Kamble and others Vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Ins.Co.Ltd., and another. Wherein it is observed that:
"6. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this court in Mohammed Siddique. V.National Insurance Co.Ltd., 2020 ACJ 751 (SC) wherein this court held that the deceased was negligent as 3 persons on a motor cycle could have added to the imbalance. It was held that motor cyclist may be violating the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for which the deceased may be liable to penalty but such violation by itself cannot lead to a finding of contributory negligence."
24. Therefore, it is also clear that mere not wearing head guard by the deceased would not amounts contributory negligence on him.
25. Moreover, the charge sheet is the material document, which is not challenged by the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by the Petitioners and the documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, the Petitioners have proved that the said accident has occurred by SCCH-14 25 MVC.5996/2022 the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending goods carrier tempo bearing No.KA-07-5028 and in the said accident, the son of PW1 had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 is in the "Affirmative".
Issue No.2 and 3:
26. Both these issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts.
27. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner No.2 is the daughter, Ex.P.3 is the son and petitioner 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. In order to prove this fact, PW.1 has produced Ex.P.20 to P.26 i.e., ration card, Aadhar Card of PW.1 and the Aadhar cards of the rest of the Petitioners and Aadhar card of the deceased Bairareddy. Upon going through the said documents, it clearly show that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner No.2 is daughter, SCCH-14 26 MVC.5996/2022 Petitioner No.3 is son and petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased Bairareddy. Hence, the petitioners have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Bairareddy.
28. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 39 years and his avocation is shown as flower grower and flower vending business and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, he has not produced any documents to prove his avocation and income. Therefore, in the absence of any income proof, this Tribunal is of the opinion that, since the accident has occurred in the year 2022, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e. 15,500/- p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
29. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Bairareddy as 39 years at the time of the accident. As per Aadhar card of the deceased Bairareddy i.e., Ex.P.21, the year of birth of Bairareddy was shown as 1984. The alleged SCCH-14 27 MVC.5996/2022 accident has occurred on 12.10.2022. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Bairareddy was 38 years. Hence, the age of the deceased Bairareddy to be taken at 38 years for the purpose of Assessment of compensation.
30. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
The deceased has left behind him, his wife, a daughter, a son and both parents. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 to 5 are considered as dependents.
At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s SCCH-14 28 MVC.5996/2022 Pranay Sethi and Others). Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "Loss of estate has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 15,000/-, loss of consortium should be Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/-".The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." The Petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 is the daughter, petitioner No.3 is the son and petitioner No.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. Petitioner No.1 has to live remaining part of her life in the absence of her husband and the loss of a husband full of hopes for the future can never be suitably compensated to a wife. Petitioner No.2 and 3 have to live remaining part of their life in the absence of their father and the loss of a father full of hopes for the future can never be suitably compensated to a daughter and a son. Petitioner No.4 and 5 have to live remaining part of their life in the absence of their son and the loss of a son full of hopes for the future can never be suitably compensated to a son. Therefore, petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled to a sum of SCCH-14 29 MVC.5996/2022 Rs.44,000/- each under the head of loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
31. Petitioner No.1 is the wife and she lost her husband's love and care, Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased and they lost their father's love and care and Petitioner No.4 and 5 parents of the deceased have lost their son's love and care. Bearing in mind the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
32. The dead body was shifted to Government hospital, Chikkabllapura for post mortem and from there shifted to his residence Varthuru, Basettihalli, Shidlaghatta Taluk, SCCH-14 30 MVC.5996/2022 Chikkaballapura District. Hence, the Petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. Hence, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDENCY:
33. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was notionally fixed at Rs.15,500/- p.m. in the year-2022, then the annual income comes to Rs.1,86,000/-.
At this juncture, I would like to go through the decision reported in :
1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, contract worker in a company - High Court did not SCCH-14 31 MVC.5996/2022 consider future prospects while computing compensation - Whether claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
- Held : - yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High Court disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes: there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and SCCH-14 32 MVC.5996/2022 where minimum income is determined on guesswork : executing Court directed to respondent compute entitlement of claimants by adding 40 per cent of income for future prospect and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses".
The decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others). Wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "In case of self employed or fixed salary, the addition should be 40% below the age of 40 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of accident.
As per Sarala varma case the proper multiplier applicable to the age of deceased is 15.
Since the number of dependents were 5, deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased is 1/4 th, then the total loss of dependency would be Rs.20,92,500/- SCCH-14 33 MVC.5996/2022 (Rs.15,500/- X 12 X 15 = Rs.27,90,000/- minus 1/4th i.e., Rs.6,97,500 = 20,92,500/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,92,500/- towards loss of dependency.
The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 relied the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.1662/2023 (MV-D) between Chandrakala & another Vs Dilipkuamr & another. Wherein Hon'ble court held that:
"Since the amount due under the head loss of future prospects is yet to become due, it would be illogical and illegal to direct the insurance company to pay interest on loss of future prospects. Therefore, out of the total compensation payable, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any interest on the compensation under the head loss of future prospects."
In view of the said dictum, the amount awarded under the head loss of future prospects does not carry any interest.
Hence, the future prospect of 40% out of loss of dependency has been calculated in order to exclude interest which would comes at Rs.8,37,000/- i.e., (20,92,500 x 40/100 SCCH-14 34 MVC.5996/2022 = 8,37,000/-).
34. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 2,20,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/-
of dead body
6. Loss of Dependency Rs. 20,92,500/-
7. Future prospectus Rs. 8,37,000/-
Total Rs.32,42,500/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.32,42,500/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
35. Regarding Liability : As already discussed in the Issue No.2, in this case the driver of the offending goods carrier tempo bearing Reg.No.KA-07-5028 was charge-sheeted. Further, there is no dispute about the validity of the Insurance SCCH-14 35 MVC.5996/2022 Policy of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 taken a contention that the deceased had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. But the petitioners have produced the notarized copy of driving licence of deceased Bairareddy, which is marked at Ex.P11. The said driving license establishes that as on the date of accident the deceased had valid and effective licence to ride a bike. Hence, there is no violation of the conditions of the policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, Respondent No.2 being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 is in the "Affirmative" and Issue No.3 "Partly in the Affirmative".
36. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.32,42,500/-along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
SCCH-14 36 MVC.5996/2022
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.32,42,500/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount. (No interest on the compensation awarded under the head of future prospectus) The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
However, Respondent No.1 being the insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount as stated supra with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of this award.SCCH-14 37 MVC.5996/2022
Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 40% to the Petitioner No.1 2) 15% each to the Petitioner No.2 and 3 3) 15% each to the Petitioner No.4 and 5 After being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1 and 2, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 and 2, 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 by way of E-payment, after her proper identification and the remaining 25% each of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 and 2 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of their choice.
Entire award amount of the petitioner No.3 shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.3 in SCCH-14 38 MVC.5996/2022 any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank until he attains the age of majority.
Entire amount awarded to the Petitioner No.4 and 5 shall be ordered to be paid to them by way of E-payment, after their proper identification.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 09th day of December, 2024) (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Smt.Lakshmidevamman P.W.2 : Sri.Ambaresh Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Complaint SCCH-14 39 MVC.5996/2022 Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Spot sketch Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of Notice u/s 133 of MV Act Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of reply Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of IMV report Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of photos (11 in nos.) Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of Requisition given by IO Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of RC Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of DL
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of Fitness Certificate Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of Policy Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of policy Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of Permit Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of Emission certificate Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of Inquest with statement Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of PM report Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.P.20 : Notarised copy of ration card Ex.P.21 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of Byrareddy SCCH-14 40 MVC.5996/2022 Ex.P.22 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of PW.1 Ex.P.23 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of Shruthi Ex.P.24 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of Varshith Ex.P.25 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of Venkateshappa Ex.P.26 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of Muniyamma Ex.P.27 : Notarised copy of aadhar card of PW.2 Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 L Prashanth.N.G RW.2 : Shankarappa
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R.1 Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2 Copy of policy
Ex.R.3 Notarised copy of aadhar card
Ex.R.4 Notarised copy of RC
Ex.R5 Notarised copy of insurance policy
Ex.R6 Notarised copy of permit
(D.RAMESH)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.