Bangalore District Court
In The Interest Of Justice. Hence vs No.2 on 3 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 3rd day of June, 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.3503/2015
1. Sri. M. Muniraju, ..... PETITIONERS
S/o. Chowdappa,
Aged about 35 years.
2. Smt. Manjula @ Manjulamma,
W/o. M. Muniraju,
Aged about 26 years.
Both are residing at,
No.135B, 1st Ward,
Rajiv Nagar,
Malur Town,
Kolar District.
(By Sri. T. V. Ramesh, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sri. T. Venkatesan, ..... RESPONDENTS
S/o. Thirumalappa,
Major,
R/o. No.6,
17th Cross, 7th Main,
BTM II Stage,
2 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015
(SCCH-7)
Bannerigatta Road,
Bangalore - 76.
2. The United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.18, Krishi Bhavan,
5th Floor,
Opp: Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bangalore - 01.
(R-1 By Sri. R. Lokesh, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. V. R. Muralidhara, Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners No.1 and 2 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 Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest and costs in respect of the death of M. Kavana D/o. M. Muniraju.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
a) On 01.08.2015 at about 8.15 a.m., the deceased Kumari. M. Kavana was going to School from home by walking on Bangalore-Malur Road. On the way, in front of Rajarajeshwari Weigh Bridge, Malur Town, Kolar District, one Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-51-5333 came from Malur side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed violently against 3 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) Kumari. M. Kavana and ran over her by causing crush injuries. Due to impact, Kumari. M. Kavana crushed to death under the wheels of the Bus. This accident occurred due to carelessness, rash and negligent driving of the Bus by its driver.
b) The deceased Kumari. M. Kavana was just aged about 6 years. The deceased was studying at 1st Standard at Government School, Malur Town. The deceased was a bright student and she had a bright educational future prospects. They are put to lot of mental agony and untold misery due to sudden demise of their 1st daughter Kumari. M. Kavana. They have spent Rupees 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and towards funeral obsequies.
c) The Respondent No.1 being R.C. Owner of the Bus and the Respondent No.2 being its insurer, both are jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this petition.
3. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and has filed the written statement.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 25.01.2016 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
4 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7)
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioners, has further contended as follows;
a) The Petitioner has stated that, the deceased was aged 6 years and she is a minor.
b) The Petitioners have stated that, the deceased was not income tax assessee. The notional income may be considered.
c) The driver of the Bus was driving the vehicle with care and caution following the traffic rules on the road with valid driving licence. The vehicle KA-51-5333 was covered with Insurance Policy as on the date of alleged accident on 01.08.2015 and the Insurance Policy was in force between 11.05.2015 to 10.05.2016 and any liability arising out of alleged accident against the third party as per law will be borne by the Insurance Company.
d) In fact, the deceased being aged of 6 years had no knowledge of traffic rules and suddenly run away on the road leaving her group of students, which lead to the accident.
e) The claim of compensation to the tune of demanding Rupees 10,00,000/- for the alleged accident is without any basis and no material documents were produced at the time of filing of the said petition and subsequent material documents should be subjected to the strict proof of evidence. The Petitioners have stated that, Rupees 25,000/- was spent for transport and for funeral obsequies expenses to be proved by way of evidence and 5 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) no material proof is furnished along with the claim petition and the same should be subjected to strict proof of evidence. The claim made for compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- by the Petitioners is highly exaggerated amount without any basis for the same, hence, the claim petition may kindly be rejected as unwarranted without proper material proof and false statement of the Petitioners in the interest of justice. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioners, has further contended as follows;
a) The claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) It has issued a PCV 4 wheeler Exceeding 6 or 3 wheeler Exceeding 17 Package Policy bearing No.0704013115P101448605 in favour of the first Respondent in respect of Private Bus No.KA- 51-5333 and it is valid from 11.05.2015 to 10.05.2015 and their liability, if any, is strictly in terms and conditions, exceptions, limits and endorsement of the policy and subject to compliance of 64 VB of Insurance Act, 1938 and law governing thereto.
c) The first Respondent had been willfully entrusted his vehicle to a person, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same as on the date of the accident. Similarly, the first Respondent has violated the permit conditions and allowed to ply his vehicle on the road without possessing valid 6 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) permit and fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. It is clear breach of terms and conditions of policy and also violation of Section 149(2) of M.V. Act, 1988. Therefore, it is not liable to indemnify the first Respondent/insured in the present case.
d) The Petitioners may be put to strict proof of the fact that, they have not filed any other claim petition before any other Tribunal, Forum or Authorities in respect of the same cause of action.
e) It has reserves its right to file additional statement/counter in the event of changed circumstances and facts of the case.
f) It also reserves its right to contest the said matter on all grounds by filing separate application under Section 170 of M.V. Act, if the insured fails to contest the said matter effectively or were to colluded with the claimants. It seeks the protection to defend the said matter as enunciated under Section 147 and 149 of M.V. Act.
g) The compensation claimed by the Petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and it has no rationale. The Petitioners are not entitled to claim any compensation, much less, claimed Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest. In the event of petition being allowed to any extent, the rate of interest may kindly be restricted to 6% or lowest Bank rates of interest on annual deposits. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
7 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7)
7. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the legal representatives of deceased KUMARI. M. KAVANA?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-51- 5333 by its driver and Kum.
M.Kavana 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?
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.9. On the other hand, the Respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
9. Heard the arguments.
8 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7)
10. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sri. T. V. Ramesh has placed reliance upon the decision reported in, 2013 ACJ 2594 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Kishan Gopal and Another V/s. Lala and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Negligence-Tractor-trolley over turned and a boy traveling in trolley sustained fatal injuries- Police filed charge sheet against the driver and owner of offending vehicle-Father of the deceased deposed that, tractor -trolley was driven in a high speed, rashly and negligently, turned turtle, boy fell down and sustained fatal injuries- Another witness corroborated father's statement and deposed that, tyre of tractor ran over the deceased- Owner and driver were exparte before the Tribunal- Insurance Company has not challenged the evidence of the witness and adduced as evidence in rebuttal-
Tribunal found that, claimants have not succeeded in proving that, deceased died because of falling from tractor-trolley which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver-Tribunal's finding which was affirmed by High Court set aside and held that, deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley.
Quantum-Fatal accident- Deceased boy aged 10 was assisting his father in his agricultural work-Claimant: Father and mother aged 36-Apex Court taking into consideration drastically falling rupee 9 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) value, assessed notional income of the deceased at Rupees 36,000/- per annum adopted multiplier of 15 and allowed Rupees 3,40,000 + Rupees 50,000 under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites total Rupees 5,00,000/-.
11. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 Sri. V. R. Muralidhar has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) (2001) 8 Supreme Court Cases 197 (Lata Wadhwa and Others V/s. State of Bihar and Others), wherein, it is observed that, D) Tort- Compensation -Death of children in accident -For children of 5 to 10 years age of TISCO employees a compensation of 2 lakhs is appropriate-
For children aged 10 to 15 years of TISCO employees having prospect of employment in TISCO, annual contribution of Rupees 24,000/- and multiplier 15 appropriate- Plus conventional sum of Rupees 50,000/- for children of all ages directed.
ii) 2008 ACJ 1405 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Santosh Rani V/s. Ranjit Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-Fatal accident -Deceased boy aged 13, earning Rupees 50 or 10 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) Rupees 60 per day- Claimant mother- No source of income or income of the deceased proved- Tribunal awarded Rupees 50,000/- on account of no fault liability- High Court upheld the award-
Apex Court allowed Rupees 2,50,000/-.
iii) 2009 ACJ 1924 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (R. K. Malik and Another V/s. Kiran Pal and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-Fatal accident -Deceased boys and girls aged between 10 and 18, bright students- Claimants: parents-
Tribunal following Second Schedule assessed notional income at Rupees 15,000/- per annum, dependency at Rupees 10,000/- per annum, adopted multiplier of 16 for age group of 16-15 and multiplier of 16 for age group of 10- 14 and awarded compensation for loss of dependency plus Rupees 5,000/- in each case for funeral expenses and Rupees 1,000/- for loss of books in some cases-
Appellate court further allowed Rupees 75,000/- in each case for loss of expectancy of life, pain and sufferings and Rupees 1,000/- for loss of books wherever it has not been allowed- Apex Court after discussing principles and case law further allowed Rupees 75,000/- in each case as compensation for future prospects of the children (2007 ACJ 2010(Delhi) modified).
12. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
11 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015
(SCCH-7)
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 5,60,000/-
with interest at the rate
of 8% p.a. from the date
of the petition till the date
of payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner No.2 is his wife and the deceased Kumari M. Kavana is his daughter and on 01.03.2015 his daughter was going to school from home, i.e., from Rajiv Nagara, Malur by walking on a footpath on Bangalore-Malur Road and on the way, at about 8.15 a.m., in front of Rajarajeshwari Weigh Bridge, Malur Town, Kolar District, one Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-51-5333 came from Malur side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed violently as against his daughter Kumari M. Kavana and ran over her by causing crush injuries and in the result, his daughter Kumari M. Kavana crushed to death under the wheels of the Bus. He has further stated that, the dead body was taken to the 12 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) Government Hospital, Malur and after post mortem examination, the body was handed over to them by Malur Police. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, he has totally 3 children, namely, Kavana, Thanushree and one year baby, not yet named and the deceased is his first daughter. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.7 Inquest, Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Report and Ex.P.9 Ration Card. On perusal of the contents of the said material documents, it clearly goes to show that, deceased Kumari M. Kavana is a daughter of the Petitioners, i.e., the Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of the said deceased Kumari M. Kavana, who succumbed to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself in a road traffic accident, which was taken place on 01.03.2015 at 8.15 a.m., due to the negligent manner of driving of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 by its driver itself. From the said material evidence, it clearly goes to show that, the Petitioner No.1 being a father and the Petitioner No.2 being a mother are the legal representatives of deceased Kumari M.Kavana. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that, both the Petitioners are dependants upon the said deceased at the time of accident, as, admittedly, the said deceased was a minor of 6 years old and as such, she cannot be considered as an earning member. Therefore, the Petitioners are only considered as the legal representatives of the said deceased Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, on 01.03.2015, his daughter Kumari M. Kavana was going to school 13 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) from home, i.e., from Rajivnagara, Malur, by walking on a footpath on Bangalore-Malur Road and on the way, at about 8.15 a.m., in front of Rajarajeshwari Weigh Bridge, Malur Town, Kolar District, one Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 came from Malur side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed violently as against his daughter and ran over her by causing crush injuries and as a result, his daughter was crushed to death under the wheels of the Bus. He has further stated that, the dead body was taken to the Government Hospital, Malur, wherein, after post mortem examination, the body was handed over to them by Malur Police. He has further stated that, he came to know that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Private Bus by its driver and on the complaint given by his wife, the Malur Police have registered a case as against the driver of the Bus.
15. No doubt, both the Petitioners are not the eye witnesses of the accident in question and they have not examined the eye witness in the present petition to consider their case, which has been narrated by them as against the Respondents. But, it no way affect to consider the case made out by the Petitioners in the present petition as well as the oral version of P.W.1, which has been stated by him in his examination-in-chief, as, to corroborate their case as well as the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Report, which clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased 14 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) Kumari M. Kavana was a minor of 6 years old and was walking on the foot path on 01.03.2015 at 8.15 a.m., on Bangalore-Malur Road, at that time, the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 came with very high speed, rash and negligent manner in front of Rajarajeshwari Weigh Bridge, Malur Town, Kolar District, by its driver and dashed to her and due to the said impact, she had caused crush injuries and the wheel of the said Bus ran over her body and she succumbed to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself and the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the said offending Private Bus and the said offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, which is clear from the following discussion. Furthermore, as the deceased was a minor of 6 years old, there was no negligence on her part in the commission of the said road traffic accident. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, the accidental place was situated ½ km away from his house and at the time of accident, his wife was not present along with the deceased and his deceased daughter was going to school along with other school going children and the accident was taken place on Malur-Hosakote Main Road. Further, the P.W.1 has clearly denied the suggestions put to him by the Respondent No.2 during the course of cross-examination that, the alleged accident was taken place, when his deceased daughter was crossing the road and they negligently allowed their deceased daughter to go to school without any care and there was no elder persons along with her deceased daughter and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Private Bus 15 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) and only to claim compensation, a false criminal case is registered as against the driver of the offending Bus. From this, it appears that, though the P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the Respondent No.2, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to consider its defence. Furthermore, no defence evidence adduced by the Respondents No.1 and 2 to consider their specific defence, which has been taken by them in their written statement. From this, it is clear that, nothing is available on record on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2 to deny or to discard the said case made out by the Petitioners as against them and also the evidence adduced by them to consider and prove their case.
16. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of deceased, has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Malur Police as against the driver of offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 by alleging that, on 01.08.2015 at 8.15 a.m., when her deceased daughter was going to school in front of Rajarajeshwari Weigh Bridge, Malur Main Road, the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 came from Malur side by its driver Afroz Pasha with very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed as against her daughter and due to which, she had sustained injuries to her head and stomach and died on the accidental spot itself and hence, she prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the Private Bus Afroz Pasha and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the said driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC under 16 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) Crime No.222/2015. 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 by the Petitioner No.2 in respect of the said road traffic accident, which caused to her deceased daughter.
17. The contents of Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 MVI Report and Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch further clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333, which dashed to the deceased and ran over on the head and stomach of the deceased and due to which itself, she succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.5 Spot Hand Sketch, it prima- facie appears that, if the driver of the said offending Bus could have taken a little while driving the said Bus at the time of accident, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident as well the valuable life of the said minor deceased.
18. The contents of Ex.P.7 Inquest and Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Report further clearly disclosed that, due to the accidental injuries itself, which caused to the head and stomach, i.e., crush injury, the deceased M. Kavana D/o. M. Muniraju succumbed on the accidental spot itself. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Report that, the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple crush injuries and severe head injuries sustained.
17 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7)
19. The contents of Ex.P.3 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 Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 by its driver Afroz Pasha itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place on 01.08.2015 at 8.15 a.m., which dashed to the deceased Kavana, when she was walking on the left side of foot path of Malur-Bangalore Main Road in front of Rajarajeshwari Weigh Bridge and the wheel of the said Bus ran over on the said deceased and due to which, she crushed and died 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 offending Private Bus for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
20. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, there was no negligence on the part of the deceased M. Kavana D/o. M. Muniraju in the commission of the said road traffic accident, but, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 and the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident and due to which, she had sustained grievous injuries and died on the accidental spot itself. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
18 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7)
21. ISSUE NO.3 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, his daughter Kumari M. Kavana was just aged about 6 years and she was studying in first Standard at Government School, Malur Town. The Petitioners have not produced any authenticate documents to consider the actual age and status of deceased at the time of accident. But, the copy of Admission Extract of deceased is available on record, which disclosed that, her date of birth is 16.01.2010. The date of accident is on 01.03.2015. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased M. Kavana D/o. M. Muniraju was 6 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 6 years at the time of accident. It is also clear from the contents of the said copy of Admission Extract that, at the time of accident, the deceased was studying in first Standard. Based on the same, it can be safely held that, at the time of accident, the deceased was a minor student.
22. The P.W.1 has stated that, his daughter was a bright student and she had bright educational future prospects and they are put to lot of mental agony and untold misery due to sudden demise of their first daughter Kumari M. Kavana.
23. While answering Issue No.1 this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased M. Kavana D/o. M. Muniraju. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-
19 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7) 52-5333 and the said offending Private Bus as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, which caused accident to the said M. Kavana D/o. M. Muniraju, who succumbed to the accidental injuries on accidental spot itself. The Petitioners being the parents of the said deceased have lost their beloved minor daughter of 6 years old in the said road traffic accident, without any fault. Hence, the Petitioners being the legal representatives of the said deceased are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
24. Admittedly, the deceased was a minor at the time of accident and as such, she was a non-earning member. No doubt, as per the II Schedule, the income of the non-earning member has to be considered at Rupees 15,000/- per annum and the applicable multiplier is 15 for the age group up to 15 years. But, as per the decision reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 (Kishan Gopal and Another V/s. Lala and Others), which is also reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5037, it is held that, since the amount fixed for notional income under Schedule II at Rupees 15,000/- in the year 1994, it is just and reasonable to take the notional income of the deceased, who was between the age group of 10 to 15 years at Rupees 30,000/- p.a. and taking the young age of the parents, at the time of accident, multiplier of 15 can be applied to the multiplicand, by applying legal principles laid down in Sarala Verma Case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. Furthermore, the deceased is an elder minor daughter of the Petitioners and the Petitioners had only two daughters including the deceased and they have no male children, which is clear from 20 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) the contents of Ex.P.9 Ration Card. Hence, the said principles are aptly applicable to the present case.
25. In view of the said reasons, it would be just and reasonable to take the notional income of the deceased at Rupees 30,000/- p.a. Ex.P.9 Ration Card produced by the Petitioners disclosed that, as on 11.11.2011, the age of the Petitioner No.1, who is a father of the deceased, is shown as 26 years and the age of the Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of the deceased, is shown as 24 years. The date of accident is on 01.08.2015. On perusal of the said materials, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of the deceased, is a younger parent of the deceased. By considering the said dates, it further appears that, at the time of accident, the age of the younger parent, i.e., mother, who is the Petitioner No.2, is 27 years. Hence, the multiplier of 17 can be applied to the multiplicand as per the decision Sarala Verma's Case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, which comes to Rupees 5,10,000/- (Rupees 30,000 X 17 ). Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,10,000/- as compensation towards death of M. Kavana D/o. M.Muniraju, who is a minor, in the road traffic accident.
26. The P.W.1 has stated that, they have spent Rupees 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and towards funeral obsequies.
27. As per the principles laid down in the above said decision reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 (Kishan 21 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) Gopal and Another V/s. Lala and Others) and as per the principles enunciated in the decision reported in (1994) 2 SCC 176 (General Manger, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Susamma Thomas), Rupees 50,000/- is awarded under conventional heads towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 50,000/- towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses and last rites.
28. The said awarded amount of compensation of Rupees 5,10,000/- and Rupees 50,000/-, in total, Rupees 5,60,000/- is fair, just and reasonable compensation, which has to be awarded in favour of the Petitioners with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 5,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
29. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that, the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, Kumari M. Kavana D/o. Muniraju, succumbed to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself. The Respondent No.1 in its written statement has clearly stated that, the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 was covered with Insurance Policy as on the date of alleged accident on 01.08.2015 and the Insurance Policy was in force between 11.5.2015 to 10.05.2016 and any liability arising 22 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) out of alleged accident against the third party as per law will be borne by the Insurance Company. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement has stated that, it has issued a PCV-4 Wheeler Exceeding 6 or 3 wheeler Exceeding 17 Package Policy bearing No.0704013115P101448605 in favour of the Respondent No.1 in respect of the Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 and it is valid from 11.05.2015 to 10.05.2016 and their liability if any, is strictly in terms and conditions, exceptions, limits and endorsement of the policy and subject to compliance of 64 VB of Insurance Act, 1938 and law governing there to. From the said material evidence, which is available on record, it is clearly goes to show that, the Respondent No.1 was a Registered Owner and the Respondent No.2 was an insurer of the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet as against the driver of the offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333 that, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Private Bus at the time of accident. The violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.1 is not proved by the Respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being the R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 being an Insurer of the said offending Private Bus bearing Registration No.KA-52-5333, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. Since, the Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.1. In view of the above said reasons, the principles 23 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015 (SCCH-7) 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. On the other hand, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
30. 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 compensation of Rupees 5,60,000/-
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
24 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7) The Petitioners No.1 and 2 shall share the compensation amount in the ratio of 30:70.
\ In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, entire share relating to the Petitioner No.1 and 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be released in their favour respectively, through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's 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 3rd day of June, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
25 M.V.C.NO.3503/2015(SCCH-7) ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri. M. Muniraju
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
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 MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.7 : True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.8 : true copy of Postmortem Report
Ex.P.9 : Notarized Xerox copy of Ration Card
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.