Bangalore District Court
In 1. Smt.Kemparajamma vs Smt.K.R.Raghavi on 31 January, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 31st DAY OF JANUARY, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C NO.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
PETITIONERS IN 1. Smt.Kemparajamma,
MVC:6198/2010 W/o.Late Javaregowda,
Aged about 65 years.
2. Kum.M.G.Sushma,
D/o.Late Gopalakrishna,
Aged about 15 years,
3. Kum.M.G.Reshma,
D/o.Late Gopalakrishna,
Aged about 13 years,
4. Sri.M.G.Arun,
S/o.Late Gopalakrishna,
Aged about 11 years
Since 2 to 4 minors, they are
represented by their grand
mother,
1st petitioner and all are originally
R/o. Madapura Village,
Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk,
Mandya District.
All are presently residents of
No.197, 1st 'A' Cross,
Anubhavanagar,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Bangalore City -72.
(By pleader - Sri.Shiva
Murthy)
Scch - 11 2 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
PETITIONERS IN 1. Sri.M.T.Jayaramu,
MVC:6210/2010 S/o.Late Thimmegowda,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Smt.M.J.Latha,
W/o.M.T.Jayaramu,
Aged about 42 years,
3. Kum.M.J.Pavithra,
D/o.M.T.Jayaramu,
Aged about 20 years,
4. Sri.M.J.Kiran,
S/o.M.T.Jayaramu,
Aged about 19 years,
All are residents of No.197,
1st 'A' Cross, Anubhavanagar,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Bangalore City - 72.
(By pleader - Sri.Shiva Murthy)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt.K.R.Raghavi,
W/o.K.S.Raghu, Major,
R/o.No.4, SSS Building,
A.V.Road, 1st Main,
Chamarajapete,
BANGALORE - 18.
(Ex-parte)
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance,
Insurance Company Limited,
Sundaram Towers, Whiter Road,
CHENNAI - 14 (Tamil Nadu State)
(By pleader Sri.V.Shri Hari Naidu)
*********
Scch - 11 3 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions under section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation for the death of deceased Gopalakrishna and Chaitra in Road Traffic Accident.
2) It is averred in the petition that, on 12.08.2010, the deceased Gopalakrishna was going to attend the marriage of his native village Madapura, Kikkeri hobli, Mandya District, along with his wife Sujatha and one Chaitra Motor cycle bearing No.KA-54-E-5222. When they were going towards destination at about 2-30 p.m., near M. Hosur Gate, Sravanabelagola Road, deceased Gopalakrishna stopped the Motor cycle on the left side foot path of the road and when they were standing near foot path by parking the Motor bike, one tanker Lorry bearing No.KA-01-B-9666 came from Sravanabelagola side being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Gopalakrishna, his wife and Chaitra. As a result of the said accident, the Gopalakrishna died on the spot and Sujatha who sustained grievous injuries also succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The Chaitra was taken to the hospital and she also succumbed to the injures. The dead body of deceased Gopalakrishna and Sujatha were taken to Hirisave Primary Centre for post mortem in a hired vehicle and after post mortem, the dead bodies were taken to their native Scch - 11 4 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 place and all his last religious rites were conducted as per the tradition. The deceased Copalakrishna was main earning member in the family and petitioner No.1 is the widow mother of deceased and other petitioners are minor children. Prior to the accident, the deceased Gopalakrishna was very much hale and healthy and he was engaged in contract work (P.W.D road and irrigation and house construction) and he was having class-2 contract licence. The deceased was the main bread earner in the family and he has spending substantial portion of his earnings for the welfare and wellbeing of the petitioners. The deceased was shouldered with the responsibility to manage the entire affairs of the family and to look after the welfare and wellbeing of the petitioners. The deceased was active and prudent person in all the activities and very well educated and to ensure good employment for their life security. The deceased was very much intended to make petitioner No.2 to 4 well educated to ensure good employment for their life security. The petitioners are also expected a lot from the deceased. The deceased was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month from all sources and managing the entire affairs of the family and welfare of petitioners. The deceased was the main earning member in the family and petitioner were entirely depending upon the earnings of the deceased for their day to day life and lead normal life. The accident taken place due to sole negligence of driver of Tanker lorry owned by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the insurer of Scch - 11 5 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 the said vehicle. Hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.
3) Deceased Chaithra was taken to Bangalore B.G.S.Global Hospital in a hired ambulance vehicle and admitted in the hospital. Due to the accidental injuries amongst other grievous injuries, her liver was badly damaged and both kidneys were failed. Five surgical operations were conducted to save the injured and even dialysis was carried on repeatedly. In spite of surgical operations and intensive treatment for 15 days as inpatient, unfortunately injured Chaithra succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Though life saving major operations were conducted and intensive treatment was given, the injured could not be saved. Parents of deceased spent huge money to the extent of more than Rs.8,00,000/- towards treatment expenses by collecting huge debts. After the demise and post mortem, dead body of Chaithra was taken to her native village in a hired vehicle and all her last religious rites were conducted as per the tradition and deceased Chaitra was the eldest daughter of petitioner No.1 and 2, petitioner No.3 is the younger sister and petitioner No.4 is the younger brother of the deceased. The petitioner No.1 has sustained complete paralysis to his right hand, body and leg and even could not sign. Prior to the accident, deceased was very much hale and healthy and she had Scch - 11 6 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 completed Engineering in Management Quota four months back and working in Private Sector Company and earning Rs.25,000/- per month. The parents has spent huge money in educating the deceased with a fond hope of getting looked after their welfare and well being through her earnings. Deceased was shouldered with responsibility to manage the entire affairs of the family and to look after the welfare of the petitioners. Deceased was bright in studies and very much intended to become good professional in her employment and to establish her own company. The petitioners are expected a lot from the deceased and deceased was earning more than Rs.25,000/- per month from the employment and she was managing the entire affairs of the family and welfare of the petitioners. The deceased was the only earning member in the petitioner's family and all the petitioners were depending on earning of the deceased for their day to day life to lead normal life. Due to the sudden demise of deceased, the petitioners have lost valuable person's love and affection and care. The Bright future prospectus of all the petitioners become standstill and virtually destroyed. The petitioners are now left uncared for by anyone and have virtually become destitute and their future prospectus are at stake. The petitioners are facing severe problems in leading day to day life and they have lost love and affection towards the deceased Chaitra. Accident occurred due to sole negligent driving of the driver by the Tanker Lorry of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the Scch - 11 7 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 insurer and both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as claimed by petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- along with interest at 18% per annum.
4) The respondent No.2 has filed written statement and denied the contents of the petition and petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the case and rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-54-E-5222 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the same on the date of accident. The Owner and insurer of Tanker lorry bearing Regn.No.KA- 01-B-9666 are not the necessary and proper parties for the adjudication of the claim petition and the owner of the motor cycle intentionally entrusted 3 persons to travel on the motor cycle on highway road knowing fully well that the seating capacity of the motor cycle is only 2. In the inquest report and charge sheet and other police documents clearly reflects that, at the time of accident, there were 3 members traveling on the motor cycle on highway road. The rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-54-E-5222 was ridden the same on highway road in rash and negligent manner along with pillion riders and in the process of over taking the other vehicles, he lost control over the vehicle and immediately stopped the vehicle on the middle of the road and there by caused the accident. The jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet against driver of the Tanker lorry bearing Scch - 11 8 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 Regn.No.KA-01-B-9666 which was driven by its driver slowly, cautiously and on the correct side of the road. It is abundantly clear from the sequence of events that the claimants have colluded with the jurisdictional police in foisting false case against the said driver of the Tanker Lorry only with a view to fasten the liability against the respondent No.2 by taking advantage of the policy of insurance. The Respondent No.2 admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Tanker lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-9666 and was valid for the period from 10.03.2010 to 09.03.2011. But the liability of the respondent No.2 is subject to the terms and limitations and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.1 has to prove that vehicular documents like RC, FC, permit in respect of Tanker Lorry were valid and current on the date of the accident and person who was driving the said vehicle had a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 seeks protection under section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicle Act. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motor cycle along with 2 pillion rider which is cleared out from the police records. Compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and the same is against the principle of computation of damages. If the respondent No.1 fails to contest the claim petition effectively, then respondent No.2 may be permitted to contest the petition under section 170 Motor Vehicle Act on all grounds available to Scch - 11 9 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 the respondent No.1. In case petitioners are entitled for any compensation, then the interest on such compensation shall be 6% per annum in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs.
Scch - 11 10 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
5) From the pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES IN 6198/2010
1) Whether the petitioners prove that on 12.08.2010 to
2.30 p.m., near M.Hosur Gate, Shravana-Belagola Road, Channarayapatna Taluk, the driver of Tanker Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-9666, drove the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed Gopalakrishna and causing him grievous injuries and later he succumbed to the said injuries?
2) Whether the petitioners are the dependants of the deceased Gopalakrishna ?
Whether the petitioners are entitled to for
3) compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4) What Order or award?
ISSUES IN 6210/2010
1) Whether petitioners prove that on 12.8.2010 at 2.30
p.m., near M.Hosur Gate, Shravanabelagola road, Channarayapatna Taluk, the driver of Tanker Lorry, bearing Regn.No.No.KA-01-B-9666, drove the same in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed M.J.Chaitra causing her grievous injuries and later she succumbed to the said injuries?
2) Whether the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased Chaitra?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
4) What Order and award?
Scch - 11 11 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
6) These petitions MVC No.6198/2010, 6210/2010 and
6199/2010 are clubbed together by recording common evidence as they are arise out of same accident. Petitioner in MVC No.6198/2010 and petitioner No.1 in MVC No.6199/2010 and petitioner No.2 in MVC No.6210/2010 themselves got examined as PW.1 in their respective cases and also examined PW.2 in MVC No.6198/2010. PW.1 in MVC No.6198/2010 got marked Ex.P.1 to 15, in MVC No.6210/2010 got marked Ex.P.1 to 11 and in MVC No.6199/2010 got marked Ex.P.1 to 7. Executive (Legal) of respondent No.2 got examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 6 and closed the evidence. The witness by name Lokesh and Rajamma are examined as PW.3 and 4 and closed the evidence.
7) Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both parties and perused the evidence on record.
8) My answers to the above issues in 6198/2010 as under:
Issue No.1 : Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Affirmative;
Issue No.3 : Partly Affirmative; the petitioners are
entitled to compensation of
Rs.6,88,000/- with simple interest @ of
6% p.a. from the date of petition till
complete realisation, from respondent
No.2.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
My answers to the above issues in 6210/2010 as under:
Scch - 11 12 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
Issue No.1 : Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : Affirmative;
Issue No.3 : Partly Affirmative; the petitioners are
entitled to compensation of
Rs.15,36,000/- with simple interest @
of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till
complete realisation, from respondent
No.2.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9) ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH CASES: PW.1 in MVC
No.6198/2010 and 6210/2010 have stated in their evidence that, on 12.8.2010 when deceased Gopalakrishna, Chaitra and Sujatha were returning from Hirisave village and when they stopped the vehicle on the left side of the road and were taking with each other on the foot path, at that time, lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-9666 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bike. In the said accident, Gopalakrishna and Sujatha died on the spot and Chaitra died in the hospital. They have also stated that, accident taken place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Tanker Lorry. PW.3 has also stated in her evidence that, on 12.8.2010 at about 2 p.m. when he was standing at M.Hosur Gate at Shravanabelagola road, at that time, Gopalakrishna, Sujatha and another girl came on motor cycle bearing No.KA-54-E-5222 and stopped said vehicle besides the road and were talking with each other, at that time, the driver of Tanker lorry bearing No.KA-01-B-9666 driven the said vehicle in rash Scch - 11 13 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle and Sujatha and Gopalakrishna died on the spot.
10) My predecessor in office allowed the petition in MVC No.6198/2010 and 6210/2010 and dismissed MVC No.6199/2010 and award passed in MVC No.6198/2010 and 6210/2010 were challenged before Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.1827/2012 and 1678/2012. The insurance company taken contention before Hon'ble High court that, the tribunal has failed to notice that, 3 victims of the accident by name Gopalakrishna, Sujatha wife of Gopalakrishna and Chaitra were traveling on a single motor cycle and in order to over take the other vehicles, the rider of the motor bike lost control over the motor cycle and it stopped in the middle of the road leading to the said accident. He has also submitted before Hon'ble High Court that, the tribunal would not have allowed MVC 6198/2010 and 6210/2010 for violation of section 128 of Motor Vehicle Act r/w. Rule 123 of Central Motor Cycle Rules and violation of sections 146 and 147 of Motor Vehicle Act. The learned counsel for claimants submitted before Hon'ble High Court that, claimants are ready to lead additional evidence in support of their contentions that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and considering this fact that, the claimants not examined eyewitness to the incident and the contention raised by the insurance company about the liability is both a mixed question of fact and law, Hon'ble High court has set aside the Scch - 11 14 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 judgment and award and remanded the matter with direction to dispose the petition after affording reasonable opportunity to the claimants of both cases to adduce further evidence in their respective cases, if they file application seeking permission to lead further additional evidence and there after insurance company shall be permitted to adduce rebuttable evidence and opportunity to both the parties in both the case to address their respective arguments, the claim petition shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Now the question arises for my consideration, whether is there contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle and whether insurance company is liable to pay compensation?
11) PW.3 and 4 have stated in her evidence that, on 12.8.2010 at about 2 p.m., when they were near M.Hosur Gate, at that time, 3 persons came on Hero Honda bike and they stopped the motor cycle, Gopalakrishna had gone to nature call and returned back, at that time, his wife Sujatha and one girl by name chaitra were talking with each other and they came to send Chaitra to Bangalore and waiting for the bus. Chief examination portion of PW.3 is as under
" ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.8.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃmï §½ ( ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉƼÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ ) EzÁÝUÀ PÉ JA Scch - 11 15 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 54 E 5222 £ÀA§gï »ÃgÉÆúÉÆAqÀ ¨ÉÊPï£À°è JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃmïUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀÅmï¨Ávï ©lÄÖ DZÉUÉ UÁrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹zÀÝgÀÄ. "
In the further chief examination, PW.3 has stated as under
"¸ÀzÀj ZÉÊvÀægÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß C°èAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆqÀ®Ä §¸ï£ÀÄß PÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ " . PW.4 has also repeated the similar works in her chief examination. On perusal of evidence of PW.1, she is not the eyewitness to the incident. In the cross-examination, she has stated as under " £Á£ÀÄ C¥À¥sÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀævÀåPÀëªÁV £ÉÆÃr®è " and her evidence has no relevance to decide the rash and negligent act. The PW.3 has stated in his chief examination that, on 12.8.2010 at about 2 p.m., when he was near M.Hosur Gate of Shravanabelagula road, at that time, 3 persons by name Gopalakrishna, Sujatha and one girl came on Hero Honda bike and were talking with each other, at that time, the driver of Tanker Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-01-B-9666 driven the said vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the bike. The chief examination portion of PW.3 is as under
Scch - 11 16 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 "¢£ÁAPÀ 12.8.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉƼÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃmï §½ PÉ JA 54 E 5222 gÀ°è UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ , ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉtÄÚ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄÄ »gÉÆúÉÆÃAqÀ ¨ÉÊQ£À°è §AzÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ zÀqÀzÀ°è ¨ÉÊPÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ JzÀÄgÀÄ PÀqɬÄAzÀ mÁåAPÀgï ¯Áj £ÀA.PÉJ.54.©.9666 C£ÀÄß CzÀgÀ ZÀÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ CwêÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÀÁ®£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ zÀqÀzÀ°è ¤AwzÀÝ EªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÊQUÉ UÀÄ ¢Ý¹ C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. "
In the cross-examination, he has admitted that, there is no bus stand at the place of accident. The cross-examination portion is as under " C¥À¥sÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¸ÀÄvÀÛªÀÄÄvÀÛzÀ ºÀwÛgÀzÀ°è §¸ï¸ÁÖ¥ï EgÀ°®è ". On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to 4 and the police documents, it is clear that, on the date of alleged accident, the deceased Gopalakrishan and his wife Sujatha and one Chaitra came on the motor cycle bearing Regn.No .KA-54-E-5222. In the cross-examination of PW.3, he denied the suggestions of learned Scch - 11 17 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 counsel for insurance company that, in the charge sheet, witness column his name is not cited as witness. In the further cross- examination, it is suggested by learned counsel for respondent No.2 which is as under " £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ C¥À¥sÁvÀ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ d£À EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. gÁdªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ EzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj " . He has stated in his cross-examination that, one Narayana, Manjula and Rajamma were given statement before police and they were also standing with him in the bus stand. But there is not bus stand at all as per the hand sketch map and this fact also admitted by PW.3 in his cross-examination. The PW.34has also admitted that, there is no bus stop in the place of accident. He has admitted the contents of Ex.P.13 is correct. Ex.P.13 is hand sketch map drawn by police at the place of accident. In the further cross-examination of PW.3 he has admitted as under
"¤¦ 13 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ §®¨sÁUÀzÀ°è £ÀAeÉêÀÄjUËqÀgÀ UÀzÉÝ dUÀ£ÁßxÀgÀªÀgÀ UÀzÉÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÉgÉ CAvÀ EzÀÄÝ ¤¦ 13 gÀ°è §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝt«zÀÝ §UÉÎ J®Æè £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ DV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj"
He has also admitted in his cross-examination that, police investigated and filed charge sheet. Even he has further stated in his Scch - 11 18 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 cross-examination that, police have recorded statement at the place of accident only. The cross-examination portion is as under
" ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÁ JAzÀgÉ C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è §gÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ" On perusal of evidence of PW.3 it discloses that, there is upward and downward at the place of accident and 3 persons came on motor cycle from Hiresave village and they were not wearing helmet. The cross-examination portion is as under
" »gÉøÁªÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀ¯ï£À°è §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj , C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ E½eÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ KjPÉ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . D ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ªÉÃUÀªÁV ªÁºÀ£À Nr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÉ ºÉ¯Éämï ºÁQgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj".
The PW.4 admitted in the cross-examination that, at the time of drawing the hand sketch, she was present and Ex.P.5 is correct. The cross-examination portion is as under "¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ ¤¦ 13gÀ ¸ÀܼÀ £ÀPÁ±ÀÉ §gÉzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ C°èAiÉÄà EzÉÝ£ÀÄ . ¤¦ 13 ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d." She has admitted in the cross-examination that, there is land of Marigowda and Jaganath at the place of accident and police have shown their land at the distance of Scch - 11 19 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 150 feet and they have not shown her land in the hand sketch map. The cross-examination portion is as under
" C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÄjÃUËqÀgÀ ºÉÆ® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dUÀ£ÁßxÀgÀ UÀzÉÝ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . ªÀÄjÃUËqÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ dUÀ£ÁßxÀgÀªÀgÀ UÀzÉÝ gÀ¸Éì¬ÄAzÀ 150 Cr zÀÆgÀzÀ°èzÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÀÄ §gÉ¢zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . ¤¦ 13gÀ°è ¥ÀÉÆð¸ÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä UÀzÉÝ §UÉÎ §gÉ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ¢QÌUÉ PÉgÉ EzÉ JAzÀÄ §gÉ¢zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj DzÀgÉ C°è MAzÀÄ ¸ÀtÚ PÀmÉÖ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ " .
Even she has also admitted in her cross-examination that there is no bus stand at the place of accident and it is not shown in Ex.P.13.
The cross-examination portion is as under
" §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtªÀÅ ¤¦ 13 gÀ°è E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj . DzÀgÉ CzÀÄ ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃmï ºÀwÛgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝt EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è C°èAzÀ 20 «ÄÃlgï zÀÆgÀzÀ°èzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj "
12) Now it is just and proper to go through the contents of Ex.P.1, which is charge sheet in which it is summarised in the charge sheet as under-
Scch - 11 20 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
" ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.8.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß
2.00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉƼÀ oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ ¢ÝUÉ ¸ÀÃjzÀ »j¸ÁªÉ ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉÄÁ¼À gÀ¸ÉÛ JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃmï ºÀwÛgÀ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw CtÚ UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÀÉAqÀw ¸ÀÄeÁvÀgÀªÀgÀÄ »j¸ÁªÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÀÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀÄÄj¹ ªÁ¥À¸ï HjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀÄ KA-54-E-5222 gÀ ¨ÉÊQ£À°è vÀ£Àß ºÉAqÀw ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀgÀªÀgÀ CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÉÊvÀæ JA§ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÀƼÀzÀ PÀqÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¨ÉÊQ£À°è gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ§¢AiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ PÁ®A £ÀA 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉƼÀzÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ »j¸ÁªÉ PÀqÉUÉ KA-01-B-9666 mÁåAPÀgï ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CwªÉÃUÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚgÀªÀgÀÄ ZÁ®£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ KA-54-E-5222 gÀ ¨ÉÊQUÉ rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ ¨ÉÊPÀi ZÁ®PÀ UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉÊQ£À°è PÀĽwzÀÝ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ, ZÀÉÊvÀæ ªÀÄƪÀgÀÆ ¨ÉÊQ¤AzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛUÉ ©zÁÝUÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀjUÀÆ vÀ¯ÉUÀÉ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ wêÀæ gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ, ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°èAiÀÉÄà ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ ZÉÊvÀæ JA§ Scch - 11 21 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ wêÀæ gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼ÁV ºÉaÑ£À aQvÉìUÁV ZÀÉÊvÀæ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ © f J¸ï D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ¸ÀÃj¹zÀÄÝ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ¢ £ÁAPÀ 27.8.2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀV£À eÁªÀ ZÀÉÊvÀæ JA§ ºÀÄqÀÄV ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ¼É ºÁUÀÆ F C¥À¥sÁvÀzÀ°è DgÉÆæUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ wêÀæ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ".
13) The petitioners have produced Ex.P.13 which is the hand sketch map of the place of the accident and as per the said document, the place of accident is near Puttammanakatte Tank at M.Hosure gate on the way to Shravanabelagola from Hirisave road and the road is 18 feet at the place of accident and there are white stripes in the middle of the road and said road is North South and there is foot path towards East West to the extent of 2 feet. The description of the place of accident is shown in the mahazar which is as under
" PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ JA,ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ £ÀAdªÀÄjUËqÀgÀ gÁV ºÉÆ® CzÀgÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ EAzÀæ£ÀºÀ½î PÉÆ¥Àà®Ä dUÀ£ÁßxÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀ©â£À UÀzÉÝ .
¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ »j¸Á« ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉƼÀ mÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ . CzÀgÀ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¨ÉÆÃgïªÉ¯ï zÀQëtPÉÌ JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ Scch - 11 22 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¥ÀÅlÖªÀÄä£À PÀmÉÖ JA§ PÉgÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ".
14) The petitioners have produced Ex.P.13 which is very important document which discloses the position at the place of accident after happening of the accident. On perusal of the handsketch map, the Hiresave and Shravanabelagola road at 8 feet in width and there is 8 feet foot path towards west and 8 feet foot path towards east and there are white stripes in the centre of the road. The front portion of the lorry headed towards tar road and back portion of the lorry is towards East and Hero Honda fashion motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-54-E-5222 is found besides the lorry. There is land of Jaganath of Indranahalli and land of Nanjamari Gowda of M.Hosur village towards East of place of accident and there is also KMF Dairy on M.Hosur village at distance of 100 feet from the accident. On perusal of the hand sketch map, there is no bus stand and this fact is admitted by PW.3 and 4 in their cross-examination. In the complaint it is stated that, the complainant enquired about the accident to the persons who gathered there and they stated that, when the rider was coming by riding motor cycle, at that time, the lorry came and dashed to them and accident taken place. The contents of the complaint to that effect are as under
Scch - 11 23 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 " DUÀ C°è £ÉgÉ¢zÀݪÀgÀ£ÀÄß EzÀÄ ºÉÃUÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉüÀ¯ÁV £ÀªÀÄä ¨sÁªÀ ¨ÉÊPÀ£ÀÄß »j¸ÁªÉ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¤zsÁ£ÀªÁV JqÀ§ ¢AiÀÄ°è ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÉÃn£À §½ ±ÀæªÀt¨É¼ÀUÉƼÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÉJ.01.©.9666 ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CzÀgÀ ZÁ®PÀ CwªÉÃUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ Nr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ JqÀ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ £À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ ¨ÉÊPÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ ¯Áj UÀÄ¢ÝvÀÄ DUÀ £À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw ªÀÄÊvÀ¥ÀlÖgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ZÉÊvÀæ½UÉ ¥ÉmÁÖ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ C°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ JA.ºÉƸÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÁdªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ZÀAzÀÉæÃUËqÀ ºÁUÀÆ dÄlÖ£ÀºÀ½î ¨ÁgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¢Ã¥ÀÅ, §mÉÖ ªÁå¥ÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ZÀAzÀÄæ, ®ÉÆÃPÉñï gÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄ¢AzÀ »j¸ÁªÉ ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVzÀÄÝ.
UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀʵÀÚ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÈvÀzÉúÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÉmÁÖVzÀÝ ZÉÊvÀæ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzɪÀÅ. " Scch - 11 24 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
15) The version of PW.3 and 4 and contents of complaint and charge sheet are totally contrary with each other. Because as per the evidence of PW.3 and 4, deceased Gopalkrishna stopped his motor cycle bike and went for nature call and when he returned, at that time, Sujath and Chaitra were talking with each other, the lorry came and dashed to them.
16) The learned counsel for petitioner relied upon decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in (2011 Kant M.A.C. 116 (Kant), Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Sunanda and others).
He has also relied upon one more decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court (2014(2) Civil LJ 316, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt.Mamta Devi and others) wherein it is held as under
" Motor Vehicles Act. 1988, Section 173 and 168 - Appeal against award passed by Tribunal- Deceased traveling on a motor cycle as one of two pillion riders - Accident of motor cycle with a tanker - rash and negligent driving of tanker stated by the remaining pillion rider - No evidence indicating the driver of motor cycle to be negligent - mere riding by more than one pillion rider not enough to show the deceased to have contributed to accident - quantum of compensation also based on Income-Tax returns - Therefore, no interference was made and appeal dismissed".
He has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, (2014 ACJ 1762, Karnail Singh and others vs. Balwinder Singh and another) where it is held as under -
Scch - 11 25 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 " Negligence - Contributory negligence - Triple riding - Hitting from behind - Car dashed against a motor cycle from behind resulting in injuries to motor cyclist and two pillion riders - Tribunal found that motor cyclist and pillion riders were guilty of contributory negligence as three persons were riding on a motor cycle and held that claimants were entitled to 50% of compensation awarded - Whether riding a motor cycle with two pillion riders tantamount to contributory negligence on the part of motor cyclist and pillion riders - Held: no; three persons traveling on a motor cycle may be guilty of traffic offence but there is not reasons to make any inference regarding negligence as contributory by the only fact that three persons were going on a motor cycle".
He has also relied upon one more decision of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakula (2014 ACJ 1678 (Binoj Antony Vs. New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,) wherein it is held as under -
" Negligence - contributory negligence - Triple riding - Collision between a lorry and motor cycle resulting in injuries to motorcyclist - Tribunal held that motor cyclist was guilty of contributory negligence as three persons were riding the motor cycle - scene mahazar shows that motor cycle was on the correct side of the road whereas the lorry was on the wrong side of the road - whether riding a motor cycle with two pillion riders tantamounts to contributory negligence on the part of motor cyclist - Held: no; mere fact that motor cycle was carrying two pillion riders cannot ipso facto give rise to an inference of contributory negligence unless it is proved that such carrying of two pillion riders actually contributed to the accident; lorry driver was solely responsible for the accident ".
Scch - 11 26 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
17) On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 and documentary evidence on record, they reveal that, the deceased Gopalkrishna, his wife Sujatha and Chaitra were proceeding on the motor cycle and lorry came from opposite direction and dashed to them, by which Sujatha and Gopalkrishna died on the spot and Chaitra succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Though, PW.3 and 4 are examined by the petitioners after remand of this matter by the Hon'ble High Court, their evidence reveals that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Because they were proceeding on the motor cycle and as per the charge sheet and enclosure. Complaint has been filed stating that, the accident taken place when the deceased were proceeding on the motor cycle. Even the evidence of PW.1 and 2 are different from the evidence of PW.3 and 4. Because PW.3 and 4 have stated that, 2 wheeler vehicle was stopped and deceased Gopalakrishna has gone to nature call and Gopalakrishna and his wife came to send Chaitra to Bangalore in the bus. But this fact has no way disclosed either in the complaint or in any other police documents. Even it is no way disclosed that, deceased Gopalakrishna had gone to nature call by stopping vehicle on the foot path. This goes to show that, PW.3 and 4 have given improved evidence. Even riding the motor cycle along with 2 pillion riders is also reason for the contribution to the rash and negligent driving. Because in decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in 2005 Scch - 11 27 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 ACJ 1359 (P.S.Somaiah and another Vs. Director, Bangalroe Dairy and others) where it is held as under
" Negligence - Contributory negligence - Accident while overtaking - Motor cyclist with 3 grown up children riding on the pillion while overtaking a milk tanker went to the wrong side of his road and collided with a van coming from opposite direction resulting in injuries to all of them and two children succumbed to their injuries - Head of one child was crushed by milk tanker which was closely behind the motor cycle and there was hardly enough time for the driver of tanker to stop his vehicle - Evidence that point of impact was wrong side of the road for the motor cyclist and police filed charge sheet against him
- Tribunal held that all the three drivers were negligent and their respective blame worthiness being 60:25:15 for the motor cyclist and the two other drivers - Tribunal's finding upheld in appeal in the absence of any cross - appeal.
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, section 128 - Safely measures for drivers and pillion riders of two wheelers - overloading - More than one persons on the pillion or number of children loaded on two wheelers whether in front or in the arms as a result of which provisions of safety are breached and disregarded with total callousness - Sometimes grown-up children are made to sit or stand in front of driver and his vision is obstructed - If a child accidentally steps on brake pedal which is in front of the rider or if the rider is required to operate it suddenly but is obstructed because of presence of child, consequences could be serious _ Overloading affects stability of the vehicle -Police and traffic control authorities are directed to enforce the provisions vigorously.
As per section 128 Motor Vehicle Act - No driver of a two wheeled motor cycle shall carry more than one person in addition to himself on the motor cycle and no such person shall be carried Scch - 11 28 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 otherwise than sitting on a proper seat securely fixed to the motor cycle behind the driver's seat with appropriate safety measures".
In the para 2 of said judgment, Hon'ble High Court observed about prohibition of riding motor cycle with pillion rider ".
The decision relied upon learned counsel for petitioner reported in 2014 (2) Civil LJ 316, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Smt.Mamta Devi and others) is not applicable in view of decision of out Hon'ble High Court. So, I hold that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and vehicle cannot be safely driven, if it was driven by using rider and pillion rider than which law permits. So I hold that, there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which cannot be ruled out. However there is also negligence on the part of the driver of lorry who would have stopped the vehicle after observing motor cycle from some long distance. So, I answer issue No.1 in both cases in affirmative.
18) ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH CASES: Since my predecessor in office has already decided the issued No.2 holding that, petitioners are the legal heirs of deceased and to that effect, they have produced documents before this court, there is no need to discuss in detail again regarding status of the petitioners. So, I answer issue No.2 in both cases in affirmative.
Scch - 11 29 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
19) ISSUE NO.3 in MVC No.6198/2010:- My predecessor
in
Office awarded the compensation for Rs.8,60,000/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 6% p.a. Since, there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, it is just and proper to consider the contributory negligence at 20% on the part of deceased and award the compensation by reducing to the extent of contributory negligence. So, I hold that, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- (Rs.8,60,000/- (-) 1,72,000/- )with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the 25.09.2010 till complete realisation.
20) Respondent No.1 is owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- with simple interest at 6% p.a. from 25.09.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.3 in the partly affirmative.
21) ISSUE NO.3 in MVC No.6210/2010:- In this case, my Predecessor in office awarded the compensation for Rs.19,20,000/- to the petitioners along with interest @ 6% p.a. Since, there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, it is just and proper to consider the contributory negligence at 20% on the Scch - 11 30 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 part of deceased and award the compensation by reducing to the extent of contributory negligence. So, I hold that, petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,36,000/- (Rs.19,20,000/- (-) 3,84,000/- ) with simple interest @ 6% p.a. from the 25.09.2010 till complete realisation.
22) Respondent No.1 is owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,36,000/- with simple interest at 6% p.a. from 25.09.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.3 in the partly affirmative.
23) ISSUE No.4 IN BOTH CASES: In view of answers to issues No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition in MVC No.6210/2010 filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25.9.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within one month, from the date of this award.
Scch - 11 31 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 On deposit of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.5,00,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.2,68,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.3 and 4.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.3,00,000/- each shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.2,00,000/- each shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.3 and 4, Rs.1,50,000/- each shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.1,18,000/- each shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Accrued interest on the awarded compensation of amount shall be released to the petitioner No.2 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
The petition in MVC No.6198/2010 filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25.9.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within one month, from the date of this award.
On deposit of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.3,50,000/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and in remaining amount Rs.3,38,000/-, Rs.1,12,666/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.2 to 4.
Scch - 11 32 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.1, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Entire share of Rs.1,12,666/- each of petitioner No.2 to 4 shall be deposited in FD for a period of 5 years or till they attain the age of majority, whichever is earlier in any nationalised or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest periodically who shall utilize for welfare of petitioner No.2 to 4.
Accrued interest on the awarded compensation of amount shall be released to the petitioner No.1 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in both cases.
Draw award accordingly.
(The judgment shall be prepared in 2 sets and the original shall be kept in MVC No.6198/2010 and the copy of the same shall be kept in the MVC No.6210/2010 by the office) (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected by me, then pronounced in Open court on this the 31st day of January, 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE Scch - 11 33 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS IN MVC 6198/2010 :
PW.1 - Kemparajamma
PW.2 - Chandru
PW.3 - Lokesh
PW.4 - Rajamma
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - CC of final charge sheet
Ex.P.2 - PM report
Ex.P.3 - Inquest report
Ex.P.4 - Notarised copy of Contract pass book
Ex.P.5 - reply
Ex.P.6&7 - Document related to contract
Ex.P.8 - Document of Madapura Vyvasaya Seva Sahakar Bank
Ex.P.9 - Notarised copy of Pan Card
Ex.P.10 - Notarised copy of election identity card
Ex.P.11 - Notarised copy of DL
Ex.P.12 - 3 school documents
Ex.P.13 - FIR
Ex.P.14 - Complaint
Ex.P.15 - P.M.Report
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS IN MVC No.6210/2010:
PW.1 - Latha
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Scch - 11 34 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
Ex.P.1 - CC of final charge sheet
Ex.P.2 - 6 Course completion certificates
Ex.P.3 - appointment letter
Ex.P.4 - 57 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P.5 - 73 Medical bills
Ex.P.6 - Death summary
Ex.P.7 - Death Certificate
Ex.P.8 - Certificate by Mallige Hospital
Ex.P.9 - CC of FIR
Ex.P.10 - CC of complaint
Ex.P.11 - PM report
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 - Meganathan
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 - Authorisation letter
Ex.R.2-4 - inquests report
Ex.R.5 - final charge sheet
Ex.R.6 - Policy
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.
Scch - 11 35 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
31.01.2015
(Judgment pronounced in open court)
ORDER
The petition in MVC No.6210/2010 filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25.9.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within one month, from the date of this award.
On deposit of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.5,00,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.2,68,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.3 and 4.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.3,00,000/- each shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.2,00,000/- each shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.3 and 4, Rs.1,50,000/- each shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.1,18,000/- each shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Accrued interest on the awarded compensation of amount shall be released to the petitioner No.2 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Scch - 11 36 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 The petition in MVC No.6198/2010 filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25.9.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within one month, from the date of this award.
On deposit of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.3,50,000/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and in remaining amount Rs.3,38,000/-, Rs.1,12,666/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.2 to 4.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.1, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Entire share of Rs.1,12,666/- each of petitioner No.2 to 4 shall be deposited in FD for a period of 5 years or till they attain the age of majority, whichever is earlier in any nationalised or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest periodically who shall utilize for welfare of petitioner No.2 to 4.
Accrued interest on the awarded compensation of amount shall be released to the petitioner No.1 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in both cases.
Scch - 11 37 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
Draw award accordingly.
(The judgment shall be prepared in 2 sets and the original shall be kept in MVC No.6198/2010 and the copy of the same shall be kept in the MVC No.6210/2010 by the office) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM Scch - 11 38 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C NO.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 PETITIONERS IN 1. Smt.Kemparajamma, MVC:6198/2010 W/o.Late Javaregowda, Aged about 65 years.
2. Kum.M.G.Sushma, D/o.Late Gopalakrishna, Aged about 15 years,
3. Kum.M.G.Reshma, D/o.Late Gopalakrishna, Aged about 13 years,
4. Sri.M.G.Arun, S/o.Late Gopalakrishna, Aged about 11 years Since 2 to 4 minors, they are represented by their grand mother, 1st petitioner and all are originally R/o. Madapura Village, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District.
All are presently residents of No.197, 1st 'A' Cross, Anubhavanagar, Nagarabhavi Road, Bangalore City -72.
(By pleader - Sri.Shiva
Murthy)
PETITIONERS IN 1. Sri.M.T.Jayaramu,
MVC:6210/2010 S/o.Late Thimmegowda,
Aged about 50 years,
Scch - 11 39 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
2. Smt.M.J.Latha,
W/o.M.T.Jayaramu,
Aged about 42 years,
3. Kum.M.J.Pavithra,
D/o.M.T.Jayaramu,
Aged about 20 years,
4. Sri.M.J.Kiran,
S/o.M.T.Jayaramu,
Aged about 19 years,
All are residents of No.197,
1st 'A' Cross, Anubhavanagar,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Bangalore City - 72.
(By pleader - Sri.Shiva Murthy)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt.K.R.Raghavi,
W/o.K.S.Raghu, Major,
R/o.No.4, SSS Building,
A.V.Road, 1st Main,
Chamarajapete,
BANGALORE - 18.
(Ex-parte)
2. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram Alliance,
Insurance Company Limited,
Sundaram Towers, Whiter Road,
CHENNAI - 14 (Tamil Nadu State)
(By pleader Sri.V.Shri Hari Naidu)
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s
above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act,
Scch - 11 40 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010
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 Sri/Smt.
Ganapathi Gurusidda Badami Addl.Judge, Member,
Bangalore, in the presence of SriSmt. Advocate
for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.
Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The petition in MVC No.6210/2010 filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,36,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25.9.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within one month, from the date of this award.
On deposit of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.5,00,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.2,68,000/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.3 and 4.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.1 and 2, Rs.3,00,000/- each shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.2,00,000/- each shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Scch - 11 41 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.3 and 4, Rs.1,50,000/- each shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.1,18,000/- each shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Accrued interest on the awarded compensation of amount shall be released to the petitioner No.2 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
The petition in MVC No.6198/2010 filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,88,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 25.9.2010 till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount within one month, from the date of this award.
On deposit of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.3,50,000/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and in remaining amount Rs.3,38,000/-, Rs.1,12,666/- each is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.2 to 4.
Out of the apportioned share amount to the petitioner No.1, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and remaining amount Rs.2,00,000/- shall be released by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Entire share of Rs.1,12,666/- each of petitioner No.2 to 4 shall be deposited in FD for a period of 5 years or till they attain the age of majority, whichever is earlier in any nationalised or scheduled bank of Scch - 11 42 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010 the choice of petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the accrued interest periodically who shall utilize for welfare of petitioner No.2 to 4.
Accrued interest on the awarded compensation of amount shall be released to the petitioner No.1 through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in both cases. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
__________________________________
Petitioner/s Respondent
No.1 No.2
__________________________________
Court fee paid on petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers 01-00
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee _____________________________
Total Rs.
____________________________
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
Scch - 11 43 MVC No.6198/2010 & 6210/2010