Bangalore District Court
Thipamma vs Narendra C.J on 25 February, 2025
KABC020090102023
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B (Spl),
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.1957/2023
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Thipamma,
W/o Late Kuraba Ramanjappa,
Aged about 39 years.
2. Mr. K. Ramesh
S/o Late Kuraba Ramanjappa,
Aged about 21 years.
Both are R/at : 3-21, Reddy Palli,
Roddam, Ananthapur,
Andhra Pradesh-515123.
(By Sri. Krishna Murthy. S.G, Adv.,)
v/s
Respondents : 1) Sri. C.J. Nagendra,
S/o Thammanna Jayaramaiah,
Channahalli village,
Bettakote Post,
2 SCCH-23
MVC-1957/2023
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru District-560067.
(By Advocate: Sri.M.Mune Gowda)
2) The Manager,
Universal Sompo Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Office at No.217/A, 3rd Floor,
3rd Main, Outer Ring Road,
Kasturi Nagara,
Bengaluru-560043.
(Policy No.USGI/POSWEB/0727924/00/000
Period from 09.11.2021 to 08.11.2024
(By Advocate: Sri.Raghavendra Bhat)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death caused in a Road Traffic accident.
2. The case of the petitioners in the nutshell is that, on 26.02.2023 at about 12.20 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding as pedestrian and crossing the road on Bengaluru - Doddaballapura road, Marasandra Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District, at that point of time the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX-1629 drove it in a rash & negligent manner with high speed and dashed to 3 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 deceased. Due to the impact the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is submitted that postmortem was conducted and corpse was handed over to the family members. It is further submitted that because of death of deceased the petitioners have suffered both financially and emotionally. It is submitted that, prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, and was doing agriculture and coolie and earning Rs.30,000/- p.a. It is contended that the accident happened because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of car and as such both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence prayed to allow the petition.
3. Notice was duly served to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel by filing written statement rather objections to the main petition contending that the petition itself is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.1 admitted that he is the RC owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX-1629 and was duly insured with the 2nd respondent and same was in force as on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the driver of the vehicle 4 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 also possess valid and effective driving licence. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. After service of notice, the respondent No.2 spurred in rush to the Court by filing written statement rather objections to the petition contending that the petition is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent No.1 denied the issuance of car insurance policy in favour of respondent No.2 in respect of car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX-1629. However the liability if any is pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. Non-compliance of section's 147, 149, 134(c) and 158(6), 159 of MV Act is pleaded. This respondent specifically and empathically denied the occurrence, mode and manner of accident and also involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Negligence on the part of the driver of its offending car is denied by this respondent. Per contra it is alleged that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased as he was suddenly entered the road unmindful and without observing the traffic rules. Hence he is the main architect for the unfortunate accident. Without prejudice to the said contention it is averred 5 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid & effective DL and further the said insured vehicle did not holding valid and effective Permit and FC as on the date of accident. Despite knowing the said fact the owner thereof had handed over its possession to such a driver. On account of willful breach of the terms & conditions of the policy by the insured, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify him. Further denied all the allegation made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased ?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that on 26.02.2023 at about 12.20 p.m., the deceased by name Kuruba Ramanjappa was proceeding as pedestrian near Marasandra village, Bengaluru -
Doddaballapura road, Hesraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru District, at that time, the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX- 1629 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the deceased. Due to which the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the said injuries ?
6 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed ? If so, at what rate and from whom ?
4) What order or award?
6. Petitioner No.1 examined herself as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 14 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the car examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 3 documents. The respondent No.2 did not choose to lead any evidence on their behalf.
7. Heard erudite counsel for the petitioners and respondents counsel on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.2 : The occurrence of the accident on the relevant date, time and place is not in dispute. The parties are 7 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 also not at variance with regard to the factum of the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The conflict is with respect to actionable negligence. The petitioners plead that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the driver of offending car. Whereas the Insurance Company contends that the accident in question occurred because of negligence of the deceased.
10. Mr.Ramesh. R - the son of deceased set the criminal law into the motion by lodging Ex.P.2-First information statement. Based on the said FIS, the jurisdictional police registered FIR as per Ex.P.1, investigated the matter and laid charge sheet (Ex.P.10) against the driver of car for the offences punishable under section's 279, 304(A) of IPC. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive.
11. Further more the careful perusal of Ex.P.3 and 4 being Spot Mahazar and Spot Sketch it reflects that the accident happened when the deceased was crossing road near Marasandra village, in front of Anras Hotel, Hesaraghatta Hobli, 8 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluty City. It is further shows that the accident occured on the edge of the road i.e., in front of Anras Hotel. If the driver of car was coming in a normal speed then he would certainly avoided the accident. Above all even the charge sheet was also filed as against the driver of the offending car. This court is aware of the fact that charge sheet is not a conclusive proof to come to conclusion with regard to rash and negligent act. But having regard to the Ex.P.3 & 4 which were read in consonance with the Ex.P.10 Charge sheet it is crystal clear that there is an rash & negligent act of the driver of the car.
12. The respondents who denied negligence on the part of the driver of car and contended that the deceased had contributed to the accident, have not led any evidence to this effect. Mere taking up of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the evidence led by the petitioners. Further the respondents did not make any attempt to examine the driver of the car who is the best witness to depose about the cause of accident. There is no explanation to that effect. Non-examination of the driver of the 9 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 car is fatal to the defence of the respondents. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the negligence of the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX-1629. Therefore, I answer issue No.2 as 'In the Affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.1 : The petitioners claim that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased. To prove the same, petitioner No.1 filed affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination and deposed about the above relationship. The Aadhar cards and ration card at Ex's.P.11 to 14 and contents of the police papers do fortify the said fact. It is pertinent to note that this relationship of the petitioners with the deceased has not been disputed by the respondents. Since the evidence led by the petitioners is satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that there are no rival claimants, this Tribunal hold that the petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, petitioners are the 10 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 legal heir and dependents of deceased. Hence, this Tribunal answers to issue No.1 In the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.3: In this case the petitioners have claimed the compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- on the death of deceased in the road traffic accident. The petitioners contended that, deceased was working as agriculturist and coolie and earning a sum of Rs.30,000/- p.a. In order to substantiate the above said fact absolutely no string of evidence is produced before this court. It is relevant to rely on a decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka rendered on Division Bench in the case of Ananda v/s Arjun and another in MFA.No.101144/2020 (MV) dated.05.07.2023. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has laid down the following principles in para No.8(b) are as here under :
"(b) The accident is of the year 2017. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum. To substantiate the said claim, the injured claimant has not placed any material on record, it is for the Courts and Tribunals to assess the income notionally. The notional income fixed by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority for the accident of the year 2017 is Rs.10,250/-. In the absence of any material produced by the claimant 11 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 to prove his income, it is appropriate to assess the notional income of the injured claimant at Rs.10,250/- per month, and the same is assessed as the monthly income of the injured claimant"
As such this Court is taking the notional income as prescribed by the Karnataka Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru. Therefore in view of the above decision, the accident was occurred on 26.02.2023. Therefore, Rs.16,000/- has to be taken into consideration as monthly income of the deceased.
15. The petitioners have produced the Aadhar card to show the age of the deceased as per Ex.P13 wherein the year of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1971, which indicates that he was aged (52 years 1 months 25 days) 52 years on the date of accident. Therefore the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case for the said age group is '11'.
16. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others), if the person died in the motor accident, the income with respect to the future prospect has to taken into consideration while awarding compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has provide the chart for 12 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 age of the deceased and percentage for future prospects in between below the age of 40 years 40%, 40 years to 50 years 25% and 50 to 60 years 10%. The deceased is not a permanent Employee and not a fixed salary person and he died at the age of 52 years. Therefore, in this case, 10% income has to be taken into consideration for future prospects. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, deceased aged about 52 years and as such, 10% is added to the income of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.17,600/- p.m. (Rs.16,000/- + 1,600/- i.e. 10%).
17. The deceased died living behind 2 dependents. As per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma Case, 1/3rd of his income is required to be deducted towards his personal expenses which comes to Rs.11,733/- p.m. (Rs.17,600
- Rs.5,867 = Rs.11,733/-).
18. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.11,733/- p.m. and the multiplier '11' is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.15,48,756/- (Rs.11,733 X 12 X 11). Considering the above facts, this Tribunal deems it just and 13 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.15,48,800/- under the head of loss of dependency.
19. Further, as Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the compensation towards loss to estate, funeral expenses and consortium is to be awarded. The petitioners contended that they have spent substantial amount towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies etc., but no documents are produced. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.18,150/- towards loss to estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses as enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years and Rs.48,400/- towards consortium to the petitioner No.1. By applying the observations made in the aforesaid case, as more than 6 years elapsed from the date of order amount of consortium, funeral expense and loss of estate to be enhanced.
20. In this case, the petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased and as per the decision reported in (2018) 12 SCC 130 in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and 14 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 others, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for filial consortium, as the filial consortium is the right of the parents and children to get compensation in the case of an accidental death of a children and father as the case may be. An accident leading to the death of a father cause great shock and agony to the children of the deceased and he lost his love and affection towards his father. Therefore, petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.40,000/- under the head of Filial consortium.
21. The calculation table stands as follows :
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.15,48,800/-
2. Towards loss of Consortium to the Rs. 48,400/-
petitioner No.1
3. Towards loss to estate Rs. 18,150/-
4. Towards transportation of dead body Rs. 18,150/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses
5. Towards loss of Filial consortium to Rs. 40,000/-
petitioner No.2
Total Rs.16,73,500/-
22. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY : Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this 15 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
23. The respondent No.2 denied the issuance of insurance policy in respect of offending car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX- 1629. In order to disprove the said fact the respondent No.1 / owner of the car himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 3 documents. In his examination in chief, RW.1 reiterated the written statement averments. Further in his cross examination he categorically admitted that he is the owner and was not driving the car at the time of accident. He further admitted that one Bhuvan was driven the car at the time of accident. He further admitted that charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car. He further admitted that his car is having valid Insurance policy at the time of accident. Further Ex.R.1 is the True copy of RC, Ex.R.2 is the Insurance Policy and Ex.R.3 is the DL of driver of the car. However careful perusal of Ex.R.1 and 2 being the RC card and policy as per the contents of which the issuance of insurance policy is respect of New car Nissan Magnate Turbo car bearing Chasis No.MDHFBADD0M9034555 16 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 and Engine No.017368C / car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MX-1629 covering the date of accident. Hence, there is no dispute with regard to the issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner & insurer thereof are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioner together with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However the respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily liable to satisfy the award amount together with interest within one month from the date of this order. Hence issue No.3 is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
24. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,73,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
17 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award.
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 - 70%
Petitioner No.2 - 30%
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 & 2 a sum equal to 25% shall be deposited in their names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 75% shall be released to them through E-payment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer & printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February-2025).
(Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
18 SCCH-23 MVC-1957/2023 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt. Thipamma List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 True copy of Sketch Ex.P.5 True copy of Inquest Ex.P.6 True copy of notice issued U/Sec.133 of IMV Act Ex.P.7 True copy of reply to the above said notice Ex.P.8 True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.9 True copy of PM Report Ex.P.10 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of deceased Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of family ration card of the petitioners
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Sri. C.J. Nagendra List of documents got marked for the respondent/s :
Ex.R.1 True copy of RC of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-
MX-1629
Ex.R.2 Insurance policy (3 in Nos.)
Ex.R.3 Notarized copy of DL of driver of the offending vehicle
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.