Bangalore District Court
In : Sri. Mahendra.K.N vs The Regional Manager on 23 August, 2022
KABC020039452015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.1778/2015, 1779/2015 and 1780/2015
Petitioner in : Sri. Mahendra.K.N,
MVC.1778/2015 S/o Late Narayanappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at Halehuru village,
Huliyurudurga,
Tumkur District,
Karnataka.
(By Sri. R.V.Raghavendra,
Advocate)
V/s
2 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
Respondents : 1. The Regional Manager,
M/s ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.68, 2nd Floor, SVR Plaza,
Hosur Road, Madiwala,
Bangalore.
(Policy No.3001/122116970/00/000
valid from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014
of New Audi (Q7) car)
(By: Sri.D.Manjunath,
Advocate)
2. M/s Thiasohola Plantations Pvt
Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore560022.
(Rep.by its Managing Director,
Smt.Vajranagesh).
(By: Sri.A.Sampath,
Advocate)
3. The General Manager,
M/s IFFCO TOKIO General
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.141, Sri.Shanthi Towers,
4th Floor, 3rd main East, NGEF
Layout, Kasturinagar, Bangalore.
(Policy No.88446632 valid from
27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 Insurance of
Maruthi Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05
MP2089).
(By: Sri.S.Maheswara,
Advocate)
3 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
4. Smt.Manasa. B.L,
W/o Mohammed Muslafa. A,
Residing at No.C008,
Pioneer Paradise, 24th Main road,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore560078.
(By: Smt. Deepa. J,
Advocate).
Petitioner in : Smt.Vijayalakshmi,
MVC.1779/2015 Aged about 60 years,
W/o Late Lingaiah,
No.203, Adarsha Serene,
2nd Main road,
Behind Govt.High School,
Puttenahalli, 7th Phase,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru560078.
(By Sri.Vivek M.S, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents : 1. The Regional Manager,
The ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.89, 2nd Floor, SVR Complex,
Hosur Road, Madivala,
Near Ayappa Temple,
Bengaluru560068.
(Policy No.3001/122116970/00/000
valid from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014
of New Audi (Q7) car)
(By: Sri.D.Manjunath,
Advocate)
4 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
2. M/s Thiasohola Plantations Pvt
Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore560022.
(Rep.by its Managing Director,
Smt.Vajranagesh).
(By: Sri.A.Sampath,
Advocate)
3. The General Manager,
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
3rd Floor, 3rd Block,
KSMFC, Near Chandrika Hotel,
Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru.
(Policy No.88446632 valid from
27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 Insurance of
Maruti Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05
MP2089).
(By: Sri.S.Maheswara,
Advocate)
4. Smt.Manasa. B.L,
D/o Late Lingaiah,
W/o Late Mohammed Mustafa,
Aged about 36 years,
No.203, Adarsha Serene,
2nd main road, Behind Govt.High
School, Puttenahalli, 7th Phase,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru560 078.
(By: Smt. Deepa. J,
Advocate).
5 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
Petitioner in : Sri. Satish,
MVC.1780/2015 S/o Veeresh,
Aged 28 years,
Graphic Designer,
No.C008, Poineer Paradise,
N.R.Colony, 24th Main,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.D.Ananda Theertha,
Advocate)
V/s
Respondents : 1. The Regional Manager,
The ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.89, 2nd Floor, SVR Complex,
Hosur Road, Madivala,
Near Ayappa Temple,
Bengaluru560068.
(Policy No.3001/122116970/00/000
valid from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014
of New Audi (Q7) car)
(By: Sri.D.Manjunath,
Advocate)
2. M/s Thiasohola Plantations Pvt
Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore560022.
(Rep.by its Managing Director,
Smt.Vajranagesh).
(By: Sri.A.Sampath,
Advocate)
6 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
3. The General Manager,
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
3rd Floor, 3rd Block,
KSMFC, Near Chandrika Hotel,
Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru.
(Policy No.88446632 valid from
27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 Insurance of
Maruti Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05
MP2089).
(By: Sri.S.Maheswara,
Advocate)
4. Smt.Manasa. B.L,
D/o Late Lingaiah,
W/o Late Mohammed Mustafa,
Aged about 36 years,
No.203, Adarsha Serene,
2nd main road, Behind Govt.High
School, Puttenahalli, 7th Phase,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru560 078.
(By: Smt. Deepa. J,
Advocate).
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have filed these three petitions under
Sec.166 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation
for the death of Smt.Yashodhamma and injuries sustained
by the Petitioners Sri.Satish and Smt.Vijayalakshmi in a
7 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
road accident dated 05.08.2014. All the petitions arisen
out of a common accident, therefore all the petitions are
clubbed together, common evidence is recorded and
common judgment is passed.
2. The case of the Petitioners in brief is that, on
05.08.2014 at about 2.50 p.m, the deceased Smt.
Yashodhamma (in MVC.1778/2015) and petitioners (in
(MVC.1779/2015 and MVC.17780/2015) were traveling in
Maruthi Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05MP2089 on NH
206 driven by deceased soninlaw, when they reached
near Devrahalli, Tiptur Taluk, Tumkur district, at that
time the diver of Audi (Q7) new car bearing Reg.No.KA02
MH3776 drove the same at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the Maruti Ritz car,
as a result of which the driver of the Maruti Ritz car
succumbed to the injuries and also the mother of
petitioner in MVC.1778/2015 died at the spot. After the
accident the deceased and injured persons were shifted to
8 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
nearby hospital and thereafter injured persons were
shifted to KIMS Hospital. Post Mortem of
Smt.Yashodhamma was conducted at General Hospital,
Tiptur and her body was handed over to the petitioner,
who spent substantial amount towards funeral expenses.
3. It is further case of the Petitioner in MVC
No.1778/2015 that Prior to the accident the deceased
Smt.Yashodamma was aged about 44 years, was running
provision store and earning Rs.30,000/ per month and
contributing her entire earnings to the family. Due to the
untimely death of the deceased, he is being the only son
was depending on the income of the deceased for his
education got depressed and had been put to great
financial hardship.
4. It is further case of the Petitioner
Smt.Vijayalakshmi in MVC No.1779/2015 that
immediately after the accident she was shifted to nearby
9 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
hospital for first aid and then she was shifted to KIMS
hospital, Bengaluru, wherein she was admitted as an
inpatient for 9 days and underwent surgery and
discharged. Due to the injuries she was unable to move
thus an attendant was appointed for her care. She being
widow and facing difficulty to lead normal life. She had
spent huge amount towards her treatment, food and
nourishment, conveyance and other incidental charges.
Prior to the date of accident she was hale and healthy and
was working as Proprietor of M/s Arive (A Garments Unit
in Mfg piece Cloths) and earing Rs.25,000/ per month.
5. It is further case of the Petitioner Sri.Sathish in
MVC.1780/2015 that immediately after the accident he
was shifted to nearby hospital for first aid and then he was
shifted to KIMS hospital wherein he took treatment as an
inpatient for a period of 9 days and underwent surgery and
was discharged. Prior to the date of accident he was hale
and healthy and was working as Graphic Designer, earning
10 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
a sum of Rs.30,000/ per month. He had spent huge
amount towards his treatment, food and nourishment,
conveyance and other incidental charges.
6. Further it is the case of the petitioners in all
cases that the accident occurred due to carelessness, rash
and negligent driving of the Audi(Q7) car by its driver and
hence the respondents No.1 and 2 being the insurer and
owner of Audi(Q7) car and respondents No.3 & 4 being
insurer and owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation.
7. In response to the summons, the Respondent
No.1 to 4 have appeared through their respective counsel,
the respondent Nos.2 and 4 did not chose to file their
written statements and respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed their
separate written statements.
8. The Respondent No.1 in the written statement
stated that the petition is not maintainable either in law or
11 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
on facts as on account of one's own negligence on the part
of the deceased/Musthafa on whom the chargesheet is
filed, admitted issuance of policy in favour of the Audi Q7
car bearing Reg.No.KA02MH3776 but subject to the
terms and conditions of the policy and the rest of the
petition averments are denied and submitted that there is
noncompliance of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act
and sought permission u/Sec.170 of M.V. Act. Further it is
specifically contended that as per the complaint the
negligence was attributed to the drivers of both cars
involved in the accident and the driver of the Maruti Ritz by
name Mustafa was charge sheeted alongwith the driver of
the insured car. Though the police charge sheeted both
driver but the contents of the complaint are twisted, tilted
and deviated from the contents of the complaint so as to
favour the legal heirs of those who were traveling in Maruti
Ritz and the petitioners. The complaint indicates the
accident as a head on collision. The conjoint reading of the
12 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
police records would drive to the formidable conclusion
that it was the driver of the Maruti Ritz Car, Mohammed
Mustafa, who alone was accountable for the accident solely
due to his negligence having not visualized the Audi Car
which was coming just behind the Bolero and the driver of
the said Maruti car was driving the said car in a rash and
negligent manner in the middle of the road. There was no
iota of negligence on the part of the driver of the insured
vehicle. The police have falsely implicated the driver of the
insured vehicle along with the driver of the Maruti Ritz at
the behest of the petitioners and other claimants for
wrongful gain. In absence of any pleadings about the
manner in which the deceased/Musthafa was driving his
car, the rash and negligent driving should be attributed to
the deceased/Musthafa alone. Further specifically denied
the averments made in columns 3 to 6, 21, the
relationship, education qualification, experience, income of
the deceased.
13 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
9. The Respondent No.3 in the written statement
admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the Maruti Ritz
Car bearing Reg.No.KA05MP2089 but subject to the
terms and conditions of the policy, rest of the petition
averments are denied and submitted that there is non
compliance of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act.
Further submitted that the petition is bad for misjoiner of
proper parties as the claim petition clearly shows that the
driver of Audi car bearing No:KA02MH3776 was solely
responsible for the alleged accident. Further submitted that
the the complaint was registered against the drivers of both
the vehicles and after investigation the chargesheet is also
filed against both the drivers, which also shows that the
deceased/Musthafa was also negligent in causing the
accident. Further submitted that the driver of Maruti Ritz
car bearing Reg.No.KA05MP2089 was not holding a valid
and effective driving license at the time of accident and the
insured knowing fully well that the driver did not possess
14 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
valid and effective DL willfully entrusted the vehicle to the
said driver thereby committed the breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of
the petition against them.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, this court
has framed the following ;
ISSUES (IN MVC.1778/2015)
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he is
the legal representative of the deceased
Smt. Yashodamma ?
2) Whether the petitioner proves that the
deceased Yashodamma had died due to
the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic
Accident that occurred on 05.08.2014 at
about 2.50 p.m, infront of Siddaramanna's
House, NH206, near Devarahalli, Tiptur
Taluk, Tumkur District, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Audi (Q7) new
car bearing Reg.No.KA02MH3776 by its
driver as alleged ?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as claimed ? If so, to what
extent and from whom ?
4) What order or award ?
15 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
ISSUES (IN MVC.1779/2015 & MVC.1780/2015)
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she/he has
sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic
Accident that occurred on 05.08.2014 at about
2.50 p.m, infront of Siddaramanna's House,
NH206, near Devarahalli, Tiptur Taluk,
Tumkur District, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Audi (Q7) new car bearing
Reg.No.KA02MH3776 by its driver as
alleged ?
2. Whether the petitioner/s is entitled for
compensation as claimed ? If so, to what extent
and from whom ?
3. What order or award ?
11. The petitioner in MVC.No.1778/2015 is
examined as PW.1 and produced 10 documents as per
Exs.P1 to P.10 are marked on his behalf. The petitioner in
MVC.No.1779/2015 is examined herself as PW.2 and
produced 2 documents as per Exs.P.11 and P14. Dr.
Kumar M., Orthopedic Consultant, KIMS Hospital,
Bengaluru, is examined as PW.3 and produced 4
documents as per Exs.P15 to P.18. In order to prove its
16 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
defence, the respondent No.3/Insurance company got
examined its official as RW.1. The respondent
No.1/Insurance Company got examined its official as
RW.2 and got makred Exs.R.1 to R.3.
12. Heard arguments and perused the entire case
records and materials placed on record.
13. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
(IN MVC.1778/2015)
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.4 : As per final order,
for the following:
(IN MVC.1779/2015)
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
17 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
(IN MVC.1780/2015)
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the negative,
Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
14. ISSUE NO.1 IN MVC.1778/2015:
It is the case of the Petitioner that he is the son of
the deceased - Smt.Yashodamma. The Petitioner to prove
this relationship has examined himself as PW.1. The
PW.1 has specifically deposed this relationship in his
chiefexamination. Apart from that, to prove the
relationship the Petitioner has also produced notarized
copy of ration Card of the family of the petitioner as per
Ex.P.10. In the Ex.P.10 - ration Card of the names of the
deceased and the are mentioned as mother and son.
Further in the Exs.P.6 and P.8 the inquest mahazar and
chargesheet the name of the petitioner shown as the son
18 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
of the deceased. These documents have not been
seriously disputed by the Respondents in the cross
examination. The Respondents have not produced any
contrary documents. As such, there are no reasons to
discard the oral and documentary evidence produced by
the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, relying upon
the oral evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P.6, P.8 and P.10, this
Tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner is the son of
the deceased Yashodhamma. Accordingly, this issue is
answered in the affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2 in MVC NO.1778/2015 & ISSUE
NO.1 IN BOTH MVC.1779 & 17780/2015:
The Petitioners in MVC.Nos.1778/15 and
1779/2015, to prove that the accident was occurred due
the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending
Audi(Q7) new car bearing Reg.No.KA02MH3776, have
examined themselves Pws.1 and 2 and produced six
19 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
documents through the PW.1 as per Exs.P.1 to P.5
and P.8. The Pws.1 and 2 have specifically deposed in
their evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle has
driven it in a rash and negligent manner drove the car in
extreme high speed in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against the Ritz car and caused accident. On the
other side, the Respondent No.1 have denied the case of
the petitioners and contended that there was complete
negligence on part of the deceased/Musthafa/driver of
Ritz car itself as evident from police records. The
respondent No.3 even though denied the case of the
petitioners but contended that there was negligence on
the part of the driver of Audi car as stated by the
petitioners. In order to assess as to who was negligent in
causing the accident the evidence on records needs to be
appreciated.
20 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
16. The MVC.No:1777/2015 is the claim petition
filed by the Lrs of the deceased Musthafa who was driving
the Ritz car as on the alleged date of accident in which the
petitioners of MVC.1779/15 and MVC.17780/2015 and
the deceased in MVC.1778/2015 were traveling as
inmates of the said car. Therefore, the evidence of that
case also to be needs to be considered while giving finding
on these issues in these connected case as the cause of
action of all the four cases are one and the same. In the
crossexamination of PW.1 in MVC.1777/2015 it is
brought out that on 02.08.2014 the deceased came to
Shivmoga as she was in Shivmoga, she filed requisition
before Police Commissioner as per Ex.P.11 but she does
not know as to what action taken on it, she is the RC
holder of the Ritz car, in the chargesheet deceased
Musthafa shown as first accused, she got claimed from
the insurance of car for damages and got 5.75 lakhs
compensation, her parentsinlaw residing at Udupi
21 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
alongwith their daughter and soninlaw, on that day
deceased left Shivmoga at 10.30 a.m., on 05.08.2014 in
the evening there was rehearsal to the deceased with
Mallika Prasad, the deceased was to drop all the three
inmates of the car to the J.P. Nagar, on that day his
rehearsal was in MLR convention basement hall, the
chargesheet filed against the driver of two vehicles.
17. In the crossexamination of PW.1 of this case by
the counsel for the R3 he admitted the suggestions put to
him that there was sole negligence on the part of driver of
audi car only and there was no negligence on the part of
the driver of Maruthi Ritz car even though he is not an
eyewitness to the accident. The another inmate of the car
Smt.Vijayalakshmi who is examined in these connected
cases as PW.2 in her chiefexamination affidavit deposed
reiterating the petition averments. Her crossexamination
needs to be appreciated. In the crossexamination of said
PW.2 by the counsel for the respondent No.1 it is elicited
22 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
that on the alleged date of accident she sat in the back
seat of car alongwith her sister, Satish sat beside the
deceased, her sister died in the accident, on that day her
soninlaw was driving the car in the middle of the road,
the bolero vehicle was coming from their opposite side in
high speed and both dashed to each other, behind the
bolero vehicle Audi car was coming which she observed,
they have not given any complaint to the higher
authorities stating that there was no negligence on the
part of the deceased. In the crossexamination of PW.2 by
counsel for R3 she admitted every suggestions put to her
that on that day the deceased was going slowly on the left
side of road correctly and there was no fault on the side of
the deceased but due to over speed of driver of Audi car
the alleged accident occurred.
18. The Ex.P.1/FIR was registered on the basis of
first information lodged by one Sri.Nagaraju as per Ex.P.2.
The Ex.P.2 lodged on 05.08.2014 at 4.00 p.m. wherein it
23 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
is stated by the first informant that while he was going by
walk near Devarahalli gate on 05.08.2014 at 2.50 p.m.
infront of house of their villager namely Siddramanna on
NH.206 road, two cars from K.B. cross and silver colour
car from Tiptur side were coming driving their cars in high
speed and negligent manner, the one car among the two
cars coming from K.B. cross the driver of bolero vehicle
over took the white colour car and went front side at that
time the driver of car which was coming from backside of
said bolero and the driver of silver colour car which was
coming from Tiptur side in high speed and negligently
came touching to the middle while colour line and came
on the middle of the road and dashed each other and head
on collusion occurred, due to which the door of silver
colour car got opened and one lady inmate fell down and
died at spot, he came near the car and came to know that
in the silver colour car Musthafa, Sathish, Vijayalakshmi,
Yashoda were sitting and in the while colour car nagesh,
24 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
Suresh and Manohar were sitting and both got badly
damaged in front side and he seen the numbers of cars
and due to rash or negligent and over speed of both
drivers the alleged accident occurred.
19. The petitioners have produced the MVA report
and chargesheet at Exs.P.5 and P.8. The RW.1/official of
respondent No.3 has deposed that the driver of car
bearing NO:KA02MH3776 was solely responsible for the
alleged accident and the driver of car bearing NO:KA05
MP2089 was no way responsible for the alleged accident
and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against them. In
the crossexamination of RW.1 it is brought out that,
Sri.Mahendra K.N. and the both the cars were not at the
spot, the chargesheet is filed against both the cars, in
MVC 1777/2015 he has given his evidence wherein at
para No.3 at 4th line of his chief examination affidavit his
narration as deceased is meant for Mohmmad Mustafa
who is the insured of their company.
25 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
20. The RW.2 deposed in support of the their
defence taken in the written statement filed by R1. In his
crossexamination it is brought out that chargesheet is
filed against driver of both vehicles, the speed and CC of
Audi car is higher than that of Maruti Ritz Car. Further
elicited that he does not know whether as per the policy of
Audi company if the A1 is not chargesheeted as a driver
then a brand new car is reimbursed if the accident within
one year of the purchase.
21. The Ex.P.5/MVA report shows severe damages
to both vehicles and major damages to the front side. The
Ex.P.8 chargesheet clearly shows that chargesheet filed
against drivers of two cars. The Ex.P.4/spot sketch
clearly shows that both the vehicles clearly going on the
middle of the road while the alleged accident took place.
26 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
22. The very important document which came into
an undisputed point of time is the first information lodged
by the third person i.e. an uninterested party needs to be
appreciated alongwith the evidence of the eyewitness
PW.2/Smt.Vijayalakshmi as narrated above with the spot
sketch and MVA report which are on record. The first
information/Ex.P.1 clearly points out that when the driver
of Bolero vehicle did over take the white colour car i.e. the
Audi car and went front side of the said car, from this it
appears that at that time immediately the driver of Audi
car in order to over take the on going Bolero car did drive
in speed and was going on the right side of the road on
the while line at the same time the deceased who was also
coming on the middle of road in high speed on the white
line, so the driver of Audi car did not foresee the Ritz car
which was coming in the front side due to the ongoing
bolero which overtook the audi car and within a span of
time the Ritz car also came in the opposite direction which
27 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
lead to accident. From over all reading of the contents of
the first information/Ex.P.1 it clearly shows that the
driver of Ritz car was coming on the middle of the road
only that too on the middle white line put bifurcating both
lanes/lines, so it is crystal clear that the
deceased/Musthafa was driving his car in very high speed
in the middle of the road which shows the major
negligence on the part of the deceased/Musthafa. The
driver of the Audi car did not foresee the on coming Ritz
car due to the bolero vehicle which came in high speed
and over took the audi car and unexpectedly in the front
side the Ritz car was also coming in the high speed and
without expecting the said car the alleged head collusion
occurred between the two cars as it is crystal clear from
the Ex.P.4.
23. Further the evidence of PW.2/eyewitness as
narrated above further makes it clear and supports the
defence of the counsel for the respondent No.1 and also
28 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
the contents of the first information lodged by the
independent eyewitness that at the time of accident the
deceased/Musthafa was driving his car in the middle of
the road, infront of them Bolero vehicle was coming in
high speed and both vehicles colluded severely and she
did also observe the Audi car which was coming in the
backside of the Bolero vehicle. From the evidence of the
eyewitness PW.2 it can be make out that first the bolero
car came and in its backside the Audi car was coming,
from this it is also clear that the deceased/Musthafa was
very negligently and in very high speed driving his car that
too in the middle of the road and for gathering the high
speed of the deceased/Musthafa the crossexamination of
PW.1 (In MVC No.1777/2015) makes it further cleat that
the deceased/Musthafa had the pressure to attend a
rehearsal and to drop the other inmates to the J.P. Nagar.
The MVA report and the spot sketch also points out that
the car of the deceased/Musthafa was going in the middle
29 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
of the car which also supports the above clinching facts
elicited from the mouth of PW.1 (in MVC No.1777/2015)
and PW.2 which pointed out on the higher negligence or
rashness and over speed of the deceased/Musthafa while
driving his car. Though the PW.2 in her further cross
examination by her insurance company counsel tried to
retract her statement that the deceased/Musthafa was
driving his car in the middle of the road at the time of
accident and she observed the audi car but it can be said
that once the statements of facts are given and elicited in
the crossexamination cannot be retracted by further
crossexamination and if it is done the conduct of the
witness can be considered and an adverse inference can
be drawn in that regard.
24. Therefore, from the above evidence it is clear
that on the alleged date of accident the
deceased/Musthafa was driving his car in high speed
under the pressure that he had to reach his destiny well
30 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
within time and was driving his car in the middle of the
road and hence there was higher negligence on the part of
the deceased Musthafa itself and it is also evident from
the chargesheet that he is shown as accused No.1.
Further the evidence makes it clear that the bolero vehicle
was infront of the said Audi car which over took the said
Audi car and came to the front side and therefore when
the Bolero vehicle went ahead by passing the Ritz car
which was on coming in the opposite direction without
any severe collusion then the head and collusion between
the Ritz car and the Audi car and the driver of the Audi
car did not foresee the Ritz car which was coming in high
speed that too in the middle of the road. Therefore, the
degree of the negligence on the part of driver of Audi car
was less when compared to the negligence on the part of
the deceased/driver/Musthafa of Ritz car. Accordingly,
the negligence of the deceased/Musthafa is assessed at
31 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
60% and the negligence on the part of the driver of Audi
car is assessed at 40%.
25. Therefore, from the materials on record and the
documents produced at Exs.P.1 to P.5 and Ex.P.8 it is
clear that there was negligence on both the drivers as
assessed above and due which the accident occurred and
the deceased/Musthafa and deceased/Smt.Yashodamma
died and other two inmates of the Ritz car got sustained
injuries. Accordingly the above issues are answered
partly in the affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.3 IN MVC.1778/2015:
The PW.1 has specifically deposed before this court
that the Petitioner being the son of the deceased was
entirely depending upon the income of the deceased for
his education. Now he has lost his loving and affectionate
person and bread earner of the family. This court while
discussing the issue No.2 has already come to the
32 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash
and negligence of the both the drivers of the offending
vehicles and same has resulted in the death of the
deceased - Smt.Yashodhamma. Under such
circumstances, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation
for the death of the deceased from both the insurance
companies of their respective shares which assessed
above.
Monthly income
27. According to the Petitioner, before the accident,
the deceased was hale and healthy and was running
provision store and also doing agriculture work and
earning Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard the PW.1
has lead his oral evidence and produced the
Ex.P.9/certificate issued by Gram Panchayath. On
perusal of the Ex.P.9, it is issued by Secretary of Halevoor
village panchayath on 02.02.2015 certifying that the
33 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
deceased was having shop in Halevoor village. In the
crossexamination of PW.1/Mr.Mahendra it is brought out
that, he does not remember when he gave letter to Gram
Panchayath, he has no endorsement for having submitted
application to panchayath, he cannot produce the tax paid
receipts pertaining to the said shop, he does not know
whether they got permission/license for said shop, they
are paying Rs.5060 daily as shop fee to the temple but
not possible to produce the document, he did not give
statement before police stating that the deceased was
doing fruits and flower business in front of the temple.
28. As per the Ex.P.6 the deceased Smt.Yashoda
was doing Fruits business. There is no any evidence to
lead to prove the specific income of the deceased. Even
though in the crossexamination of PW.1 several
suggestions were put that the PW.1 was looking after the
deceased by doing work and the deceased was not earning
anything and said suggestions are denied by the PW.1.
34 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
Except this suggestions there is no any contrary evidence
lead by the R1 to prove that the deceased was not
earning member and the PW.1 was earning but was not a
student. Therefore, even though the specific income of the
deceased is not proved but as there is no contrary
evidence by the R1 to prove their defense that the
deceased was not earning and hence the notional income
needs to be considered for assessing the income of the
deceased. At the time of accident the deceased was aged
about 50 years/as per Exs.P.6 and 7 which are inqeust
mahazar and PM report. The accident took place in the
year 2014. Therefore, having regard to the age of the
deceased and also relying upon the decision of Hon'ble
H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and
Ramanagouda & Anr., in MFA No: 202534/2019 wherein
notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State
Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the
notional income and accordingly the monthly notional
35 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
income of the deceased is considered as Rs.8,500/ per
month.
Age of the deceased
29. In so far as age of the deceased is concerned,
the Petitioner has not produced any document to prove
the deceased age. As per Exs.P.6 and 7 the age of
deceased is mentioned as 50 years. The Respondents have
not placed any other contrary documents. As such, as on
the date of accident, her age is considered as 50 years.
i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY AND FUTURE
PROSPECTS:
As per the evidence and admitted facts it is clear that
the petitioner is the son of the deceased. The PW.1 in the
cross examination has denied that he is earning but
stated that he is a student of M.Sc., but pleads ignorance
about the time table of the second year exams stating that
he did not attend second year exams and also stated that
he cannot produced the admission extract, admitted that
36 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
he took admission for M.Sc. course for the Academic year
201314 in distance education, stated that he is working
as a volunteer in Alasur Ramakrishna Matt from 34
years and at that time only he took admission to the M.Sc.
course. From this evidence it appears that he is
supressing the true facts and appears that he is also
working and hence took admission through distance
course education but in absence of specific proof by the
R1 or the specific admission by the PW.1 it cannot be
said and held that the PW.1 was earning member.
Therefore, the Petitioner is considered as the dependent of
the deceased. As per principles of law laid down in the
case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation,
appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the
deceased is 13. In the instant case, the deceased has only
a son who is the petitioner. As per the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs
Pranay Sethi and others, even in case of the self
37 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
employed and fixed salary also the Petitioner is entitled for
future prospects. As mentioned above, in the present case
since the Petitioner is above 40 years age, 25% future
prospects have to be added to her monthly income. As
per the Sarala Verma case, half of her income has to be
deducted towards her personal and living expenses. If
25% income is added to her monthly income, it comes
around Rs.10,625/ (Rs.8,500/ + Rs.2,125/) and half of
her income is deducted towards her living and personal
expenses, balance comes to Rs.5,313/ (Rs.10,625/
Rs.5,312/). Therefore, the total loss of dependency
would be Rs.8,28,828/ (Rs.5,313/ X 12 X 13 =
Rs.8,28,828/).
ii) TRANSPORTATION, MEDICAL AND
FUNERAL EXPENSES:
In so far as the funeral and transportation expenses
are concerned, the Petitioners have not pleaded anything
about expenditure for the above head. However, looking
38 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
into the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be
appropriate to award compensation of Rs.17,000/
towards funeral and transportation expenses.
iii) LOSS TO THE ESTATE:
As mentioned above, the deceased was earning a
sum of Rs.8,500/ per month. Out of this, she was
getting half of her income towards personal expenses.
Such being the case, out of this, certainly she would have
saved some amount and created estate in favor of the
Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.17,000/ under the head of loss to the estate.
iv) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:
The Petitioner is the Son of the deceased. In Magma
General Insurance company Limited the Hon'ble Apex
court has considered the compensation under head of loss
of consortium. The Hon'ble Apex court in three judge
Bench in United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
39 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC
online 410, had reaffirmed the view of the two judge
Bench in Magma General Insurance company Ltd. In
Paragraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads
and discussed about "Consortium" to be a compendious
term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental
consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to
consortium would include the company, care, help,
comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased,
which is a loss to his family. Filial Consortium - A child's
society, affection and companionship given to a parent.
Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation under
the head of consortium. As such, the Petitioner is entitled
for a sum of Rs.40,000/ under this head. As such, the
compensation amount comes to Rs.9,02,828/ and if it is
rounded off the total compensation comes to
Rs.9,02,900/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum. As discussed above the negligence on the part of
40 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
the deceased/Musthafa is assessed at 60% and the rest of
the negligence of 40% is on the driver of Audi Car and
hence the R - 1 to 4 are liable to pay said compensation of
their respective share. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is held
partly in the affirmative.
30. ISSUE No.2 in MVC.No.1779/2015:
It is the further case of the Petitioner - Smt.
Vijayalakshmi that due to the accident, she has sustained
fracture of both bones of right forearm of middle and distal
1/3rd and fracture of both bones middle distal 1/3rd right
leg as per the Ex.P11 discharge summary. The Petitioner to
prove these contentions apart from examining herself as
PW.2, has also examined Dr.Kumar.M Orthopaedic
consultant as PW.3. The PW.3 also has deposed
supporting the version of the Petitioner. This court while
considering issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent of
41 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
both the drivers of the Car. Therefore, the Petitioner is
entitled for compensation.
Monthly income
31. According to the Petitioner, she was running
Garments unit and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/ per
month. But, to substantiate this, the Petitioner has not
examined any witness or produced any documents such as
registration certificate, license etc., to ascertain her income.
Therefore, the version of the Petitioner that she was
earning a sum of Rs.25,000/ per month is not acceptable.
At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 60
years as could be make out from Ex.P.11/discharge
summary. She was hale and healthy before the accident.
The accident took place in the year 2014. Therefore,
having regard to the age of the petitioner and also relying
upon the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala
& Others and Ramanagouda & Anr., in MFA No:
202534/2019(MVC) wherein notified notional income chart
42 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is
considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly
the monthly notional income of the deceased is considered
as Rs.8,500/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for
the following compensation:
Quantum of Disability:
32. The PW.3 - Dr.Kumar M., in his chief
examination has stated that the Petitioner was diagnosed
to have sustained a) Laceration in gingival mucosa b)
Sutured wound over right chin c) Swelling in right forearm
and right leg d) Deformity in right forearm and right leg (f)
Tenderness and abnormal mobility in distal 1/3rd right leg
and right forearm and she underwent surgery in the form
of (a) Closed reduction and IMIL nail to right tibia (b) Open
reduction and plate and screw for radius and ulna. The
PW.3 further deposed that, on 12.04.2018 he examined the
petitioner for assessment of the disability and at that time
she complains of pain on walking on slope, climbing stairs
43 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
and squatting, complains lifting weight on right upper limb
and Xray right forearm shows fracture radius and ulna
and the petitioner has total disability of whole body is right
lower limb and right upper limb at 19.4%. However, it is
relevant to note that this witness has not deposed anything
about the functional disability of the Petitioner having
reference to the nature of work she does and how it would
effect her work. As such, it appears that the whole
disability stated by the PW.3 is on higher side. The PW.3
further deposed that the petitioner needs surgery for
removal of implants, which may cost upto Rs.30,000/. In
the cross examination of the PW.3 it is brought out that, in
the case sheet there is no mention that the team of doctors
treated the petitioner, there is no mention in IP record of
the petitioner as to where the muscle damage occurred
near the ankle joint, he has not assessed the disability for
9 points separately, he has not applied specific yardstick
for assessment of 9 points under stability component, the
44 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
hand component ROM of petitioner is normal, he has not
used any specific yardstick for coordinative activities
mentioned at points 1 to 10. It is further elicited that the
fractures are united, he does not know scale method. In
the crossexamination of PW.2 it is brought out that she
looks after her granddaughter who is aged about 2 ½ years
from 2 pm onwards daily after her return from the baby
sitting, she goes to the baby sitting to leave her grand
daughter and also brings back her from the baby sitting,
she is now living in the apartment where is only the
commode facility is available. From this it is clear that the
petitioner who being a 60 year old lady also does the work
normally and taking care of her grand daughter which is
not an easy task. Further admittedly when there is
commode facility in the apartment then the petitioner has
to use the same. Considering this evidence of PW.2 and
also appreciating the same along with the cross
examination of PW.3 it is clear that the disability assessed
45 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
by the PW.3 is on very higher side without any basis.
Further. the Ex.P.11/discharge summary the condition of
the petitioner at the time of discharge shown as
Satisfactory. Therefore, considering the nature of injury
and appreciation of the evidence, this court is of the
opinion that the Petitioner is suffering from whole body
functional disability at 8%.
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING:
As per the discussion made above the petitioner
sustained injuries as mentioned in Ex.P.11 but the
petitioner has not produced wound certificate and hence
the exact injuries sustained by the petitioner cannot be
make out only on the basis of the discharge summary as
the wound certificate will be the first document. Further,
after the accident the Petitioner took treatment as per
Ex.P.11. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and
duration of treatment that she has underwent, a sum of
Rs.40,000/ is awarded under head of pain and suffering.
46 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner stated that, she has incurred more
than Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance and other
expenses. But, she has only produced 42 medical bills for
a sum of Rs.66,695/ as per Ex.P.14. There is no contrary
from the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled
for Rs.66,695/ under the heads of Medical Expenses.
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP
PERIOD:
As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained
grievous and simple injuries and underwent treatment.
After the accident, the Petitioner was taken treatment in
the above mentioned hospital. She has produced Ex.P.12
issued Aastha Ortho Derma Centre to show that she took
rest for two months but the concerned issuer is not
examined and hence it is not considered. Therefore,
considering the nature of injuries and the duration of
47 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
treatment it can be said that the Petitioner was required at
least one month time for recovering from the injuries
sustained by her. Hence, she is entitled for a sum of
Rs.8,500/ under this head.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME:
As discussed above the petitioner's age is considered
as 60 years. The respondents have not placed any
contrary document. Therefore, as on the date of the
accident the Petitioner's age is considered as 60 years. As
per Sarala Verma's case the appropriate multiplier
applicable to his age is 9. Therefore, the Petitioner is
entitled a sum of Rs.73,440/ (Rs.8,500/ x 12 x 9 x 8%=
Rs.73,440/) under this head.
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:
The Petitioner was aged about 60 years at the time of
accident. She has sustained grievous injuries and as per
48 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
consideration of this Tribunal, she is suffering from 8%
permanent disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this
disability throughout her life. Because of this she will have
to lose some amenities and comforts. Therefore,
considering the age and nature of injuries that the
Petitioner has suffered a sum of Rs.17,000/ is awarded
under this head.
(vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND
NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner was taken treatment
in the hospitals. No evidence is lead in this regard.
However, during this period she must have spent
considerable amount on her conveyance, attendant
charges, food and nourishment etc.. Therefore, the
Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,000/ under this
head.
49 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
In the chief examination, PW.3 has stated that the
Petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant
which would cost around Rs.30,000/. But, there is no
estimation bill produced by the Petitioner or PW.3. Looking
to the earlier treatment cost and nature of injury, it
appears it would be justified if an amount of Rs.20,000/ is
awarded to the Petitioner under this head. Therefore the
Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this
head.
33. The Petitioner is entitled compensation under
the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.40,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs.66,695/
3. Loss of income during laid Rs.8,500/
up period
4. Loss of future income Rs.73,440/
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs.17,000/
happiness
6. Attendant, conveyance, food Rs.17,000/
and nourishment charges
7. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/
TOTAL Rs.2,42,635/
50 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
If it is rounded off it comes around Rs.2,42,700/
and same is awarded under different heads to the
Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held partly in the
affirmative.
33. ISSUE No.2 in MVC.No.1780/2015:
The petitioner of this case has not lead any evidence
to support his claim as averred in the petition. Therefore,
the petitioner in this claim petition is not entitled for any
compensation. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held in the
negative.
LIABILITY (IN ALL CASES):
34. As discussed above the liability is on all the
Respondents of this case and the ratio is 40:60 in respect
of respondents 1, 2 and 3, 4 (i.e., 40% liability on the
respondents 1 and 2 and 60% liability on the
51 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
respondents 3 and 4). As the policy is existed and hence
the R1 and 3 are liable to indemnify the R2 and 4 and
pay compensation to the petitioners in MVC 1778/2015
and 1779/2015. The Petitioner in MVC No.1778/2015
has claimed for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/ but he is only
entitled for Rs.9,02,900/. The petitioner in MVC
No.1779/2015 has claimed Rs.50,00,000/ but she is
entitled for Rs.2,42,700/. Said compensation carries
interest @ 6% per annum. Therefore, the petitions in
MVC 1778/2015 and 1779/2015 are needs to be allowed
in part and MVC No.1780/2015 is to be dismissed.
Accordingly Issue No.2 in MVC 1778/2015 and
1779/2015 cases are held partly in the affirmative
and issue No.2 in MVC 1780/2015 is held in the
negative.
35. ISSUE NO.4 IN MVC 1778/2015 AND ISSUE
NO. 3 IN MVC 1779/2015 AND MVC
1780/2015:
52 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24
In view of above answers to the above issues, this
Tribunal proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions in MVC No.1778/2015 and 1779/2015 are hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petition in MVC 1780/2015 is dismissed.
The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners in the ratio of 40:60. However, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are being the insurers are liable to indemnify the Respondents No.2 and 4 and directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e., their respective share of 40% and 60% in the 53 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 total compensation awarded to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.1778/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,02,900/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Two Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% is to be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of three years in any N/S Bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules. 54 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 The Petitioner in MVC. No.1779/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,42,700/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, as the petitioner is senior citizen and hence the entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
The original copy of this judgment is ordered to be kept in MVC.1778/2015 and 55 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 the copies of it be kept in MVC.1779/2015 and 1780/2015.
Office to draw separate awards accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of August 2022) (MISS. B.T. ANNAPOORNESHWRI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
P.W.1 : Sri.K.N. Mahendra. P.W.2 : Smt.Vijayalakshmi.
P.W.3 : Dr. Kumar M. List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot panchanama Ex P.4 : True copy of Sketch Ex.P.5 : True copy of IMV report Ex.P.6 : True copy of Inquest report 56 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 Ex.P.7 : True copy of PM report Ex.P.8 : True copy of Chargesheet. Ex.P.9 : Certified copy issued by Gramapanchayath office. Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Ration card. Ex.P.11 : Discharge summary of PW.2. Ex.P.12 : Letter issued by Aastha OrthoDerma Centre. Ex.P.13 : Xray film. Ex.P.14 : 42Medical bills to the tune of Rs.66,695/ Ex.P.15 : IP record of Smt.Vijayalakshmi. Ex.P.16 : OP Card.
Ex.P.17 : Disability assessment proforma. Ex.P.18 : Xray films (6 in No's).
List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
R.W.1 : Sri.Girish. M. R.W.2 : Smt.Anagha G.R. List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of Insurance policy. Ex.R.2 : Copy of Notice in MVC.5416/2015 Ex.R.3 : Copy of petition in MVC.5416/2015.
(MISS. B.T. ANNAPOORNESHWRI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, 57 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 Bangalore.58 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 18.08.2022 P-RVR R1-DM R2-AS R3-SM R4-DJ For Judgment 23.08.2022 P-RVR R1-DM R2-AS R3-SM R4-DJ For Judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petitions in MVC No.1778/2015 and 1779/2015 are hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petition in MVC 1780/2015 is dismissed.
The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 59 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 Petitioners in the ratio of 40:60. However, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are being the insurers are liable to indemnify the Respondents No.2 and 4 and directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e., their respective share of 40% and 60% in the total compensation awarded to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.1778/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,02,900/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Two Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% is to be deposited in the name 60 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 of petitioner for a period of three years in any N/S Bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
The Petitioner in MVC. No.1779/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,42,700/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two Thousand Seven Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, as the petitioner is senior citizen and hence the entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner by 61 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
The original copy of this judgment is ordered to be kept in MVC.1778/2015 and the copies of it be kept in MVC.1779/2015 and 1780/2015.
Office to draw separate awards accordingly.
C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM, Bangalore.62 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 .AWARD .BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY .(SCCH24) MVC No.1778/2015 Petitioner : Sri. Mahendra.K.N, S/o Late Narayanappa, Aged about 26 years, Residing at Halehuru village, Huliyurudurga, Tumkur District, Karnataka.
(By Sri. R.V.Raghavendra, Advocate) V/s Respondents : 1. The Regional Manager, M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., No.68, 2nd Floor, SVR Plaza, Hosur Road, Madiwala, Bangalore.
(Policy No.3001/122116970/00/000 valid from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014 of New Audi (Q7) car) (By: Sri.D.Manjunath, Advocate) 63 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24
2. M/s Thiasohola Plantations Pvt Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore560022.
(Rep.by its Managing Director, Smt.Vajranagesh).
(By: Sri.A.Sampath, Advocate)
3. The General Manager, M/s IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., No.141, Sri.Shanthi Towers, 4th Floor, 3rd main East, NGEF Layout, Kasturinagar, Bangalore. (Policy No.88446632 valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 Insurance of Maruthi Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05 MP2089).
(By: Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate)
4. Smt.Manasa. B.L, W/o Mohammed Muslafa. A, Residing at No.C008, Pioneer Paradise, 24th Main road, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bangalore560078.
(By: Smt. Deepa. J, Advocate).
64 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. 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 on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
65 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 ORDER The petition in MVC No.1778/2015 is hereby allowed in part with cost. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners in the ratio of 40:60. However, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are being the insurers are liable to indemnify the Respondents No.2 and 4 and directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e., their respective share of 40% and 60% in the total compensation awarded to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.1778/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,02,900/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Two Thousand and Nine Hundred Only) along 66 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% is to be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of three years in any N/S Bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 23 day of August 2022.
rd MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
67 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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 68 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 .AWARD .BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY .(SCCH24) MVC No.1779/2015 Petitioner : Smt.Vijayalakshmi, Aged about 60 years, W/o Late Lingaiah, No.203, Adarsha Serene, 2nd Main road, Behind Govt.High School, Puttenahalli, 7th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru560078. (By Sri.D.Ananda Theertha, Advocate) V/s Respondents : 1. The Regional Manager, The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., No.89, 2nd Floor, SVR Complex, Hosur Road, Madivala, Near Ayappa Temple, Bengaluru560068.
(Policy No.3001/122116970/00/000 valid from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014 of New Audi (Q7) car) (By: Sri.D.Manjunath, 69 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 Advocate)
2. M/s Thiasohola Plantations Pvt Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore560022.
(Rep.by its Managing Director, Smt.Vajranagesh).
(By: Sri.A.Sampath, Advocate)
3. The General Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., 3rd Floor, 3rd Block, KSMFC, Near Chandrika Hotel, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru.
(Policy No.88446632 valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 Insurance of Maruti Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05 MP2089).
(By: Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate)
4. Smt.Manasa. B.L, D/o Late Lingaiah, W/o Late Mohammed Mustafa, Aged about 36 years, No.203, Adarsha Serene, 2nd main road, Behind Govt.High School, Puttenahalli, 7th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru560 078. 70 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 (By: Smt. Deepa. J, Advocate).
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. 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 on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent. 71 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 ORDER The petition in MVC No.1779/2015 is hereby allowed in part with cost. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners in the ratio of 40:60. However, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are being the insurers are liable to indemnify the Respondents No.2 and 4 and directed to deposit the compensation amount i.e., their respective share of 40% and 60% in the total compensation awarded to the Petitioners within 60 days from today. The Petitioner in MVC. No.1779/2015 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,42,700/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Two 72 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 Thousand Seven Hundred only) along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
On deposit of compensation and interest, as the petitioner is senior citizen and hence the entire amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 23rd day of August 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE. 73 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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 74 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 75 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24 .AWARD .BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY .(SCCH24) MVC No.1780/2015 Petitioner : Sri. Satish, S/o Veeresh, Aged 28 years, Graphic Designer, No.C008, Poineer Paradise, N.R.Colony, 24th Main, J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.D.Ananda Theertha, Advocate) V/s Respondents : 1. The Regional Manager, The ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., No.89, 2nd Floor, SVR Complex, Hosur Road, Madivala, Near Ayappa Temple, Bengaluru560068.
(Policy No.3001/122116970/00/000 valid from 22.11.2013 to 22.11.2014 of New Audi (Q7) car) (By: Sri.D.Manjunath, Advocate) 76 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015 SCCH 24
2. M/s Thiasohola Plantations Pvt Ltd., No.4/1, Tumkur Road, Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore560022.
(Rep.by its Managing Director, Smt.Vajranagesh).
(By: Sri.A.Sampath, Advocate)
3. The General Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co.Ltd., 3rd Floor, 3rd Block, KSMFC, Near Chandrika Hotel, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru.
(Policy No.88446632 valid from 27.12.2013 to 26.12.2014 Insurance of Maruti Ritz Car bearing Reg.No.KA05 MP2089).
(By: Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate)
4. Smt.Manasa. B.L, D/o Late Lingaiah, W/o Late Mohammed Mustafa, Aged about 36 years, No.203, Adarsha Serene, 2nd main road, Behind Govt.High School, Puttenahalli, 7th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru560 078. (By: Smt. Deepa. J, Advocate).
77 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. 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 on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent. 78 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 ORDER The petition in MVC 1780/2015 is dismissed.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 23rd day of August 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE. 79 MVC No.1778, 1779, 1780/2015
SCCH 24 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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