Bangalore District Court
Sri.Ramaiah vs The Managing Director on 7 June, 2017
BEFORE VII ADDL. JUDGE & XXXII ACMM
Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, (SCCH-3)
Dated this the 07th day of June 2017
PRESENT: SMT.GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA
LL.M, D.I.P.R, D.C.L
VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM,
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.3749/2016
Petitioner : Sri.Ramaiah,
S/o late Hanumappa,
Aged 56 years,
Presently residing at
C/o Channaveeragowda,
Balaji Layout,
Vishwaneedam (Post),
Magadi Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 091.
Native place address:
Manjunatha Nagar,
Halepalya, Tiptur Rural,
Tumkur - 572 201.
(Smt.Vijayashree, Advocate)
-Vs-
(SCCH-3) 2 MVC 3749/16
Respondent : The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C & K.S.R.T.C Division,
Shanthi Nagar, K.H. Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.
K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing reg. No.
KA-18-F-579.
(Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate)
*********
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000-00 on account of death of Smt.Shankaramma in a Road Traffic Accident.
02. The case of the petitioners in brief is as under:
That on 17-03-2016 at about 10.30 p.m., Shankaramma was crossing the road as pedestrian near Bus Shelter, Kotanayakanahalli Gate, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District, carefully and cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, at that (SCCH-3) 3 MVC 3749/16 time all of a sudden driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-579 drove the bus with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life and without blowing horn, giving any indications, came from Tumakuru towards Tiptur side and lost control over the bus and dashed against the pedestrian, who fell down and sustained multiple severe injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Immediately she was shifted to Tiptur General hospital, wherein postmortem was conducted and deadbody was handed over to the deceased husband.
03. Prior to the accident deceased was hale and healthy & doing Coolie and earning a sum of Rs.7,000-00 per month and due to sudden death, the deceased husband is deprived. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of KSRTC Bus. Thus, respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, this petition. (SCCH-3) 4 MVC 3749/16
04. In response to the service of notice, respondent put its appearance through its counsel and resisted the petition by filing written statement wherein it has denied the manner of the accident as alleged in the petition and it has specifically pleaded that the bus in question was being driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and while so proceeding at the relevant point of time, deceased without observing the vehicles plying on the national highway abruptly darted the main road in flagrant violation of traffic rules and regulations, in order to cross highway and by observing the same driver of the bus immediately stopped the bus, but inspite of the same deceased came in contact with the bus and exposed herself for the alleged accident and as such driver of the bus is not responsible for the same. This respondent has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Thus, denying rest of the contents, (SCCH-3) 5 MVC 3749/16 this respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition.
05. On the basis of the pleadings and materials on record, this Tribunal has framed the following Issues:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he is the LR/dependant of the deceased?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that deceased Smt.Shankaramma was died in RTA arising out of the accident alleged to have been taken place on 17-03-2016 at about 10-30 p.m., near Bus Shelter, Kotanayakanahalli Gate, Tiptur Taluk, Tumakuru District, due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of K.S.R.T.C Bus bearing Reg.
No.KA-18-F-579?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
4. What order or award?
06. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The Driver of the bus is examined as R.W.1.
(SCCH-3) 6 MVC 3749/16
07. Heard the arguments, perused materials available on record. Written arguments filed by the advocate for respondent is taken into consideration.
08. The advocate for respondent has relied upon the citations reported in 2005 ACJ 1323 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Prembai Patel and others), 2007 ACJ 1284 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Meena Variyal and others), 2014 AIR SCW 1081 (Lachoo Ram and others Vs Himachal Road Transport Corpn), MFA No.2829/09 (MV) (Manju Vs Mathue.K.P. and another), MFA No.962/2012 c/w MFA No.989/2012 (MV) (H.S.Panchakshariah Vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another), ILR 1998 KAR 1934 (Sri.Narasimhaiah Vs The General Manager and another), ILR 2003 KAR 1104 (Koosappa Poojari Vs K.Sadabba and others), MFA No.8473/2015 (MV) (The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs Hari Prasad Reddy and another) and ILR 2016 KAR 4592 (Smt.Ayesha Begum and another Vs Saradarulla Khan and others). (SCCH-3) 7 MVC 3749/16
This tribunal has gone through the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions.
09. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue Nos.1 & 2: In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 & 2:- As these Issues are inter- related to each other, hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, these Issues are discussed together.
11. In order to substantiate the petition averments, petitioner himself stepped into the witness box and examined as PW.1, who in his affidavit evidence has reiterated similar to the petition contents. In addition to his oral evidence, P.W.1 has relied upon the documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. It is specifically contended by the petitioner that, he is the (SCCH-3) 8 MVC 3749/16 husband of the deceased Shankaramma. In order to prove this aspect, petitioner as P.W.1 has relied upon Aadhaar ID card of the deceased Shankaramma at Ex.P.11. Perusal of which, the husband name of the deceased is mentioned as Ramaiah, the petitioner herein. The aforesaid documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of P.W.1 demonstrates that, petitioner is none other than the husband of the deceased Shankatamma.
12. It is further contention of the petitioner that his wife sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the accidental injuries on the relevant date, time and place, when KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-579 came in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the petitioner's wife. In order to prove such aspect, the petitioner has relied upon documents such as Complaint, FIR, Witness statement, spot Mahazar, spot Sketch, IMV report, Inquest report, PM report and Charge sheet marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 respectively.
(SCCH-3) 9 MVC 3749/16
13. On perusal of the Complaint marked at Ex.P.1 filed by the petitioner herein, alleging that his wife succumbed to the accidental injuries caused by the reckless driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus. Based on the complaint the Tiptur Rural Police have registered FIR as per Ex.P.2 against the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-579 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 304(A) of IPC. Statement of one Chandrashekaraiah for having seen the accident is marked at Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 spot Mahazar and Ex.P.6 spot Sketch respectively prepared at the scene of occurrence corroborates with Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2. IMV report at Ex.P.7 discloses damages found on the offending vehicle at the time of accident and the IMV Inspector has opined that the accident caused was not due to any mechanical defects of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Inquest report and PM report marked respectively at Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9 reveals the cause to death is due to head injury. After the investigation of the case, the I.O. has filed Charge (SCCH-3) 10 MVC 3749/16 sheet as per Ex.P.10 against the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-579 by name Kumara.C S/o Chandrashekaraiah for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
14. Interalia, it is the specific defence of the respondent that the driver of KSRTC Bus was driving the bus slowly, carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and it is the deceased herself who abruptly came in contact with the bus and succumbed to the severe injuries and as such the driver of KSRTC Bus is no way responsible for the such incident. In order to substantiate the same, the Driver of the KSRTC Bus by name Kumara.C is examined on behalf of respondent as R.W.1 who in his affidavit evidence has reiterated similar to written statement contents. Further R.W.1 when he was subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner has deposed that charge sheet came to be filed against him but he has not challenged the Police records. The ocular evidence coupled with documentary evidence (SCCH-3) 11 MVC 3749/16 relied upon by the petitioner have been remained unrebutted. There are no convincing contra material placed by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the tribunal is of the considered opinion that due to actionable negligence act on the part of the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-579. Accordingly I answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in Affirmative.
Issue No.3:
15. P.W.1 being the husband of the deceased in his evidence has stated that, prior to the accident his wife was hale and healthy and doing Coolie and earning a sum of Rs.7,000-00 per month. Due to her sudden death he had been deprived of the contribution. In order to substantiate these aspects, petitioner has not produced any documents. Anyhow monthly income of the deceased claimed is very meager. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,000-00 per month, it will meet the ends (SCCH-3) 12 MVC 3749/16 of justice. His yearly income comes to Rs.84,000-00. On perusal of the Aadhaar card marked at Ex.P.11, the birth year of the deceased is mentioned as 1971 and the accident occurred on 17-03-2016, so, it appears that as on the date of accident the deceased was 45 years. So, by virtue of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Corporation Limited reported in ACJ 1298, 50% of the income has to be deducted as her personal and living expenses. So, the deceased was married and the petitioner is the only dependent, 50% is deducted towards personal and living expenses from her annual income, it comes to Rs.42,000-00. So, her age is taken into consideration as 45 years, as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Corporation Limited reported in ACJ 1298, the multiplier applicable is 14. So, Rs.42,000 x 14 = Rs.5,88,000-00 is granted to the petitioner towards loss of dependency.
16. Since the petitioner is the husband of the deceased, he lost love and affection. So, it is just and (SCCH-3) 13 MVC 3749/16 necessary to grant Rs.20,000-00 under the head of loss of love and affection. So, Rs.10,000-00 is awarded under the head of loss of estate. So, Rs.20,000-00 is awarded under the head of consortium. So, Rs.20,000-00 is granted for transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies.
17. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Loss of dependency Rs.5,88,000-00
2.Loss of love and affection 20,000-00
3.Loss of consortium 20,000-00
4.Loss of estate 10,000-00
5.Transportation of dead 20,000-00 body and funeral expenses Total Rs.6,58,000-00 Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.6,58,000-00 only.
18. With regard to the liability:- While discussing previous Issues, this Tribunal has come to (SCCH-3) 14 MVC 3749/16 the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.KA-18-F-579.
19. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that, after the accident KSRTC has paid Rs.15,000-00 to him. Hence, this amount has to be deducted in total amount of Rs.6,58,000-00.
20. Taking into consideration the evidence relied upon by the petitioner both oral and documentary and materials available on record, respondent being the owner and internal insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization after deducting Rs.15,000-00 from the total amount, as the said amount has already paid by the KSRTC. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered as partly in the Affirmative.
21. Issue No.4: In view of my finding given on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: (SCCH-3) 15 MVC 3749/16
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act is hereby partly allowed, with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,58,000-00 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
Respondent is liable to pay compensation amount after deducting Rs.15,000-00, which was already paid to the petitioner and shall deposit the same within two months from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. However, petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical (SCCH-3) 16 MVC 3749/16 interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000-00. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 07th day of June 2017) (GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
P.W.1 Ramaiah List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1 Copy of Complaint Ex.P.2 Copy of FIR Ex.P.3 Copy of Witness statement Ex.P.4 Copy of spot Mahazar Ex.P.5 Copy of notice u/s 133 of MV Act Ex.P.6 Copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P.7 Copy of IMV report Ex.P.8 Copy of Inquest report Ex.P.9 Copy of PM report (SCCH-3) 17 MVC 3749/16 Ex.P.10 Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of the deceased List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1 Kumara.C
List of the documents marked on behalf of
respondents:
-Nil-
(GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA)
VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM,
Bengaluru.
(SCCH-3) 18 MVC 3749/16
07-06-2017
Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) with the following operative portion:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act is hereby partly allowed, with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,58,000-00 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
Respondent is liable to pay compensation amount after deducting Rs.15,000-00, which was already paid to the petitioner and shall deposit the same within two months from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of three years and the (SCCH-3) 19 MVC 3749/16 remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. However, petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000-00. Draw award accordingly.
(GOMATI RAGHAVENDRA) VII Addl. Judge & XXXII ACMM, Bengaluru.(SCCH-3) 20 MVC 3749/16
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C. No.3749/2016 Petitioner : Sri.Ramaiah, S/o late Hanumappa, Aged 56 years, Presently residing at C/o Channaveeragowda, Balaji Layout, Vishwaneedam (Post), Magadi Main Road, Bangalore - 560 091.
Native place address:
Manjunatha Nagar, Halepalya, Tiptur Rural, Tumkur - 572 201.
-Vs-
Respondent : The Managing Director, B.M.T.C & K.S.R.T.C Division, Shanthi Nagar, K.H. Road, Bangalore - 560 027.
K.S.R.T.C. Bus bearing reg. No. KA-18-F-579.(SCCH-3) 21 MVC 3749/16
Whereas, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs. {Rupees } for the injuries by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. Whereas, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Gomati Raghavendra, VII Addl. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the Presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for the petitioner/s and Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec 166 of M.V. Act is hereby partly allowed, with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,58,000-00 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realization.
Respondent is liable to pay compensation amount after deducting Rs.15,000-00, which was already paid to the petitioner and shall deposit the same within two months from the date of this order.(SCCH-3) 22 MVC 3749/16
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. However, petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000-00.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2017.
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Metropolitan Area: Bangalore.(SCCH-3) 23 MVC 3749/16
By the By the
Petitioner Respondent
Court fee paid on
petition
Court fee paid on
Powers
Court fee paid on
I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee:
Total
Decree Drafted by: Scrutinized by:
Decree Clerk Sheristedar:
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,
METROPOLITAN AREA:
BANGALORE.