Bangalore District Court
Claim For Compensation Of Rupees 25 vs No on 16 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 16th day of February, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.628/2015
1. Smt. Divya, ..... PETITIONERS
W/o. Late Dharanesh,
Aged about 22 years.
2. Baby Harshitha,
D/o. Late Dharanesh,
Aged about 03 years.
3. Sri. Range Gowda,
S/o. Nanje Gowda,
Aged about 70 years.
4. Smt.Jayamma,
W/o. Range Gowda,
Aged about 55 years.
All are R/at No.42,
B. K. Hosur,
Kenkere, Arasikere,
Hassan - 573 119.
Since the Petitioner No.2 is minor,
she is represented by her Mother,
Smt. Divya, as a natural guardian.
(By Sri. R. Chandrashekar, Adv.,)
2 M.V.C.NO.628/2015
(SCCH-7)
V/s
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance ..... RESPONDENTS
Company Ltd.,
No.89, SVR Complex,
II Floor, Madivala,
Hosur Road,
Bangalore - 68.
Policy issued at:
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
ICICI Lombard House,
414, Veer Savakar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai - 400 025.
(Cover Note No.A/I-28435321,
Valid from 02.07.2014 to 01.07.2015)
2. Sri. S.G. Basavaiah,
No.13, 5th Block, 1st Main,
K.P. West Extn.,
Bangalore - 560 020.
(R-1 Sri. P.J.R. Adv.,)
(R-2 Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners No.1 to 4 have filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of 3 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) Rupees 25,00,000/- towards general and special damages in respect of death of Sri.Dharaneesh S/o Range Gowda.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
a) On 11.01.2015 at about 6.45 p.m., the deceased was riding his Bike bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048. He was moving on NH-48 road, near Mallanapalya Cross, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District. At the same time, a Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 driven by its driver came from Mallanapalya side in a high speed, rash and negligently, as endangerous to human life, in a zigzag manner, by suddenly entering the Main Road, hit to the deceased's Bike. As a result, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
b) Immediately after the accident, the body was taken to the Government Hospital, Nelamangala for PM examination. After Postmortem examination, the body was handed over to them. They took the body to their village in a hired vehicle and performed last rite ceremony and obsequies by spending Rupees 80,000/- and Rupees 10,000/- for transportation and incidental expenses.
c) They have suffered mental shock and agony, pain and sufferings, disappointment, anguish, frustration, love and care etc., due to sudden death of the deceased in a road traffic accident.
4 M.V.C.NO.628/2015(SCCH-7)
d) On the date of accident, the deceased was aged 32 years and he was hale and healthy. He was a flower merchant and Pan beeda seller and was earning sum of Rupees 20,000/- per month.
e) The Petitioner No.1 is a wife, Petitioner No.2 is a daughter, Petitioner No.3 is a father and the Petitioner No.4 is a mother of the deceased.
f) The Kudur Police have registered a case as against the driver of Lorry under their Crime No.16/2015, under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Hence, this petition.
3. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, it was remained absent and hence, it was placed as exparte on 30.03.2015. Later, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as per Order dated 17.06.2015 passed on I.A.No.1, the exparte order was set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. The Respondent No.1 has filed the Written Statement.
4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 30.03.2015.
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioners, has further contended as follows;
5 M.V.C.NO.628/2015(SCCH-7)
a) The petition filed by the Petitioners is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) As on the date of the alleged accident, the said Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 not insured with it. The details furnished are only a cover note number. The Petitioner is put strict proof of the same.
c) The deceased was a Flower Merchant and Pan Beeda seller and earning more than 20,000/- p.m., are not admitted by it. In the absence of any documentary material before this Hon'ble Tribunal, it cannot be taken into consideration.
d) The alleged accident occurred at NH-48 Road, near Mallana Palya Cross, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar and the Petitioners are residing at Hassan District. It is clear that, the cause of action arose in the out of Bangalore. Therefore, the Hon'ble Tribunal did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by the Petitioners.
e) The alleged accident was not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW- 1474, but, the accident occurred due to the carelessness of the deceased. In a very lethargic manner, the deceased riding his Motor Cycle and due to his carelessness and negligence, the accident occurred. They no way responsible for any alleged accident occurred. Therefore, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners.
6 M.V.C.NO.628/2015(SCCH-7)
f) The Petitioners by filing this frivolous petition are trying to make illegal gain from it and the Petitioners have made out a false case as against the Respondent No.2 with the absolute intention of making unlawful gains at the cost of it. The accident occurred due to the sole negligence and carelessness of the deceased.
g) The owner of the Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW- 1474 had no valid permit to use his vehicle in that route and no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.
h) The Petitioner failed to produce the necessary documents to prove his claim.
i) Without prejudice to the earlier contentions, the Petitioners' claim for compensation of Rupees 25,00,000/- is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary and highly disproportionate besides being without any basis and the Petitioners made such a excessive claim for the reason that, there is no Court fee thereon.
j) The Petitioners have made the claim for a huge sum by fabricating a story to petition his convenience and to make unlawful gain. Further, the Petitioners have filed the claim petition by suppressing the true facts, which lead to the said accident.
k) It seeks the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal under Section 170 of M.V. Act, to oppose the claim petition on all or any of the grounds that are available to the insured of the vehicle, in 7 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) case, the insured remained exparte or not cooperate with the Insurance Company and also on the grounds as per Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased SRI.DHARANEESH?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 by its driver and Sri.Dharaneesh died due to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
7. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as her examination-in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
8 M.V.C.NO.628/2015(SCCH-7)
8. Heard the arguments.
9. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sri. R. Chandrashekar has placed reliance upon the decision reported in, 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and others), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-Fatal accident - Principles of assessment- Future prospects-whether formula for increase of income for future prospects adopted for persons with permanent jobs in Sarala Varma's Case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)- may also be applied to persons who were self-employed or were engaged on fixed wages - Held: yes: 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50 years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no addition thereafter.
10. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 20,95,000/-
with interest at the rate of
8% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of
9 M.V.C.NO.628/2015
(SCCH-7)
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner No.2 is her minor child and the Petitioners No.3 and 4 are her father-in- law and mother-in-law respectively and on 11.11.2015 at about 6.45 p.m., her husband was riding his Bike bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048 and he was moving on N.H-48 Road, near Mallanapalya Cross, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara Dist, at that time, a Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 driven by its driver came from Mallanapalya side in a high speed, rash and negligently as endangerous to human life, in a zig-zag manner and by suddenly entering the Main Road hit against her husband's Bike and as a result, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries on the spot and immediately after the accident, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination at Nelamangala Government Hospital. She has further stated that, her in-laws are aged and they were dependent on her husband's earnings as he was the only bread earner in the family and there is nobody to earn for the family.
12. To consider his case, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.6 Inquest, Ex.P.7 Post Mortem 10 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) Report, Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.9 Election Identity Card relating to Dharneesh, Ex.P.10 Aadhaar Card relating to Dharneesh, Ex.P.11 Driving Licence relating to Dharneesh, Ex.P.14 Ration Card relating to Dharneesh, Ex.P.15 Birth Certificate relating to Harshitha, Ex.P.16 School Study Certificate relating to Harshitha, Ex.P.17 Election Identity Card rating to Rangegowda, Ex.P.18 Copy of Patta and Rasheedi Book relating to Dharneesh, Ex.P.20 Ration Card and Ex.P.21 Aadhaar Card relating to Rangegowda.
13. On perusal of the contents of the said material documents as well as the oral version of P.W.1, it clearly goes to show that, the Petitioner No.1 is a wife, the Petitioner No.2 is a minor daughter, the Petitioner No.3 is a father and the Petitioner No.4 is a mother of the deceased Dharneesh S/o Rangegowda, who died on the accidental spot itself on 11.02.2015 at 6.45 p.m., in the road traffic accident, which was taken place near Mallanapalya Cross, N.H-48, Solur Road, Ramanagar District, when he was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048 as against which, the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 hit. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the Petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Dharnesh S/o Rangegowda. Based on the same, it cannot be said that, all the Petitioners were dependants of the deceased at the time of accident, as, it is well settled principle of law that, the father cannot be considered as a dependant of the deceased son. Hence, the Petitioner No.3, who is a father of the deceased, cannot be considered as a dependant of the deceased. Since the Petitioner 11 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) No.1 is a wife, the Petitioner No.2 is a minor daughter and the Petitioner No.4 is a mother can be very well considered as the dependants of the deceased at the time of accident. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, on 11.01.2015 at 6.45 p.m., her husband was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048 and he was moving on N.H.-48 Road, near Mallanapalya Cross, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramangara District and at the same time, a Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 driven by its driver came from Mallanapalya side, in a high speed, rash and negligently, as endangerous to human life, in a zig-zag manner and by suddenly entering the Main Road and hit against her husband's Bike and as a result, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries and immediately after the accident, the body was subjected to post mortem at Nelamangala Government Hospital. She has further stated that, the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 as against whom the Kudur Police have registered the case under their Crime No.16/2015 under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
15. No doubt, the P.W.1 is not an eye witness and in this regard, she has stated in her cross-examination that, she has not seen the accident. But, to consider the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, 12 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) Ex.P.6 Inquest, Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report and Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet, which clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW 1474, who dashed to the deceased, when he was proceeding on his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA13-EC- 8048 and due to the said impact, the Petitioner fell down and sustained severe grievous injury all over the body and he succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself, which is clear from the following discussion. Furthermore, to deny or to discard the said oral version of P.W.1 as well as the contents of the said material Police and medical documents, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents, as, though the Respondent No.1 has appeared and has filed the written statement to contest the case of the Petitioners, it has not adduced any evidence on its behalf and though the notice was duly served on Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly denied the suggestions put to her by the Respondent No.1 while cross-examining that, due to the negligence on the part of her deceased husband himself, the accident was taken place and only to claim more compensation, she has produced created documents. From this, it appears that, even though the P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing is elicited from her mouth to consider its defence.
16. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint clearly disclosed that, the father-in-law of the deceased had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Kudur Police as against the driver of 13 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW 1474 by alleging that, on 11.01.2015 at 6.45 p.m., when his son-in-law, namely, Dharneesh was proceeding on his Motor Bike bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048 from Electronic City towards N.H-48 Road, near Mallanapalya Cross, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara Dist, the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 came with very high speed, in rash and negligent manner by its driver and suddenly crossed the road towards Bangalore by turning it and at that time, it dashed to the Motor Cycle and due to the said impact, the deceased Dharneesh fell down from the Motor Cycle and had sustained severe grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the offending Lorry and based on the Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the offending Lorry for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC under Crime No.16/2015. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint before the jurisdictional Police in respect of the said road traffic accident.
17. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.P.5 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, the accident was taken place in a junction place while taking right turn by the driver of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474, which dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048, wherein, the deceased was proceeding and the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of 14 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) the offending Lorry and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident. The damages caused to both the vehicles are clearly mentioned Ex.P.5 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said road traffic accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicles. If the driver of the offending Lorry could have taken a little care while taking turn to the main road, he could have saved the valuable life of the deceased.
18. The contents of Ex.P.6 Inquest and Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report further clearly disclosed that, in the said road traffic accident, the deceased had sustained severe grievous injuries all over his body and head and due to which itself, he succumbed on the accidental spot itself. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report that, the cause of death is due to shock hemorrhage due to head injury, abdomen injury and causing damage to the vital organ brain as a result of the road traffic accident.
19. The contents of Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place on 11.01.2015 at 6.45 p.m., near Mallanapalya Cross, N.H-4, Solur Hobli, which dashed to a Bajaj Discover Motor Cycle bearing 15 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048 by suddenly taking turn the offending Lorry by its driver on the main road and dashed to the said Motor Cycle, wherein the deceased was proceeding from Nelamangala towards Kunigal and due to the said impact, the deceased, who was riding the said Motor Cycle was fell down and has sustained severe grievous injuries on his head and he succumbed to the said injuries on the accidental spot itself and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the said offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. There is no allegation leveled as against the deceased by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet about his negligence in the commission of the said road traffic accident.
20. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, the offending Lorry bearing Registration No. CAW-1474 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place, which dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048, wherein the deceased was proceeding and due to the said impact, the deceased had fell down from the Motor Cycle and sustained severe grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the said injuries on the accidental spot itself. To deny or to discard the same, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents. The very involvement of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 as well as its driver in the said road traffic accident is clearly proved. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
16 M.V.C.NO.628/2015(SCCH-7)
21. ISSUE NO.3 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, her deceased husband was aged 32 years. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.10 Aadhaar Card relating to the deceased, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 26.09.1983. The date of accident is on 11.01.2015. From the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was 32 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 32 years at the time of accident.
22. The P.W.1 has stated that, her husband was hale and healthy and he was a flower merchant and pan beeda seller and was earning a sum of Rupees 20,000/- per month. She has further stated that, her deceased husband used to grow ornamental flowers in his land and used those flowers for making decorations at various functions, like, marriages, house warming ceremony, naming ceremony, etc., and he used to get contracts of making flower decorations. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 Vijaya Bank Pass Book relating to the deceased, Ex.P.13 LIC Loan Repayment and Premium Receipts 8 in numbers, Ex.P.19 Patta and Rasheedi Book relating to the deceased, Ex.P.19 Flower Purchase Bills 2 in numbers, Ex.P.22 Tax Paid Receipts dated 15.10.2015, Ex.P.23 Mutation Register, Ex.P.24 Patta and Receipt Book and Ex.P.25 RTC Extract. No doubt, on perusal of the contents of the said material documents as well as the oral version of P.W.1, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was a flower merchant and he was having agricultural land measuring 1.10 Acres. But, only based on the said oral version of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of the said material documents, it 17 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) cannot be believed and accept that, as on the date of accident, the deceased was also a pan beeda seller and he was earning a sum of Rupees 20,000/- from the business of flower and pan beeda, as, Ex.P.12 Vijaya Bank Pass Book relating to the deceased does not disclosed that, every month, the deceased was earning a sum of Rupees 20,000/- per month from his flower and pan beeda business and also by growing ornamental flowers in his land. Further, the other documents produced by the Petitioners also do not disclosed that, at the time of accident, the total income of the deceased was of Rupees 20,000/- per month at the time of accident. Therefore, the earnings of Rupees 20,000/- per month by the deceased at the time of accident, as stated by the P.W.1 cannot be believed and accept. However, at the time of accident, the deceased was 32 years old and he was having the Petitioners as a wife, minor daughter, father and mother and he was having 1.10 Acres of land in his name at the time of accident. By considering the nature of business and family status of the deceased, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional income of the deceased is of Rupees 10,000/- per month, which is reasonable and acceptable one. Hence, the notional income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 10,000/- per month at the time of accident.
23. The P.W.1 has stated that, her deceased husband was contributing his entire earnings towards the maintenance of the family and after his death, they are facing lot of financial difficulties and lot of pain and mental agony for untimely demise of her husband. She has further stated that, she has lost love, 18 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) affection and life time companion at her young age and her daughter is just 3 years old and she has lost love, affection, bright career and future guidance of her father. She has further stated that, they are facing financial difficulties and they have borrowed hand loans from their family friends and relatives for the maintenance of the family. She has further stated that, if her husband alive, he would have earned more money and due to the sudden demise of her husband, they are into financial difficulties.
24. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased and the Petitioner No.1, 2 and 4 were the dependants of the deceased at the time of accident. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW 1474 and the said offending Lorry as well as its driver, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, Dharaneesh S/o Range Gowda succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation in respect of the death of deceased Dharneesh S/o Rangegowda.
25. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the deceased was aged 32 years at the time of accident, towards future prospects 50% of the income has to be added. So, 50% of Rupees 10,000/- comes to Rupees 5,000/-. Therefore, the 19 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) income of the deceased comes to Rupees 15,000/- p.m. (Rs.10,000/- + 5,000/-).
26. The Petitioners No.1, 2 and 4 are considered as dependents of the deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind 3 dependents. As per the principles laid down in Sarala Varma's Case, considering the number of the dependents, i.e., 3, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 5,000/- (1/3rd of Rs.15,000/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 10,000/- (Rs.15,000/- (-) Rs.5,000/-). The multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased, i.e., 32 years, is 16 as per Sarala Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 19,20,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 12 x 16). Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 19,20,000/- towards loss of dependency due to death of Dharaneesh S/o Range Gowda.
27. The P.W.1 has stated that, after P.M. Examination, the body was handed over to them and they took the body to their Village in a hired vehicle and performed last rite ceremony and obsequies by spending Rupees 80,000/- and Rupees 10,000/- towards transportation and incidental expenses. But, to consider the same, the Petitioners have not produced any documents.
28. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), loss of consortium to the Petitioner No.1, 20 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) who is a wife of the deceased, should be Rupees 1,00,000/-, loss of love and affection has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the Petitioner No.1 is a wife, the Petitioner No.2 is a minor daughter, the Petitioner No.3 is a father and the Petitioner No.4 is a Mother of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rupees 1,00,000/- towards Loss of consortium and all the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
29. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate.
30. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following amount of compensation :-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 19,20,000-00
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000-00
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
4. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00 of dead body 21 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7)
6. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 20,95,000-00
31. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 20,95,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
32. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the offending Lorry bearing Registration No. CAW-1474 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place, which dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-13-EC-8048, wherein the deceased was proceeding and due to the said impact, the deceased had fell down from the Motor Cycle and sustained severe grievous injuries on his head and succumbed to the said injuries on the accidental spot itself and the very involvement of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 as well as its driver in the said road traffic accident is clearly proved. The Petitioners in the cause title of the petition have clearly mentioned the Cover Note No.A/I-28435321, valid from 02.07.2014 to 01.07.2015. Though the Respondent No.1 has contented in its written statement that, as on the date of the alleged accident, the said Lorry bearing its Registration No.CAW-1474 not insured with it, it has not proved the same by adducing acceptable material evidence. There is no allegation leveled as against the Respondent No.2 in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet by the Investigation 22 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) Officer that, at the time of accident, the said offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 was not having valid insurance policy. Even no question or suggestion put to P.W.1 about the insurance policy and driving licence. The Respondent No.1, who is an insurer of the offending Lorry has not adduced any evidence on its behalf to consider its defence. The Respondent No.2, who was a registered owner of the offending Lorry, is placed as exparte. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer and the Respondent No.2 is a registered owner of the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.CAW-1474 and its insurance policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. Hence, the Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. Since, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. In view of the above said reasons, the principles enunciated in the decision cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
33. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor 23 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 20,95,000/-
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners No.1 to 4 shall share the compensation amount in the ratio of 50:20:10:20.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 50% shares relating to the Petitioners No.1 and 4 and the entire share relating to the Petitioner No.3 shall be released in their respective names through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% shares relating to the Petitioners No.1 and 4 shall be kept in FD in their respective names, in any 24 M.V.C.NO.628/2015 (SCCH-7) nationalized Bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years.
The entire share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of the choice her guardian, till she attains the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 16th day of February, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Divya W/o. Late Dharaneesh
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
25 M.V.C.NO.628/2015
(SCCH-7)
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.7 : True copy of PM Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 : Notarised Xerox copy of Election
Identity Card relating to Dharanesh
Ex.P.10 : Notarised Xerox copy of Aadhar
Card relating to Dharanesh
Ex.P.11 : Notarised Xerox copy of Driving
Licence relating to Dharma Gowda
Ex.P.12 : Notarised Xerox copy of Vijaya Bank
Passbook relating to Dharaneesha
@ Dharma
Ex.P.13 : Notarised Xerox copy of LIC Loan
Repayment and Premium Receipts
(8 in numbers)
Ex.P.14 : Notarised Xerox copy of Ration Card
Ex.P.15 : Notarised Xerox copy of Birth
Certificate relating to Harshitha
Ex.P.16 : School Certificate relating to
Harshitha
Ex.P.17 : Notarised xerox copy of Election
Identity Card relating to
Rangegowda
Ex.P.18 : Notarised Xerox copy of Patta and
Raheedi Book relating to Dharanesh
Ex.P.19 : Flower Purchase Bills 2 in numbers
Ex.P.20 : Notarised xerox copy of Ration Card
Ex.P.21 : Notarised xerox copy of Aaadhaar
Card relating to Rangegowda
Ex.P.22 : Tax Paid Receipts dated 15.10.2015
Ex.P.23 : Mutation Register
Ex.P.24 : Notarised xerox copy of Patta and
Receipt Book
Ex.P.25 : RTC Extract
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
- Nil -26 M.V.C.NO.628/2015
(SCCH-7)
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
- Nil -
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.