Bangalore District Court
No.1 Residing At No.78 vs No on 22 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 22nd day of February, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.629/2015
1. Smt.Mangala Gowri, ..... PETITIONERS
W/o. Late Ramesh,
Aged 38 years.
2. Kumari Asha,
D/o. Late Ramesh,
Aged 15 years.
3. Smt.Shivamma,
W/o. Late Ramesh,
Aged 31 years.
4. Master Niranjan,
S/o. Late Ramesh,
Aged 11 years.
5. Sri. Lakkanna,
S/o. Muddaiah,
Aged 75 years.
6. Smt.Honnamma,
W/o. Lakkanna,
Aged about 65 years.
SCC-7 2 M.V.C.No.629/2015
Petitioners No.1 residing at No.78,
16th Cross, Thigalarapalya Main Road,
Near Deepak School, Kalika Nagara,
Bangalore-560058.
The Petitioners No.2 to 6 R/at No.31,
Thattasandra, Kunigal,
Tumukur-572126.
Petitioner No.2 is a minor and is
represented by his Mother Shivamma
Petitioner No.3 as her natural guardian.
Petitioner No.4 is a minor and is
represented by his Mother Shivamma as
her natural guardian.
(By Sri. R. Chandra Shekar, Adv.,)
V/s
1. IFFCO-TOKIO General ..... RESPONDENTS
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.8, III Main,
Shanthi Towers,
V Floor, East of NGF Layout,
Kasturi Nagar,
Bangalore-4.
Policy issuing Office:
IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
No.2, 1st Floor, SNR Arcade,
Ayyappa Temple Road,
Jalahalli Cross,
Peenya,
Bangalore-58.
(Policy No.1-36POEL1 P400,
Valid from 03.12.2014 to 02.12.2015)
SCC-7 3 M.V.C.No.629/2015
2. Smt.Rajamma,
W/o. Nagarajaiah,
Honnasandra,
Mathahalli Post,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore-562 123.
(R1- By Sri. V.M.Sadakrishna, Adv.,)
(R2- Exparte)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners No.1 to 6 have filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of Rupees 20,00,000/- towards general and special damages in respect of death of Sri.Ramesh S/o Lakkanna.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
a) On 14.12.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased was walking on the mud portion of Nelamangala-Doddaballapura Road, near Hunesemara, B. H. Road, Nelamangala Town. At the same time, a Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 driven by its driver came from Doddaballapura side towards Nelamangala side in a high speed, rash and negligently, as endangerous to human life, in a zigzag manner and hit to the deceased, who was walking on the left side mud portion of the road. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
SCC-7 4 M.V.C.No.629/2015
b) Immediately, after the accident, the dead body was
shifted to the Government Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein, the PM examination was conducted and the body was handed over to them. They took the body to their Village in a hired vehicle and performed last rite ceremony and obsequies by spending a sum of Rupees 80,000/-.
c) They have suffered mental shock and agony, pain and sufferings, disappointment, anguish, frustration, loss of love, etc., due to the sudden death of the deceased.
d) The Petitioners No.1 and 3 are the wives and Petitioners No.2 and 4 are the children, the Petitioner No.5 and 6 are father and mother of the deceased, respectively.
e) The Nelamangala Town Police have registered a case as against the driver of the Bus under their Crime No.333/2014, under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC. Hence, this petition.
3. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 07.09.2015 passed on I.A.No.I and II, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 30.03.2015.
SCC-7 5 M.V.C.No.629/2015
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) It is the insurer of Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20- A-6932 and liability to indemnify the 2nd Respondent is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provisions of M.V. Act, valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of Bus, valid R.C., permit, F.C. and also subject to the confirmation of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act. It seeks protection under Section 147 and 149(2) of M.V. Act.
b) The insured is duty bound to submit all vehicular documents, including driving licence before it as mandated under Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act. There is a clear violation of provisions of law and contract of insurance.
c) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but, the Nelamangala Town Police Station failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
d) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to grant permission under Section 170 of M.V. Act, if the insured fails to contest the proceedings as contemplated under Section 170 of M.V. Act.
SCC-7 6 M.V.C.No.629/2015
e) The driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-
6932 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and further was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence and further not satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. The Respondent No.2 has knowing fully well that, the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence and willfully entrusted the vehicle to the said driver, thereby, the owner of the vehicle committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners.
f) The Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 was not having a valid permit and fitness certificate as on the date of accident, thereby, the owner of the vehicle committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the Petitioners.
g) In the event of this Hon'ble Tribunal granting compensation, the rate of interest prevailing in nationalized Banks for fixed deposit of one year shall be the rate of interest and it cannot exceed more than 6% per annum in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Manavalagan V/s. A. Krishnamurthy and Others, reported in IlR 2004 KAR 3268.
h) It reserves the right to file Additional Written Statement under the changed circumstances of the case.
SCC-7 7 M.V.C.No.629/2015
i) The quantum of compensation claimed by the
Petitioners is exorbitant and fanciful.
j) The Petitioners are called upon to prove that, they have not filed the claim petition before any other Court/Tribunal/Forum, at any place. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition with costs.
6. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased SRI.
RAMESH?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-S-
6932 by its driver and Sri.Ramesh died due to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
7. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.1, the Petitioner No.5 as SCC-7 8 M.V.C.No.629/2015 P.W.2 and have also examined one witness as P.W.3 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sri. R. Chandra Shekar has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
(i) 2013 ACJ 1403 Supreme Court of India, New Delhi (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 168(1)-Just compensation -Whether Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the amount claimed, to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation- Held: yes.
Judicial precedent- Ration of decision of Apex Court on a legal issue is a precedent-
But, an observation made, mainly to achieve uniformity and consistency on a socio-
economic issue, though a precedent, can be, and in fact ought to be periodically revisited.
Quantum-Fatal accident - Principles of assessment- Future prospects-whether formula for increase of income for future prospects adopted for persons with SCC-7 9 M.V.C.No.629/2015 permanent jobs in Sarala Varma's Case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)- may also be applied to persons who were self-employed or were engaged on fixed wages - Held: yes: 50% of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30% for age group of 40 to 50 years; 15% for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no addition thereafter.
Quantum-Fatal accident - Principles of assessment- Consortium-Less of-it would be just and reasonable if Rupees 1,00,000/- is awarded for loss of consortium.
Quantum-Fatal accident-Principles of assessment- Funeral expenses-It would be just, fair and equitable, under the head of funeral expenses, at least Rupees 25,000/- may be awarded in the absence of evidence for higher expenses.
Quantum-Fatal accident-Deceased aged 33, clerk in government school drawing Rupees 9,520/- per month-Claimants:
widow, 3 minor children and mother-
Tribunal awarded Rupees 8,96,500/- which was enhanced to Rupees 10,17,000/- in Appeal- Apex Court added 50 per cent of income towards future prospects, assessed income at Rupees 14,280/- per month, deducted 1/4th for personal expenses of the deceased, adopted multiplier of 16 and allowed Rupees 20,56,320/- plus Rupees 1,00,000/- for loss of Consortium, Rupees 1,00,000/- for loss of care and guidance, for minor children and Rupees 25,000/- for funeral expenses-Award of Rupees 10,17,000/- by High Court enhanced to Rupees 22,81,320/-) SCC-7 10 M.V.C.No.629/2015
(ii) 2013(1) AKR 519 Dharwad Bench (Shantawwa V/s. The Managing Director, Rep. by its Divisional Controller, NWKRTC, Belgaum Division and Others), wherein, it is observed that, (B) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) S-168- Compensation-Denial of share to 2nd wife- Court is exercising discretion in granting compensation need not be guided by rules under personal law of succession-No material before court to suggest conscious bigamous marriage-2nd wife-entitled to equal share-Denial of share to 2nd wife not proper.
10. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for
compensation of Rupees
19,32,200/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Point No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
SCC-7 11 M.V.C.No.629/2015
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner No.2 is her minor daughter, the Petitioner No.3 is a 2nd wife of her Late husband, the Petitioner No.4 is her son and the Petitioners No.5 and 6 are her father-in-law and mother-ion-law respectively. She has further stated that, on 14.12.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., her husband was walking on the mud portion of Nelamangala- Doddaballapura Road, near Hunesemara, B.H. Road, Nelamangala Town, at that time, a Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 driven by its driver came from Doddaballapura side towards Nelamangala side and hit her husband, who was walking on the left side mud portion of the road and as a result, her husband succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The P.W.1 in her cross- examination has stated that, her daughter is studying in 10th Standard and her deceased husband was also having 2nd wife, who is having one son aged 12-13 years old. She has further stated that, her in-laws are residing along with her.
12. The Petitioners have also examined the Petitioner No.5, who has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1, in his examination-in-chief, who is a father of the deceased Ramesh. The P.W.2 in his cross-examination has further stated that, he is doing agricultural work and the deceased is his eldest son and he is having two wives and they were all residing together.
SCC-7 12 M.V.C.No.629/2015
13. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.6 Inquest, Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.10 Election Identity Card relating to deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna, Ex.P.11 Aadhaar Card relating to deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna, Ex.P.12 PUC Ist Year Marks Card relating to the said deceased, Ex.P.13 Aadhaar Card and Ex.P.14 Election Identity Card relating to the Petitioner No.1, Ex.P.15 HP Gas Receipt, Ex.P.16 School Certificate relating to the Petitioner No.2, Ex.P.17 Ration Card, Ex.P.18 Election Identity Card and Ex.P.19 Aadhaar Card relating to the Petitioner No.3, Ex.P.20 Aadhaar Card and Ex.P.21 School Certificate dated 08.07.2015 relating to the Petitioner No.4, Ex.P.22 Election Identity Card and Ex.P.24 Aadhaar Card relating to Petitioner No.6, Ex.P.22 Election Identity Card relating to Petitioner No.5, Ex.P.25 Electricity Bills 2 in numbers and Ex.P.26 Electricity Receipts 3 in numbers.
14. On perusal of the said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the contents of the said material documents, it clearly goes to show that, the Petitioner No.1 is a first wife, the Petitioner No.2 is a minor daughter through first wife, the Petitioner No.3 is a second wife and the Petitioner No.4 is a minor son through 2nd wife, the Petitioner No.5 is a father and the Petitioner No.6 is a mother of the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna, who succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself, which was taken place on 14.12.2014 at 12.30 p.m., when he was walking on the mud portion of Nelamangala-Doddaballapura Road, near Hunesemara, B. H. Road, Nelmangala Town, at that time, the offending Bus SCC-7 13 M.V.C.No.629/2015 bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 hit to her husband. Hence, all the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna. Since the Petitioner No.5 is a father, he cannot be considered as a dependant of the said deceased. Hence, the Petitioners No.1 to 4 and the Petitioner No.6 are considered as dependants of the said deceased at the time of accident. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.1 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, on 14.12.2014 at about 12.30 p.m., her husband was walking on the mud portion of Nelamangala-Doddaballapura Road, near Hunesemara, B.H. Road, Nelamangala Town, at the same time, a Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 driven by its driver came from Doddaballapur side towards Nelamangala side in a rash and negligently as endangerous to human life and in a zig-zag manner and hit to her husband, who was walking on the left side mud portion of the road, as a result, her husband succumbed to the injuries on the spot. Immediately after the accident, the body was shifted to the Government Hospital, Nelamangala and the dead body was subjected to postmortem examination. She has further stated that, the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 as against whom, the Nelamangala Police have registered a case under Crime No.333/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 279, and 304 (A) of IPC.
SCC-7 14 M.V.C.No.629/2015
16. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner No.5 as well as the father of the deceased, has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1, in his examination-in-chief.
17. Admittedly, the P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not the eye witnesses of the said road traffic accident and the same has been clearly admitted by them in their cross-examination by stating that, they have not seen the accident. The Petitioners have not examined the eye witnesses of the said road traffic accident to consider their case.
18. But, it no way affects to consider the case of the Petitioners as well as the oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.2, as, even, the Respondent No.1 has not adduced any defence evidence to consider its defence. Further, the Respondent No.2, who is a registered owner of the said offending Bus, is placed as exparte.
19. The P.W.3, who is an employer as well as eye witness of the said road traffic accident, has clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 14.12.2014, he was moving near Tamarind Tree, Nelamangala Town at 12.30 p.m. and found Ramesh walking on left side mud portion of Nelamangala- Doddaballapura Road and at the same time, a Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 driven by its driver came from Dodaballapura side towards Nelamangala, in a high speed, rash and negligently, as endangerous to human life, in a zig-zag manner and hit to Ramesh by entering the mud portion of the road and as a result, he fell down and succumbed to the injuries SCC-7 15 M.V.C.No.629/2015 on the spot. He has further clearly stated that, the accident was taken place on 14.12.2014, when he was proceeding on his Motor Cycle and he saw the accident and at that time, the deceased Ramesh was walking on the footpath and the Bus was proceeding on Doddaballapura Road towards Nelamangala City. He has further clearly stated that, he has lodged the complaint before the Police about the alleged accident. He has clearly denied the suggestion put to him by the Respondent No.1 that, at the time of accident, the deceased was crossing the road. From this, it is further made crystal clear that, though the P.W.3, who is an eye witness of the said road traffic accident, has been cross-examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing has been elicited from his mouth in respect of its defence.
20. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint clearly disclosed that, the P.W.3, who is an eye witness and also younger brother of employer of deceased has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Nelamangala Town Police as against the driver of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 by alleging that, on 14.12.2014 at 12.30 p.m., when he was walking from Basaavanahalli towards Nelamangala Town near Hunasemara, at that time, Ramesh, who is the deceased, who was working in their granite factory was walking on the road from Nelamangala towards Doddaballapur and at that time, the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 came with very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner by its driver from Doddaballapura Road towards Nelamangala and dashed to the said Ramesh and due to the said impact, he sustained grievous injuries on his back SCC-7 16 M.V.C.No.629/2015 and left hand and he succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the offending Bus and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a Criminal case as against the driver of the Bus for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC under Crime No.333/2014. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the eye witness about the road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the accident spot itself.
21. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.P.5 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 in the commission of road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the road traffic accident and the place of accident is the edge of the Nelamangala- Doddaballapur Road. It is also clear from the contents of the said documents that, if the driver of the said offending Bus had taken a little care, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident and also saved the valuable life of the deceased. The very involvement of the said offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 in the said road traffic accident is clearly proved from the contents of Ex.P.5 MVI Report. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said offending Bus.
SCC-7 17 M.V.C.No.629/2015
22. The contents of Ex.P.6 Inquest, Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report clearly disclosed that, due to the accidental injuries itself, the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna succumbed on the accidental spot itself. The cause of death is clearly shown in Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report by mentioning that, the death is due to severe shock, hemorrhage, multiple grievous injuries, poly trauma sustained due to road traffic accident. From this medical evidence, it is made crystal clear that, deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot due to the accidental injuries itself.
23. The contents of Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the said offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 by the driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place on 14.12.2014 at 12.30 p.m., near Hunesemara, B.H. Road, Nelamangala Town, Doddaballapura Road, which dashed to the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna, when he was walking by the side of the said Road from Nelamangala Town and due to the said impact, the deceased Ramesh had sustained grievous injuries on his private parts, left hand and both legs and succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself and hence, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the offending Bus for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. There is no allegation leveled as against the deceased in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet by the SCC-7 18 M.V.C.No.629/2015 Investigating Officer about his negligence in the commission of the said road traffic accident.
24. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident and due to the said accident, the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself. The very involvement of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A- 6932 as well as its driver in the said road traffic accident is clearly proved. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
25. ISSUE NO.3 :- The P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that, on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 44 years. The Petitioners have not produced any authenticated documents to consider the actual age of the deceased at the time of accident. Though the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, her deceased husband was completed PUC II year and they have no hurdle to produce the documents, but, the Petitioners did not care to produce the academic documents relating to the deceased to show his actual age at the time of accident. The above said Police and medical documents clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was 44 years old. The Petitioners have also produced Ex.P.11 Aadhaar Card relating to the deceased, which clearly disclosed that, his birth year is 1970. The date of accident is on 14.12.2014. From this, it appears that, at the time of SCC-7 19 M.V.C.No.629/2015 accident, the deceased was 44 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 44 years at the time of accident.
26. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated in their examination- in-chief that, the deceased was granite cutter working at Tejas Granite Factory and was earning a sum of Rupees 10,000/- per month. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, her deceased husband was completed PUC II year. From this, it appears that, the deceased was an educated person. No doubt, except Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate, the Petitioners have not produced any Bank Statement to show that, at the time of accident, the actual salary of the deceased was of Rupees 10,000/- per month. But, it no way affect to consider the case of the Petitioner in respect of avocation and income of the deceased at the time of accident, as, the Petitioners have examined the Proprietor of Tejas Granites, who issued Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate, as P.W.3, who has stated in his examination-in- chief that, he had appointed the deceased Ramesh as a coolie in his factory and he was working under him since 15 days and he was paid Rupees 10,000/- per month. The P.W.3 has also produced Ex.P.27 Cash Voucher dated 05.01.2015 and Ex.P.28 Value Added Tax and Registration Certificate. He has further clearly stated that, he is a working Partner of Tejas Granite Factory and 4 persons are working in their Factory and by way of cash, they have been issuing the salary to their workers and they have not maintained the register relating to their workers. He has further stated that, the deceased Ramesh was also working in their Factory since 15 days before the accident and on SCC-7 20 M.V.C.No.629/2015 30.11.2014, he was joined their factory. By examining the P.W.3, the Petitioners have proved the contents of Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate, which is relating to the deceased for consideration of his avocation and income at the time of accident. Further, the deceased was completed his education up to PUC as stated by the P.W.1. Therefore, by considering the said oral version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.9 Salary Certificate, it can be safely held that, at the time of accident, the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna was working as a granite cutter and he was drawing monthly salary of Rupees 10,000/- at the time of accident. Hence, the income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 10,000/- per month at the time of accident.
27. The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was contributing his entire earnings towards the maintenance of the family and after his death, they are facing lot of financial difficulties and lot of pain and mental agony for untimely demise of her husband. She has further stated that, the 3rd Petitioner and she, have lost love and affection of her Late husband at this age and they are suffering from financial difficulty due to sudden demise of her husband. She has further stated that, the 2nd and 4th Petitioners are minors and they have lost their Late father's love and affection and future guidance at this young age. Her daughter, i.e., the 2nd Petitioner is studying in 10th standard in Hosuru Government School, Kunigal Taluk and her step son is school going child and they have lost their bright education and career opportunities. She has further stated that, her in-laws have lost their loving and caring son at SCC-7 21 M.V.C.No.629/2015 this old age, who was supposed to take care of them and he used to maintain both the families. She has further stated that, now, they have lost their bread earner and there is nobody to earn for them. The same has also been stated by the P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief.
28. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, all the Petitioners are the legal representatives and the Petitioners No.1 to 4 and 6 were the dependants of the said deceased at the time of accident. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has further come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 and the said offending Bus is very much involved in the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident and the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners being the legal representatives and dependants are entitled for compensation under different heads, which are discussed below.
29. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident, towards future prospects 30% of the income has to be added. So, 30% of Rupees 10,000/- comes to Rupees 3,000/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rupees 13,000/- p.m. (Rs.10,000/- + 3,000/-).
SCC-7 22 M.V.C.No.629/2015
30. The Petitioners No.1 to 5 are considered as dependents of the deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind 5 dependents. As per the principles laid down in Sarala Varma's Case, considering the number of the dependents, i.e., 5, 1/5th of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 2,600/- (1/5th of Rs.13,000/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 10,400/- (Rs.13,000/- (-) Rs.2,600/- ). The multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased, i.e., 44 years, is 14 as per Sarala Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 17,47,200/- (Rs.10,400/- x 12 x
14). Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 17,47,200/- towards loss of dependency due to death of Ramesh S/o Lakkanna.
31. The P.W.1 has stated that, after P.M. Examination, the body was handed over to them and they took the body to their Village in a hired vehicle and performed last rite ceremony and obsequies by spending Rupees 80,000/- and Rupees 10,000/- towards transportation and incidental charges. But, to consider the same, the Petitioners have not produced any documents.
32. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), loss of consortium to the Petitioners No.1 and 3, who are the first wife and the second wife of the deceased, should be Rupees 1,00,000/-, loss of love and affection has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed SCC-7 23 M.V.C.No.629/2015 that, the Petitioners No.1 and 3 are the first and second wife, Petitioner No.2 is a minor daughter through the Petitioner No.1, the Petitioner No.4 is a minor son through Petitioner No.3, the Petitioner No.5 is a father and the Petitioner No.6 is a mother of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners No.1 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rupees 1,00,000/- towards Loss of consortium and all the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
33. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of deceased and Rupees 30,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and Rupees 30,000/- towards loss of estate.
34. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following amount of compensation :-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 17,47,200-00
2. Loss of Consortium Rs. 1,00,000-00
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
4. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00 SCC-7 24 M.V.C.No.629/2015 of dead body
6. Loss of Estate Rs. 30,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 19,32,200-00
35. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 19,32,200/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
36. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A- 6932 and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident and due to the said accident, the deceased Ramesh S/o Lakkanna succumbed to the injuries on the accidental spot itself and the very involvement of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 as well as its driver in the said road traffic accident is clearly proved. The Petitioners have clearly mentioned in the cause title of the petition that, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 and its Insurance Policy No.1-36POEL1 P400, valid from 03.12.2014 to 02.12.2015. It is clearly stated by the Respondent No.1 in its written statement that, that, it is the insurer of Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20- A-6932 and liable to indemnify the Respondent No.2 is subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy, provisions of M.V. Act, SCC-7 25 M.V.C.No.629/2015 valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of Bus, valid R.C., Permit, F.C. and also subject to the confirmation of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act. From the said material facts, it clearly goes to show that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. There is no allegation leveled as against the driver of the offending Bus in Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet by the Investigating Officer that, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Bus at the time of accident. The violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not proved by the Respondent No.1. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being an insurer and the Respondent No.2 being a R.C. Owner of the offending Bus bearing Registration No.KA-20-A-6932 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. Since the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. In view of the above said reasons, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
37. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, SCC-7 26 M.V.C.No.629/2015 ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 19,32,200/-
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners No.1 to 6 shall share the compensation amount in the ratio of 30:10:30:10:10:10.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, 50% shares
relating to the Petitioners No.1, 3, 5
and 6 shall be released in their
respective names through account
payee cheques, on proper identification.
SCC-7 27 M.V.C.No.629/2015 Remaining 50% shares relating to the Petitioners No.1, 3, 5 and 6 shall be kept in FD in their respective names, in any nationalized Bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years.
The entire shares relating to the Petitioners No.2 and 4 shall be kept in FD in their respective names, in any nationalized Bank of the choice their guardian, till they attain the age of majority.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 22nd day of February, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
SCC-7 28 M.V.C.No.629/2015
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Mangala Gowri P.W.2 : Lakkanna P.W.3 : Dinesh
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
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 Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.5 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.7 : True copy of PM Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 : Salary Certificate dated 28.06.2015
Ex.P.10 : Notarised xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Ramesh Ex.P.11 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Ramesh Ex.P.12 : Notarised xerox copy of PUC Ist Year Marks Card relating to Ramesh Ex.P.13 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Mangala Gowri Ex.P.14 : Notarised xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Mangala Gowri Ex.P.15 : HP Gas Receipt Ex.P.16 : School Certificate relating to Asha.R. Ex.P.17 : Notarised xerox copy of Ration Card Notarised xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Shivamma Ex.P.19 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Shivamma Ex.P.20 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Niranjan. R. Ex.P.21 : School Certificate dated 08.07.2015 relating to Niranjan. R. Ex.P.22 : Notarised xerox copy of Election Identity Card SCC-7 29 M.V.C.No.629/2015 relating to Lakshman Ex.P.23 : Notarised xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Honnamma Ex.P.24 : Notarised xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Honnamma Ex.P.25 : Electricity Bills (2 in nos.) Ex.P.26 : Electricity Receipts (3 in nos.) Ex.P.27 : Cash Voucher dated 05.01.2015 Ex.P.28 : Notarised xerox copy of Value Added Tax Registration Certificate
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
- Nil -
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
- Nil -
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.