Bangalore District Court
Munirathna @ Munirathnamma vs Megha Travels on 3 September, 2019
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & A.C.M.M. (SCCH-26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019
PRESENT: SMT. SHARMILA S. B.Com, LLB.,
C/C XXIV ADDL. SCJ &
ACMM & MEMBER - MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.2809/2018
PETITIONERS : 1.Munirathna @ Munirathnamma
W/o late Shivaraju,
Aged about 40 years
2. Pallavi S
D/o late.Shivaraju,
Aged about 17 years
3. Gopal S
S/o late.Shivaraju,
Aged about 15 years
All are residing at Vaderahalli
village, Harohalli hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara district
(Since 2nd & 3rd petitioners are
minors, hence represented by their
mother and natural guardian 1st
petitioner )
(By Sri.G.C.R., Adv.,)
V/s
2 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
RESPONDENTS : 1. Megha Travels,
Represented by its proprietor,
No.837, 8th main road, 14th cross,
3rd phase, J.P Nagar, Bangalore-78
(RC owner of private Mini bus
Reg.No.KA-52-5025)
(Exparte)
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance co., Ltd.,
No.121, The estate building,
9th floor, Dickson road,
Bangalore-01
Policy No.3004/65260113/06/000
period 10-06-2017 to 09-06-2018)
(By Sri.S.M.)
****
::JUDGMENT::
This petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-, for the death of Shivaraju, S/o late Thimmappa, in a road traffic accident. 3 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
2. It is the case of the Petitioners that:
On 09.05.2018 at about 08.30 am., the deceased Shivaraju was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-S-8964, while proceed and reached at Thokathimmanadoddi village cross, near Ravugodlu gate, Kanakapura Bangalore Main Road, Uttrahalli Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore, deceased was stopped his vehicle on extreme side road, and waiting for crossing the said road and very cautiously, at that time driver of Private Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-52-5025 has driven from Bangalore side towards Kanakapura side, while overtaking a Tata Ace vehicle, driven its extreme right side, without observing any traffic rules and regulations, and in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life, dashed against the deceased motorcycle, in which deceased was stopped and sitting on his motorcycle on extreme side road, and caused the accident. Due to the impact of the accident, the deceased 4 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 was sustained severe injuries all over the body and was succumbed to the injuries on spot.
Immediately, after the accident the deceased was shifted to Rajarajeshwari Hospital, Bangalore, wherein doctor was declared that brought dead and after post mortem examination was conducted and handed over the dead body to petitioners and after petitioners have shifted the dead body to their residence and conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies by incurring expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- including transportation charges etc. On account of the sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the tragic accident, petitioners have under going deep mental shock, pain, sufferings and hardship.
It is the case of the petitioners that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 43 years, was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month, as doing agricultural works, milk vendor and sericultural work and out of his earnings entire income 5 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 was contributed and maintaining to the family members due to the untimely death of deceased in the tragic accident, the petitioners have put to great financial hardship and untold misery and depressed. Hence, they have filed this claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-.
3. After service of summons, Respondents No.2 appeared before the court and filed its written statement. Inspite of service of notice, the 1st respondent not appeared before the court and placed exparte.
4. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied averments of the petition and does not admit the issuance of policy in respect of the Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-52-5025 and liability to indemnify the 1st respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provisions of MV Act, valid and effective driving license held by the driver of Mini bus, valid RC, permit and FC and also subject to the confirmation of section 6 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 64VB of the Insurance Act. This respondent seeks protection available Under Section 147, 149(2), 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V.Act.
Further this respondent contends that the deceased himself was solely responsible for the alleged accident, and the driver of the Mini Bus was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving license and further not satisfied the requirements of the Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. The 1st respondent knowing fully well that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence and willfully entrusted the vehicle to the said driver. Further the said Bus was not having valid permit and FC as on the date of accident. Except this all other defences are formal in nature and among other grounds, prays to dismiss the petition.
7 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
5. On the basis of above pleadings, My learned predecessor has framed the following:
::ISSUES::
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the legal heirs of the deceased Shivaraju S/o late Thimmappa?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, Shivaraju S/o Late Thimmappa was died on account of road traffic accident took place at Thokathimana Doddi Cross, near Ravugodlu gate, Bangalore-Kanakapura Main Road, Benglauru city due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the private Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA- 52-5025 dated 09-05-2018 at about 8.30 a.m.?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which Respondent?
4. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the above said Issues, Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW-1, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 documents. One witness 8 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 by name Srinivasmurty, examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P21 documents. Per contra the Legal Manager of the 2nd respondent examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1 document. Further SDA, RTO Nelamangala, examined as RW2 and got marked Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 documents.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondents.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative &2 Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following:
::REASONS::
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3: As these three issues are interlinked with each other, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
9 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
10. As this claim petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989, the burden is on them to prove that the deceased Shivaraju, S/o late Thimmappa, died because of the accident which took place, as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-52-5025.
11. In order to prove the same, Petitioner No.1 Smt.Munirathna @ Munirathnamma, examined herself as PW-1 and she got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20, out of which, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P10 are the police documents which are FIR, Complaint, Mahazar, IMV report, Sketch, Inquest, Statement of witnesses, PM report and Charge Sheet.
12. On perusal of Ex.P.1 it clearly discloses that, on 09.05.2018 at about 08.30 am., the deceased was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-S- 8964, while proceeding and reached at Thokathimmanadoddi village cross, near Ravugodlu gate, 10 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 Kanakapura Bangalore Main Road, Uttrahalli Hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore, and stopped his motor cycle on extreme side road, and waiting for crossing the said road and very cautiously, at that time driver of Private Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-52-5025 has driven from Bangalore side towards Kanakapura side, while overtaking a Tata Ace vehicle, driven its extreme right side, without observing any traffic rules and regulations and in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life, dashed against the deceased Motor cycle in which deceased was stopped and sitting on his motor cycle on extreme side road and caused the accident. Due to the impact of the accident the deceased was sustained severe injuries and died on the spot.
13. Admittedly PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the alleged accident. She has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 wherein except bear suggestions, nothing worth has been elicited from 11 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 her mouth to disprove their contentions. The 2nd respondent has not disputed the occurrence of the accident on the date, place and time between its insured vehicle and the Motor Cycle in which the deceased was travelling. Likewise, it has not been denied the death of the deceased on account of the accidental injuries.
14. The alleged fact has been corroborated by the contents of the Police documents as stated above. The contents of Mahazar and Sketch clearly indicates that, this accident took place at Bangalore Kanakapura Road in front of Ravugodlu gate near Thokathimmanadoddi Cross, wherein the driver of the Mini Bus came from Bangalore to Kanakapura in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motor Cycle in which the deceased was proceeding and at the time of accident he was stopped his vehicle and waiting for crossing the road. During the course of cross examination, the PW1 denied the negligence on the part of her husband. Therefore, the 12 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 petitioners are required to prove that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The IMV report confirms that this accident was not due to the mechanical defects of the both the vehicles. As per the opinion of the motor vehicle inspector, the right side front corner of the bumper and front right side indicator light broken and no other visible damages notified on the Mini Bus. Like wise the left side foot rust and front rear indicators light broke for the Motor Cycle. It is the case of the petitioners that the driver of the Mini bus hit the Motor Cycle by taking his vehicle on the right side of the road in order to overtaken some other vehicle. The driver of the Mini Bus is the best person to speak as to how the accident has happened. For the reason best known to it, the insurance company has not made any endeavor to examine him. In order to prove their case, the petitioners have examined one witness by name Srinivasmurthy as PW2 who was an eye 13 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 witness to the accident and got marked Ex.P22 Adhaar card. In the course of cross examination he denied the suggestions made by the 2nd respondent's counsel and deposed that he has lodged the compliant about the accident. The deceased was known to him from the past 30 years. Further he denied the suggestion that this accident took place on the middle of the road and was occurred due to negligence of the deceased. From the above evidence, nothing useful has been elicited in the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at fault. A competent authority has filed the charge sheet after due investigation. This document corroborates the testimony of PW1. In order to deny the contention of the petitioners, the Legal Manager of the insurance company has also given oral evidence reiterating the averments of the written statement and got marked Ex.R1 Permit Extract. I have thoroughly examined the evidence of RW1 14 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 which is not corroborated by any such document. Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW1 has to be accepted. Thus based on the oral evidence of first petitioner coupled with the police records, I come to the conclusion that the petitioners have successfully established the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus.
15. The Police records clearly indicate that, the driver and owner of the Mini Bus did not taken any special care indicating the other vehicles. This shows the negligent conduct of the driver of the Mini Bus who was very much aware that, he was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he did not made any attempt to avoid the accident. In the case on hand absolutely there is no dispute that the place of accident. The spot panchanama and sketch depict the topographical situation of place of accident, exact location of impact and the true picture of accident. On 15 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 perusal of the IMV report it was mentioned that there is no mechanical defects in the vehicle and the damages occurred to the Motor Cycle and the Mini Bus shows the rashness of the driver of the offending vehicle. This shows that there is negligent on the part of driver of the offending vehicle which resulted in the accident in which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Hence, this court comes to conclusion that this accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the Mini Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-52-5025. Moreover, Respondent No.2 had not produced any document nor examined the I.O or driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet does not discloses the violation of the M.V.Act and they admitted issuance of policy for the offending vehicle as on the date of alleged accident. Hence, an inference could be drawn that this accident took place because of the negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle, which has been 16 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 insured under Respondent No.2 and there is no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. In view of this, I hold that Petitioner has successfully proved issue No.1.
16. In order to prove that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased, Petitioners have produced Ex.P11 to Ex.P17 documents i.e., Study Certificates, Ration Card and Adhaar Cards, which clearly discloses the relationship of Petitioners with the deceased.
17. Next remains the question regarding quantum of compensation that has to be awarded. Since this is a case of death, the age, income of the deceased, number of dependents needs to be considered. According to the petitioners, the deceased Shivaraj was aged about 43 years at the time of his death. In order to prove the age of the deceased, Petitioners have produced Ex.P16 Adhaar Card wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 17 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 01.05.1974 and the accident took place in the 09.05.2018. On perusal of the above material records, it is to be believed that, deceased was aged 44 years at the time of his death. In view of the ratio laid down in Sarla Varma's Case the proper multiplier to the age group of 41 to 45 is 14.
18. Petitioner No.1 being the wife, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are being children of the deceased considered as dependents on the income of the deceased. As per the Sarla Varma's Case, if the number of dependents are 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. In this case, number of dependents are 3. Hence, 1/3rd of the income is deducted towards personal and living expenses.
19. Coming to the question of employment and monthly income of the deceased is concerned, in a judgment in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014 in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. 18 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26 Pranay Sethi passed on 31.10.2017, Hon'ble Apex Court had overruled the ratio laid down in Rajesh and Ors. V/s. Rajbir Singh and others case and directed all the MACT Tribunals to follow the guidelines mentioned in Pranay Sethi's Case and it is also observed that, Tribunals shall follow the fixation of multiplier as mentioned in Sarla Varma's Case and further a fresh table is prepared for addition of salary in case of death for calculation of future prospects. Hence, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's Case binds this Tribunal. Again a doubt arose in the mind of the Court as to whether compensation under the head of loss of love and affection has to be awarded or not. On careful study of the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's Case, the question dealt by the Hon'ble Apex Court was only regarding award of future prospects and addition and deduction of actual salary of the deceased. 19 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
20. If the ratio laid down in Pranay Sethi's Case is applied to the case in hand, it is contended by the Petitioners that, deceased was doing agricultural work, milk vendor and Sericultural work and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month. In order to prove the nature of occupation and income of the deceased, Petitioners have produced Ex.P18 RTC, Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 Payment Register. From the above said documents, it is to be believed that the deceased was doing agricultural and milk vending. But these documents will not helpful in deciding the exact income of the deceased per month. Hence, the Notional Income of Rs.9,000/- p.m. has to be considered for calculating the compensation.
21. As per the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014 in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that, an addition of 25% to be added to the monthly income if the 20 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 deceased was aged between 40 to 50 years, in case of self employed person or person having fixed salary, as future prospects.
22. As per recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided on 18th September 2018 between Magma General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, as the petitioner No.2 & 3 are being the minor son and daughter of the deceased, due to the death of their father, they lost parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Hence, petitioner No.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of Filial Consortium.
23. Hence, the following calculation is made for loss of dependency.
Sl. Particulars Calculation Total No. (i) Monthly Income Rs. 9,000/-
(ii) 25% of (i) above if Rs. 9,000/- (+) added to the Rs. 2,250/- = monthly income as Rs.11,250/-
21 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
future prospects
(iii) 1/3rd of (ii) of the Rs.11,250/- (-)
same to be deducted Rs. 3,750/- =
towards personal
and living expenses
Monthly income Rs. 7,500/- p.m.
(iv) Compensation after Rs.7,500/- x12 Rs.12,60,000/-
multiplier of 14 is x 14
applied
24. Out of compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency i.e., Rs.12,60,000/-, Petitioner No.1 being the wife is entitled for Rs.10,08,000/- i.e., 80% of Rs.12,60,000/-, petitioner No.2 and 3 are being the minor children are entitled for Rs.02.52,000/- .
25. The details of compensation awarded is as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 12,60,000-00
2. Loss of consortium 40,000-00 (Petitioner No.1)
3. Loss of Filial Consortium 80,000-00 (Petitioner No.2 & 3)
4. Loss of Estate 15,000-00
5. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 Total 14,10,000-00 22 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26
26. In all, Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
27. The total amount of compensation are apportioned as follows;
Heads Petitioner Petitioner
No.1 No.2 & 3
Loss of 10,08,000/- 01,26,000/-
dependency Each
Loss of 40,000/-
consortium
Loss of Filial - 40,000/-
consortium each
Loss of 15,000/- -
estate
Funeral 15,000/- -
expenses
Total 10,78,000/- 01,66,000/-
each
28. As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.28141-42 of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble 23 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realization" and also by following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on 6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016) at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Quantum- Interest-Tribunal allowed interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court to 7 per cent-Apex Court allowed interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application". In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while 24 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
29. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to pay the compensation to the Petitioner, the 2nd respondent took a defence that the Mini Bus was not having valid permit and FC as on the date of the accident. Thereby the owner of the vehicle committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. In order to substantiate its contention, the 2nd respondent has examined the SDA, RTO, Nelamangala as RW2 and got marked Ex.R2 and Ex.R3 documents ie., Authorization letter and Permit extract. In the chief examination he deposed that as per Ex.R3 the permit is valid to ply only in Bangalore Rural jurisdiction and the vehicle can be plied only within the jurisdiction of Bangalore District. 25 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26 During the course of cross examination he deposed that the permit in respect of the above said vehicle is valid from 28.06.2010 to 27.06.2015 and thereafter it was renewed and valid from 23.06.2015 to 22.06.2020. As per the condition of permit, the vehicle is plied within the permit limits.
30. At this stage it is useful to refer a decision reported in 2017 ACJ 1860 between Habeeba Khanum Vs Hulageshi and another Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that :
"Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c)- Motor insurance-permit-Route permit-defences available to insurance company-insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that driver of offending auto rickshaw had violated terms and conditions of policy by deviating from the permitted route as he was plying the vehicle outside town 'H' whereas the vehicle had permit to ply within town 'H' only-Section 149(2) provides 26 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 defence to insurance company when vehicle is used for a purpose not allowed by permit under which the vehicle is used but it is distinct from breach of conditions attached to the permit-whereas Tribunal was justified in absolving insurance company from liability-Held: No; deviation from permitted route can be construed as breach of permit but not of the purpose allowed in the permit.
31. Again in a decision reported in 2017 ACJ 650 between Mooganna and others Vs Iffco Tokio General Inurance Co., ltd., and another it was held that;
"Motor Vehciles Act 1988, Section 149(2)(a)-Motor insurance-policy-breach of-Defences available to insurance company-Tribunal held that that autorickshaw was used beyond the permitted area at the time of accident and as there was beach of permit condition as stated in section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) exonerated the insurance company from liability-No condition as stated in section 149(2)(a)(i)(c) is specified in the policy-Contention that 27 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 defence available under section is a defence available in law and there is no need to specify the said condition in the policy-Whether is a condition precedent to raise the defence of breach of any of those conditions and Tribunal erred in absolving the insurance company from liability- Held : Yes.
32. Further in 2017 ACJ 635 between National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Paramjit Kaur and others Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that:
"Motor Vehicles Act 1988, Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c)- Motor insurance-Permit-Route permit-Violation of - Liability of insurance company Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that offending truck had route permit to ply in the state of Himachal Pradesh whereas it was being plied in the State of Punjab- Whether there was violation of permit condition and insurance company is absolved from liability-Held; no; 28 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26 mere fact that offending truck was being plied in the State of Punjab though it had route permit for the state of Himachal Pradesh will not constitute a violation of the condition of permit as the insurance company failed to establish that truck was being used for a purpose not allowed by the permit.
33. Further it was also held in 2017 ACJ 168 between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.,Ltd., Vs Vijaya Chhabra and others Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh held that:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2)(a)(i)(c)- Motor insurance-permit-Route permit-violation of - liability of insurance company-insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that offending truck was being plied in U.T.Chandigarh whereas permit was issued for State of Haryana thus the vehicle was plied on a route not covered by the permit-whether there was violation of policy condition and insurance company is 29 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 absolved from liability-Held: no:mere fact that truck was being operated in U.T.Chandigarh, though it had route permit only for the state of Haryana, will not constitute a violation of the policy as the insurance company failed to establish that truck was being used for a purpose not allowed by the permit.
34. In view of the consistent ratio of law laid down in the cases referred above, mere this fact that the Mini Bus in question was being operated other than the route permitted to ply though it has route permit only within the limits mentioned in the permit, will not constitute the violation of the condition of the permit as the insurance company has not been able to establish that the vehicle in question was being used for the purpose not allowed by the permit. I have perused the decisions and principles enunciated, it cannot be said that there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 being the insurer 30 MVC No.2809 of 2018 SCCH-26 and Respondent No.1 being the RC Owner of the Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-52-5025 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. However, the 2nd respondent has to indemnify the 1st respondent. Accordingly, Issue No.1 & 2 are answered in affirmative and Issue No.3 is in partly affirmative.
35. Issue No.4: On the basis of discussions made on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
The petition filed under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost. Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) from the date of petition till realization.
Out of which Petitioner's are entitled for Petitioner No.1 Rs.10,78,000/-
Petitioner No.2 Rs.01,66,000/-
Petitioner No.3 Rs.01,66,000/-
Petitioners are also entitled for proportionate interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.31 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26 The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner and shall deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner No.1, 75% to be released in her favour by way of crossed cheque and remaining 25% to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in her name.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioners No.2 & 3, entire amount to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in their names, till they attains majority.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd September 2019) (SHARMILA.S.) C/C XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.32 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26 ::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
PW-1 : Munirathna @ Munirathnamma PW-2 : Srinivasmurthy
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
Ex.P.1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P.3 : Mahazar Ex.P.4 : IMV report Ex.P.5 : Sketch Ex.P.6 : Inquest Report Ex.P.7 & : Statement 8 Ex.P.9 : PM report Ex.P.10 : Charge sheet Ex.P.11 : Study certificate & 12 Ex.P.13 : Attested copy of ration card Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of aadhar card to 17 Ex.P.18 : RTC Ex.P.19 : Payment register to 20 Ex.P.21 : Notarised copy of Adhar card
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
RW-1 : Anagha G.R.
RW-2 : D.Prakash
33 MVC No.2809 of 2018
SCCH-26
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
Ex.R1 : Permit extract Ex.R2 : Authorisation letter Ex.R3 : Permit extract (SHARMILA.S.) C/C XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.