Bangalore District Court
Was Standing On The Road Not On The Foot ... vs Resides. The Said Provision Does Not ... on 30 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 30th day of January, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B. (Spl),
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.3798/2014
1. Sri. Shivaraj T.R.
S/o Rangaiah T.M.,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at 62, Jayalakshmamma Layout,
15th Cross, Papareddypalya,
Bangalore-560 092.
And also residing at
Tavarekere Village,
Huliyurdurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
..... PETITIONER
Tumkur District.
(By Sri.K.P.Shivalingaiah, Adv,.)
V/s
1.Sri. Murthy D.C.
S/o Chamaiah,
Aged about 36 Years,
Residisng at No,100,
Donakuppe Village,
Agalakote Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
2. The Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 2
Regional Office at
LEO Shopping Complex,
No.44/45, Residency Road Cross, ..... RESPONDENTS
Bangalore-560 025.
(Policy No.421504/31/2011/8607
Policy period from 02-12-2010 to
01-12-2011)
(R1-Exparte)
(R2-By Sri. Udaya Krishna, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has 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 Rupees 9,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of accident till the realization of amount and costs.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
a) On 31-01-2011 at about 3-00 P.M., he was standing at Anjanagara Bus Stop, Magadi Main Road to go to his home on the left side of the road along with his friend, by careful manner by following all the traffic rules, at that time, a Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-02-EC-7940, came from Sunkadakatte, belonging to the 1st Respondent, which was driven by its driver in a very high speed, rash and negligent manner, which endangers the human life and driven by its driver recklessly, unmindfully without following the traffic rules, dashed to him. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained injuries to his left knee elbow joint, left side chest and left leg tibia and (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 3 fibula and all over the body and bleeding and immediately, the public and the driver of the Motor Cycle shifted to Jai Maruthi Hospital, Hegganahalli Main Road, Bangalore-91.
b) He was admitted as an inpatient for a period of 16 days. He underwent several medical, clinical, radiological examinations, laboratory tests, x-rays were taken and treated for the injuries sustained and finally, the Doctor operated the left leg tibia and fibula and inserted the rod and finally, he was advised by the Doctors for a bed rest with regular follow up treatment for six months. He has spent more than Rupees 1,50,000/- amount towards medical expenses other than towards conveyance, food and nourishment charges and other for his incidental charges.
c) He is still suffering from headache and he is in deep mental agony and still he is suffering with gross deformity. Due to the said injuries, he become too weak, he cannot do his regular activities, he cannot do his normal work as he was doing earlier.
d) He was physically strong, hale and healthy. Before the accident, he was doing physical hard work, he was working as a mechanical work as own work and earning Rupees 15,000/- per month. Due to this accident, he has lost the future income and future prospective life, happiness, earning capacity and has become disabled and dependant. He is having old aged parents, and he was very much helpful to his family in all the aspects. He suffered a lot mentally, physically and financially. The attendant attended him.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 4
e) He was hale and healthy and hard working before
the accident, now, he cannot discharge his duty effectively due to disability and pain. He was aged about 24 years only at the time of accident.
f) The Taverekere Police have registered a Criminal case against the driver of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EC-7940, in Crime No.58/2011 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC R/w Section 187 of the M.V. Act. The said Police have investigated the matter and have filed the charge sheet against the vehicle driver.
g) The accident was taken place solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver belonging to the 1st Respondent. The said vehicle was duly insured with the 2 nd Respondent. The policy was valid and was in force at the time of accident. The driver of the said Vehicle bearing No.KA-02- EC-7940, was holding a valid driving licence at the relevant point of time. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him.
h) He claims the compensation on the following counts.
1) Medical expenses 1,50,000-00
2) Future medical expenses 50,000-00
3) Food and nourishment 30,000-00
4) Pain and suffering 1,00,000-00
5) Future prospective life 1,00,000-00
and happiness
6) Loss of future income 2,00,000-00
7) Loss of income at the
time of accident 90,000-00
8) Permanent disability 2,00,000-00
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 5
Total 9,20,000-00
Hence, this Petition.
3. Though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 15.11.2014.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 05.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable either on the provisions of law or on facts.
b) In fact, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioner.
c) He has not issued a policy of insurance to the Respondent No.1. In this case, it is given to understand that, there is negligence on the part of the Petitioner himself is not taking proper care and precaution to stand at Anjanagara Bus Stop by following traffic rules and regulations and in fact, the Petitioner was standing on the road not on the foot path as is stipulated under law and hence, he is not liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner in the said case and without (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 6 prejudice to the said contentions, if any liability, then, it is as per the terms and conditions of the policy and subject to validity of R.T.O documents. But, in this case, he is not liable to pay any sum to the Petitioner in the circumstances of the case. The rider of the Motor Cycle was not holding the valid and effective driving license at the time of the alleged accident.
d) Without prejudice to the foregoing contentions, he states that, the amount of compensation claimed in the claim petition is excessive, exorbitant and fanciful and without any legal basis and he is not liable to pay any sum, much less, Rupees 9,20,000/- as claimed by the Petitioner in the circumstances of the case. Hence, no compensation is payable by him to the Petitioner in the instant case.
e) There is negligence on the part of the Petitioner himself in not taking proper care and precaution to stand at Anjanagara Bus Stop by following Traffic Rules and regulations and in fact, Petitioner was standing on the road not on the footpath as is stipulated under law and on the other hand, the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.Ka-02-EC- 7940 was riding the vehicle, slowly, carefully and following all the Traffic Rules and Regulations and hence, he is not liable in the eyes of law for any compensation.
f) He craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to permit him to defend on all grounds and the interest of the owner/insured in case if the fails to appear before this Hon'ble Court or if he is placed exparte as provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 7
g) Without prejudice to the above contentions, the
rate of interest be pleased to be not more than 6% per annum as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of "Karnataka Power Corporation V/s Geetha (I.L.R 1987 Karnataka 142).
h) The Police have not intimated the accident or given the data is of the accident to the 2nd Respondent/insurer as contemplated under Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Owner/insured has not intimated the accident as per Section-134(c) of the M.V. Act and hence, he is not liable to pay the compensation.
i) There is no nexus between the accident and the injuries to the Petitioner.
j) The Petitioner is not aged 24 years and that the Petitioner is aged more than 24 years at the time of the accident.
k) The petition suffers from lack of jurisdiction as per Section 166(2) of M.V. Act and hence, on this ground itself, claim petition merits for dismissal by this Hon'ble Court.
l) The Petitioner is not earning Rupees 15,000/- per month. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues and Additional Issue.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 8
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-EC-7940 by its rider and in the said accident, he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation and damages? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 21.01.2015 Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition?
7. Since the very maintainability of the present petition before this Tribunal is involved and the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has pressed the order on Additional Issue, Additional Issue is taken first for consideration and disposal.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. My answers to the above said Issues and Additional Issue are as follows;
Issue No.1 : Does not survive for
consideration,
Issue No.2 : Does not survive for
consideration,
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 9
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
Additional : In the Negative,
Issue
for the following;
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 :- The Petitioner has 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 Rupees 9,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of accident till the realization of amount and costs.
11. It is contended by the Respondent No.2 in his written statement that, the petition suffers from lack of jurisdiction as per Section 166(2) of the M.V. Act and hence, on this ground itself claim petition may be dismissed. He has further contended that, the claim petition is not maintainable either on the provisions of law or on facts.
12. On perusal of the cause title of the petition, it appears that, the Petitioner has shown his residential address at Bangalore and also Tavarekere Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. Along with the petition, the Petitioner has produced Aadhaar Card relating to him, which disclosed his address that, Tavarekere Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal (Rural) Taluk, Tumkur District, Karnataka. Though the Petitioner has shown his Bangalore address as No.62, Jayalakshmamma Layout, 15th Cross, Papareddypalya, Bangalore-560 092, he has not produced any authenticated document to show that, he is also residing at Bangalore in the (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 10 address shown in the cause title of the petition. From this, it prima-facie appears that, the Petitioner is a resident of Tavarekere Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
13. The address of the Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle, is shown as Donakuppe Village, Agalakote Post, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District. From this, it prima-facie appears that, the Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the alleged offending vehicle is also not residing within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and he is residing outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
14. It is averred by the Petitioner in the petition that, the accident has taken place on 31.01.2011 at about 3.00 p.m., at Anjananagar Bus Stop, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore. It is also clear from the averments of the petition that, the Tavarekere Police have registered a Criminal case as against the rider of the said offending vehicle under Section 279 and 337 R/w Section 187 of the M.V. Act under Crime No.58/11. The Petitioner has also produced true copies of FIR relating to the said crime, which disclosed that, the said Tavarekere Police have registered a Criminal case under Crime No.58/11 as against the rider of the offending Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EC-7940 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC R/w Section 187 of IMV Act. The place of accident is also shown as Anjanagar Bus Stand, Bangalore Main Road, in the said FIR. It is clearly (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 11 mentioned in the said FIR that, the said Tavarekere Police Station is coming within Ramanagar District. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the place of accident is situated within the jurisdiction of Tavarekere Police Station, which is coming within the Ramanagar District. Nowhere in the said FIR, it is mentioned that, the alleged accident was taken place in Bangalore Urban. From this, it is further made crystal clear that, the alleged accident was also taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal and as such, the jurisdictional Tavarekere Police have registered a Criminal case as against the rider of the said offending Motor Cycle under their Crime No.58/11.
15. From this, it appears that, the Petitioner, who is the injured and the Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the offending Motor Cycle are residing outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the place of the accident is also outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal as it was occurred within the jurisdiction of Ramanagara District.
16. From the above said discussion, it is made crystal clear that, both the Petitioner and the owner of the offending Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EC-7940 are not residing within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal and also the place of the accident is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
17. No doubt, on perusal of the cause title of the petition, it appears that, the Respondent No.2, who is Insurance Company, is situated at Bangalore, which is coming within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. But, in the (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 12 decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 102 (Circuit Bench at Gulbarga) (Subhadra and others V/s Pankaj and another), our Hon'ble High Court has held that, "the claim petition cannot be instituted before the Tribunal within whose local limits the Insurance Company carries on business, unless the other requirements contemplated by sub-Section (2) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, stand complied with and a claimant can institute a claim petition before the Tribunal within whose local limits, the Respondent resides, such as, driver or owner of the vehicle. Further, as per Section 166(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant can file a claim petition either before the claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or before the Claims Tribunal within the local limits whose jurisdiction, the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the defendant i.e., Respondents resides. The said provision does not confer jurisdiction to the Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, the Defendant, that is, Insurance Company carries on business." Therefore, merely on the ground that, the Respondent No.2, who is the Insurance Company carries on its business at Bengaluru, the Petitioner has no locus-standi to file the present claim petition before this Tribunal, which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The principles enunciated in the said decision are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition. Accordingly, I answered Additional Issue in the Negative.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 13
18. ISSUE NO.1 AND ISSUE NO.2 :- While
answering Additional Issue, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition filed by the Petitioner. Hence, the present petition is not maintainable before this Tribunal. When such being the situation, there is no need to keep pending the present petition before this Tribunal and to give an opportunity to the parties to the petition to adduce their evidence. Therefore, the above said Issues No.1 and 2 do not survive for consideration at all. Hence, it is just, proper and necessary to return the petition to the Petitioner to present it before the competent jurisdictional Tribunal. Hence, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
19. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable before this Tribunal.
The petition is returned to the
Petitioner to present it before the
competent Tribunal.
Office is hereby directed to return the petition to the Petitioner to present it before the competent Tribunal.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 14
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of January, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
-NIL-
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
-NIL-
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 15
SCCH-7
AWARD
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.1927/2014
1. Smt. Meena W/o Late Basavaraju, Aged about 26 years.
2. Kum. Suma D/o Late Basavaraju, Aged about 10 years.
3. Kum Savitha D/o Late Basavaraju, Aged about 9 years.
4. Smt. Gowramma W/o Late Basavaiah, Aged about 66 years.
All are residing at Rangegowdanadoddi, Manchanayakanahalli Post, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagaram District.
Petitioners No.2 and 3 are minors, represented by their natural guardian, .... PETITIONERS Mother Meena W/o Late Basavaraju.
(By Sri. Maruthi. K., Adv,.) V/s (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 16
1. Sri. Mahesh A.M. Siddaganga Tours and Travels, No.48, VI Phase Road, W.O.C. Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.
(R.C. Owner of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-C-6376)
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd., No.28, V Floor, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bangalore.
(Insurer of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-06-C-6376) Policy No.140573235500006 Valid from 30.05.2013 to 29.05.2014) ....RESPONDENTS (R-1 Exparte) (R-2 By Sri. B.C.Shivanne Gowda, Adv.,) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/s.166 of the M.V.Act praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/ Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar, IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri./Smt. Advocate for respondent.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 17
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
[
The Petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rupees 10,34,000/- with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners shall share the compensation and interest amount in the ratio of 70:10:10:10.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 50% share of the compensation amount relating to Petitioners No.1 and 4 shall be released in their respective names through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share of the Petitioners No.1 and 4 shall be kept in FD in their respective names, in any nationalized bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years and the entire shares of the Petitioners No.2 and 3 shall (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 18 be kept in FD in their respective names, in any nationalized bank, till they attain the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 2014
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on
Petition
Court fee paid on Power
Court fee paid on I.A.,
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN AREA: B'LORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 19
30.01.2015.
Judgment pronounced in open Court (vide separate Order) The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed as not maintainable before this Tribunal.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 20 The petition is returned to the Petitioner to present it before the competent Tribunal.
Office is hereby directed to return the petition to the Petitioner to present it before the competent Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 21 IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7) Dated this, the 30th day of January, 2015.
PRESENT: SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR, B.Com.,LL.B. (Spl), IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.3798/2014
1. Sri. Shivaraj, TR S/o Rangaiah. TM, R/at.62, Jayalakshmamma Layout, 15th Cross, Papareddypalya, Bangalore-560 092.
And also residing at Tavarekere Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.====, Adv,.) ... PETITIONER V/s
1. Sri. Murthy, DC S/o Chamaiah, Aged about 36 Years, Residisng at, No,100, Donakuppe Village, Agalakote Post, Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara District.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 22
2. The Regional Manager,
The Oriental Insurance
Complainant Ltd,
Regional Office at,
LEO Shopping Complex,
No. 44/45, Residency Road Cross,
Bangalore-560 025.
(Policy No. 421504/31/2011/8607 Policy period from 02-12-2010 to 01-12-2011 (R1-By Sri ===== Adv.,) .... RESPONDENTS (R2-Exparte) JUDGMENT The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 praying to award compensation of Rupees 9,20,000/- with interest and costs.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
a) The deceased namely R.Chowdappa was working as a Civil Engineer under one Sri. J.Ramesh Babu, who is a P.W.D. Class one Contractor. On 13.12.2009 the deceased was at working site in between Kadirenahalli and Masanahalli Cross, where the road formation working was going on. At about 11.30 p.m. while he was on duty and he was giving signal to Tipper Lorry, at that time one Road Roller No.07110091107 came from reverse direction at high speed, (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 23 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Due to impact he knocked down and the Road Roller ran over his head, by causing instant death of the deceased. This accident occurred due to carelessness, rash and negligent driving of the Road Roller.
b) The deceased was just aged about 21 years. He was a Civil Engineer by profession, working under one Ramesh Babu, a Class I Contractor of Julapalya of Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. He was getting monthly salary of Rupees 12,000/-. He had a bright future prospects and he would have get more salary in future. He was the only earning member in their family. They were entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased. They are put to lot of mental agony and untold misery due to sudden demise of the deceased. They have spent Rupees 20,000/- towards transportation of dead body and towards funeral obsequies.
c) The 1st Respondent being the RC owner of the Road Roller, the 2nd Respondent being the lessee of the Road Roller and the 3rd Respondent being its insurer, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this Petition.
3. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 21.09.2010.
4. In response to the notice the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Court through his Learned Counsel and has filed the written statement.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 24
5. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.3 had appeared before this Court through its Learned Counsel. The Respondent No.3 had not filed the written statement. It is pertinent to note here that, as per the order dated 19.08.2013 passed on I.A.No.II the Respondent No.3 is deleted from the cause title of the Petition as the Petitioner nor the owner of the offending vehicle not furnished the policy particulars and details of the Insurance Policy said to have been issued by the Respondent No.3. Hence, the Petition is pending for consideration only as against the Respondents No.1 and 2.
6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioners, has further contended as follows;
a) The petition filed by the Petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
b) the Petitioners are not entitled any claims made in the petition as against him, since, he is no way concerned to Road Roller and alleged accident.
c) The 1st Respondent being the R.C. owner of the road roller is not within his knowledge.
d) He is not a necessary and proper party to the proceedings since he is no way concerned to the road roller and the alleged accident and he is not at all the lessee of the alleged road roller and he is not at all liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 25
7. Based on the above said pleadings, my Learned Predecessor-in-Office has framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
3. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri. R. Chowdappa?
4. Whether the Petitioners prove that, on 13.12.2009 at about 11.00 p.m. the deceased was working at the working site in between Kadhirenahalli and Masanahalli Cross, where the road formation working was going on which is within the jurisdiction of Kencharlahalli Police Station, at that time, the Road Roller No.07110091107, being driven by its driver came to said spot with high speed in rash and negligent manner while so driving dashed his vehicle against deceased? If so, whether Petitioners prove deceased was succumbed to the injuries was due to alleged accident?
5. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
6. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
9. Heard the arguments.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 26
10. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for total
compensation of
Rupees /- with interest at
the rate of 6% p.a. from
the Respondent No.2.
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 his examination-in-chief that, the
Petitioner No.2 is his wife, the Petitioner No.3 is his unmarried daughter and the deceased R.Chowdappa is his son. The same has not been disputed by the Respondent No.2 while cross-examining the P.W.1. The Petitioners have also produced the Ex.D.24 Ration Card relating to their family, which clearly disclosed the names of the Petitioners as well as the name of the deceased R.Chowdappa. Based on the said oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.24, it can be safely held that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father, Petitioner No.2 is a mother and Petitioner No.3 is a sister of deceased Sri.R.Chowdappa and as such, the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri.R.Chowdappa. Accordingly, without much discussion, I answered Issue No. 1 in the Affirmative.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 27
13. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, his son R.Chowdappa was working as a Civil Engineer under one Sri.J.Ramesh Babu, who is a Class-I Contractor and taking Government civil works, like, laying roads, asphalting, etc., and accordingly, on 13.12.2009, his son deceased R.Chowdappa was at working site in between Kadirenahalli and Masanahalli Cross, at where the road formation and asphalting work was going on, at about 11.30 p.m., while his son R.Chowdappa was on duty and he was giving signal to a tipper lorry, at that time, one Road Roller No.07110091107 came from reverse direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his son R.Chowdappa. He has further stated that, due to impact, he knocked down and the road roller ran over his head, by causing instant death of his son R.Chowdappa and thereafter, the dead body was shifted to Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and after P.M. examination, the body was handed over to him by Kencharlahalli Police of Chikkaballapur District, in turn, they took the body to their village and buried the same. He has further stated that, this accident occurred due to carelessness, rash and negligent driving of the road roller by its driver and the Kencharlahalli Police of Chikkaballapur District have registered a case against the driver of the road roller.
14. To corroborate the said oral evidence of P.W.1, the Petitioners have produced the true copies of Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Mahazar, Ex.P.4 Inquest, Ex.P.5 Statement of Smt.Rathnamma, who is the mother of the deceased R.Chowdappa, Ex.P.6 Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.7 Charge (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 28 Sheet, Ex.P.8 Further Statement of Respondent No.2 and Ex.P.9 Spot Hand Sketch, relating to the Kencharlahalli Police Station Crime No.133/2009.
15. On perusal of the contents of the said Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9, it clearly goes to show that, on 13.12.2009, when the deceased R.Chowdappa was working in the site for the formation of the road and asphalting work was going on in between Kadirenahalli and Masanahalli Cross, at 11.30 p.m., when he was giving signal to a tipper lorry, the Road Roller No.07110091107 came from reverse direction at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and due to the said impact, he knocked down and the road roller ran over his head by causing instant death thereafter, the dead body was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chikkaballapur and after post mortem examination, the body was handed over to the Petitioner No.1 and after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed Ex.P.7 Charge Sheet as against the driver of the said offending Road Roller for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The death of R.Chowdappa due to the high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the Road Roller No.07110091107 by its driver and succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident and he died in the spot itself, is clearly proved by the Petitioners through oral evidence of P.W.1 and by producing the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The same has not been disputed by the Respondents No.2 and 3, while cross-examining the P.W.1.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 29
16. Under the above facts and circumstances, as well as reasons given, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners have clearly established their specific case by adducing acceptable material evidence that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-29-T-5215 by its driver, who is the Respondent No.1 and in the said road traffic accident, Vinod died due to the injuries sustained. Accordingly, I answered Issue No. 1 in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.3 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, his son R.Chowdappa was just aged about 20 years. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.11 S.S.L.C. Marks Card of deceased R.Chowdappa, wherein, the date of birth of the said deceased is shown as 20.05.1990. The date of accident was 13.12.2009. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, as on the date of accident, deceased R.Chowdappa was aged about 20 years.
18. The P.W.1 has stated that, his son R.Chowdappa was a Civil Engineer by profession. In this regard, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.23 Statement of Marks Cards of R.Chowdappa relating to CE-Civil Engineering (General). It is also clearly mentioned in the above said Police and Medical documents, that, at the time of accident, R.Chowdappa was completed Diploma Civil Engineering Course and he was working as a Civil Engineer. In Ex.P.8 Further Statement, the Respondent No.2 has clearly stated that, deceased R.Chowdappa was working under him as site (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 30 Engineer. From this, it is made crystal clear that, deceased R.Chowdappa was a Civil Engineer by profession at the time of the said accident.
19. The P.W.1 has stated that, his son deceased R.Chowdappa was working under one Sri.J.Ramesh Babu, a Class-I Contractor of Julupalya of Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District and he was getting monthly salary of Rupees 12,000/-. He has further admitted in his cross- examination that, his deceased son Chowdappa was working under contractor J.Ramesh Babu and the said Ramesh Babu used to pay the salary to his son and the said Ramesh Babu is a Class-I Contractor and the Government work was assigned to him. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, his deceased son Chowdappa was working under one Ramesh Babu and the Road Roller involved in the accident belongs to the said Ramesh Babu and the Police have stated that, it belongs to Ramesh Babu. The said Sri.J.Ramesh Babu is a Respondent No.1 in the present case. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte. The P.W.1 in his cross- examination has further stated that, Krishna Reddy, i.e., the Respondent No.2 is an Engineer working under Ramesh Babu and he do not know that, the Respondent No.2 is not a Contractor and the Respondent No.2 is not the lessee under the Respondent No.1 regarding the Road Roller and there is no nexus between the Respondent No.2 and the Road Roller involved in this case and there is no nexus between the Respondent No.2 and the accident relating to this case. He has further stated that, the Respondent No.2 was not paying (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 31 any salary to his deceased son and he has not produced any document to show that, the Respondent No.2 is a lessee under the Respondent No.1 regarding the Road Roller. It is contended by the Respondent No.2 that, he is no way concerned to the Road Roller and the alleged accident and he being the lessee of the Road Roller and he is not a necessary and proper party to the proceedings. But, based on the same, it cannot be said and come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the said deceased R.Chowdappa was working under the Respondent No.1 and not under the Respondent No.2 as except the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioners have not produced any material documentary evidence to show that, deceased R.Chowdappa was working under one Sri.J.Ramesh Babu, a Class-I Contractor of Julupalya of Bagepalli Taluk, Chikkaballapur District, who is the Respondent No.1 and he was getting monthly salary of Rupees 12,000/- from the Respondent No.1. Ex.P.8 Further Statement of the Respondent No.2 clearly disclosed that, he is doing a contract work and the said deceased R.Chowdappa was working as a Site Engineer under him in respect of the formation of the road from Enigedale to Chokkanahalli Cross and on 13.12.2009 at night, he was working and at that time due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of the Road Roller, he dies at the spot due to severe injuries and by producing the documents relating to the said Road Roller to the Police, he took possession of the said Road Roller on 24.12.2009. On perusal of the said statement of the Respondent No.2, it is made crystal clear that, the Respondent No.2 was an owner of the said offending Road Roller and not the Respondent No.1 and the said deceased (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 32 R.Chowdappa was working under the Respondent No.2. More so, the Respondent No.2 has not chosen to step in to the witness box to rebut the contents of Ex.P.8 Further Statement. Therefore, there are no merits in the said contentions taken by the Respondent No.2.
20. No material documents produced by the Petitioners to show that, as on the date of accident, the said deceased was getting monthly salary of Rupees 12,000/-. In the absence of the evidence regarding income of the deceased as on the date of accident and based on the Ex.P.8 Further Statement given by the Respondent in respect of the nature of the job, i.e., Site Engineer, the notional income of the deceased has to be taken at Rupees 10,000/- per month.
21. It is not the case of the Petitioners that, the deceased R.Chowdappa was married. Hence, the said deceased was a bachelor at the time of accident.
22. The P.W.1 has stated that, his son had bright future prospects and would have got more salary in future if he would have alive and his son was the only earning member in their family and they were entirely depending upon the earnings of their late son R.Chowdappa.
As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), having regard to the age of the deceased, 50% of the actual income has to be added towards future prospects. Therefore, by adding Rupees 5,000/- (50% of Rupees 10,000/-), the notional income per month could be Rupees 15,000/- per month.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 33 As per the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 739 (BMTC Central Office V/s B.N.Nagesh and Another), the age of younger parent has to be taken for applying multiplier. As per the decision reported in Reshma Kumari's Case rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the father cannot be considered as dependent of the deceased. The Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of the deceased R.Chowdappa, is a younger parent. The age of the Petitioner No.2 as per Ex.P.5 is 42 years as on 14.12.2009, i.e., as on the date of accident. The corresponding multiplier applicable to the age of the Petitioner No.2 is 14 as per Sarala Varma's Case.
23. The Petitioner No.1, who is a father of the deceased, can not be considered as dependent of the deceased. The Petitioner No.2, who is the mother of the deceased, can be considered as dependent of the deceased. The Petitioner No.3 is a younger sister of the said deceased. It is not the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioner No.3 is married. Therefore, the said deceased R.Chowdappa left behind two dependants. Hence, 50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his personal expenses as per Sarala Varma's Case. Therefore, if out of Rupees 15,000/-, 50% is deducted, the loss of dependency comes to Rupees 7,500/- per month. The loss of dependency comes to Rupees 12,60,000/- (Rupees 7,500/- x 12 x 14). Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for the said sum of Rupees 12,60,000/- towards loss of dependency.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 34
24. The P.W.1 has stated that, they are put to lot of mental agony and untold misery, due to sudden demise of R.Chowdappa. He has further stated that, for transportation of dead body and for funeral obsequies, they spent Rupees 20,000/-. In this regard, except the oral version of the P.W.1, the Petitioners have not produced any documents. But, as per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), loss of love and affection has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses of Rupees 25,000/-. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
25. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the deceased and Rupees 5,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the deceased and Rupees 5,000/- towards loss of estate.
Sl. Compensation heads Compensation
No. amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 34,25,910-00
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00
of dead body
4. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 20,000-00
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 35,95,910-00
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 35
26. In view of the above said reasons, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 13,20,000/-. The Petitioners are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the said amount of compensation from the date of petition till payment.
27. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the Respondent No.2 was an owner of the said offending Road Roller and not the Respondent No.1 and the said deceased R.Chowdappa was working under the Respondent No.2. It is pertinent to note here that, as per the order dated 19.08.2013 passed on I.A.No.II, the name of the Respondent No.3 is deleted from the cause title of the petition as the Petitioners nor the owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., the Respondent No.2, not furnished the insurance policy particulars and details of the insurance policy said to have been issued by the Respondent No.3. Hence, the Respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the said compensation to the Petitioners. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
28. 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 Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 13,20,000/- with interest (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 36 at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of Petitioner till payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation with interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation, the Petitioners No.1 to 3 shall share the same in the ratio of 60:20:20.
Out of the share of each Petitioner, 50% shall be deposited in FD in any nationalized Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the balance shall be released to them, on proper identification.
Advocates fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of November, 2014.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
2. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Gulzar Begum
P.W.2 : Dr. Sandeep Subbaiah
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 37
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Statement of injured
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.7 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.P.9 : True copy of Driving Licence
Ex.P.10 : True copy of Bail Bond
Ex.P.11 : MRD Registration Card (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.12 : OT Pass Card
Ex.P.13 : True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.14 : Discharge Summary (3 in Nos.)
Ex.P.15 : Letter issued by Ashwin Hospital
Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of Ration Card
Ex.P.17 : Scar Reports (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.18 : Medical Prescriptions (48 in Nos.)
Ex.P.19 : Medical Bills (124 in Nos.)
Ex.P.20 : X-ray films (13 in Nos.)
Ex.P.21 : Outpatient Record
Ex.P.22 : Inpatient Records (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.23 : X-ray films (5 in Nos.)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
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.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 38
SCCH-7
AWARD
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.4069/2010
1. Sri. Ramakrishnappa S/o. Goplappa Aged about 50 years
2. Smt. Rathnamma W/o. Ramakrishnappa Aged about 45 years
3. Kum. Nagamani D/o. Ramakrishnppa Aged about 18 years All are residents of No.136, J.K.Layout, Devasandra, K.R.Puram, Bangalore - 560 036 ... PETITIONERS (By Sri.T.V.Ramesh, Adv,.) V/s (SCCH-7) M.V.C. NO.3798/2014 39
1. Sri. Balajigari Ramesh Babu S/o. Rajesh Aged about 35 years Post Box No.301, Lakshmiteja House, Vijyanagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 457.
2. Sri. K.V.Krishna Reddy S/o. Venkatarayappa Aged about 40 years R/o. Near Royal School, Anjani Extension, Chintamani, Chikkaballapur District.
3. The National Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office Subhram Complex, MG Road, Bangalore - 560001. .... RESPONDENTS (R1-Exparte) (R2- By.Sri. K.B.Venkatareddy., Adv.,) (R3- Deleted ) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/s.110-A/166 of the M.V.Act praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/ Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Indira Mailswamy Chettiyar, IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri./Smt. Advocate for respondent.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 40
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 13,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of Petitioner till payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation with interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation, the Petitioners No.1 to 3 shall share the same in the ratio of 60:20:20.
Out of the share of each Petitioner, 50% shall be deposited in FD in any nationalized Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the balance shall be released to them, on proper identification.
Advocates fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 2014
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 41
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on
Petition
Court fee paid on Power
Court fee paid on I.A.,
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by
MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN
AREA: B'LORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 42
Judgment pronounced in open Court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 13,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of Petitioner till payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation with interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation, the Petitioners No.1 to 3 shall share the same in the ratio of 60:20:20.
Out of the share of each Petitioner, 50% shall be deposited in FD in any nationalized Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the balance shall be released to them, on proper identification.
Advocates fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award Accordingly.
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
(SCCH-7) M.V.C.
NO.3798/2014 43