Bangalore District Court
T.N. Ramakrishna vs New India Ass Co Ltd on 15 January, 2025
KABC020202842019
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
AND, MACT, BENGALURU, (SCCH-7)
Dated this 15th day of January - 2025
Before: Sri. SHYAM PRAKASH
B.A.L, LLB.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bengaluru.
M.V.C. No.4743/2019
Petitioners : 1. T.N. Ramakrishna,
S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 40 years,
2. Kalavathamma,
W/o N. Ramakrishna
Aged about 35 years,
3. Prakash,
S/o N. Ramakrishna,
Aged about 20 years.
All are R/at:
Srinivasapuram,
Byraganapalli, Kolar,
Karnataka - 563 161.
(By Sri. Amaresha.N, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents : 1. The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., 2-B, Unity Buildings Annexe,
SCCH - 7 2 MVC No.4743/2019
Mission Road, Bangalore - 27.
(By. B.P. Mahendra, Advocate)
2. Keshav,
S/o Chinnaveerappa,
No.19, Marasanapalli Village,
Srinivasapura Taluk,
Kolar District, Karnataka - 563 101.
(Exparte)
3. URC Construction Pvt. Ltd.,
Office at: H-102, Periyar Nagar,
Tamil Nadu Erode - 638001.
(RC Owner of Road Roller bearing
registration No.KA-04-HV-8614)
(By Sri Abhilash Raju.V., Advocate)
4. R. Kumar.
Proprietor, R.K. Construction,
No.7/1, 1st Main, Yerrainapalya
Extension, Madikere Nayaka Road,
Ramamurthynagar,
Bangalore - 560 016.
(Exparte)
*****
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed u/s.166 of M.V.Act 1989 for claiming compensation on account of death of Murali.R., S/o T.N. Ramakrishna.
SCCH - 7 3 MVC No.4743/2019
2. The brief facts of the case is that, on 12.08.2018 at about 08:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Gownapalli Police Station, near the land property of Nirmala situated at Nagireddygaripalli village main road, Gownapalli - Kothakota road the rider of the offending Hero Passion Pro Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-04-HV-8614 drove the same along with the deceased Murali as pillion rider in a rash or negligent manner and so as to endanger to human life and at near the land property of Nirmala suddenly the dog came across the road and in order to avoid the dog the rider Manjunath dashed to the another offending road roller Chassis No.22340230126, which was parked on the road without giving any indication and causing danger, obstruction in the public way and without possessing valid insurance policy and the RC owner of the said offending road roller has permitted the driver of the said offending road roller to run the same in which the said driver has not possessing valid driving licence. As a result the rider/ Accused and pillion rider/ deceased R.Murali fell down along with the Motor Cycle and the said pillion rider R.Murali has sustained grievous injuries on his head, cheek, fractures on his knee and broken his teeth. Thereafter deceased R.Murali was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar but during the course of treatment on the same night at 10.30 p.m., the said injured R.Murali was dead due to efficacious of treatment. Accordingly, Manjunath.S. has lodged complaint before the Gownapalli Police station SCCH - 7 4 MVC No.4743/2019 and a case was registered in their Crime No.75/2018 and prepared F.I.R. for the offence punishable under sections 279, 304(A) of IPC against Accused No.1/ Manjunatha/ rider of the offending Motor Cycle and Section 283, 304(A) of IPC R/w Section 180, 122, 177 of MV Act against the Accused No.2/Dadapir/driver of the offending road roller and Section 181, 196 of MV Act against Accused No.3/ Respondent No.3/RC owner of the offending road roller and submitted to the jurisdictional judicial magistrate and the superior officers and investigation was taken up by the investigating Officer.
3. It is contended that the Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioner No.3 is brother of the deceased Sri. R.Murali and as on the date of the alleged accident the said deceased was aged about 21 years and earning income was Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- under different head of loss of dependency, funeral and obsequies expenses, loss of filial love, loss of consortium, loss of estate.
4. It is contended that the accident is due to the rash or negligent driving of the rider of the offending Hero Fashion Pro Motor Bike bearing Reg. No.KA-04-HV-8614 and also due to causing obstruction in a public way by the driver of the Road Roller Chassis No.22340230126 and Engine No.8403021-1 ST Engine block SCCH - 7 5 MVC No.4743/2019 No.03013011163KCD01. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the RC owner of the offending Hero Fashion Pro Motor Bike bearing Reg. No.KA-04-HV-8614 and Respondent No.3 is the RC owner of the offending road roller and Respondent No.4 is the proposed purchaser of the offending road roller. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
5. In pursuance of notice issued to the Respondents No.1 to 4, the Respondents No.2 and 4 remained absent and placed exparte and Respondent No.1 and 3 have appeared through their counsels and filed their respective written statements. In the written statement the Respondent No.1 by admitting that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it and the same is valid on the date of the accident and denying the petition averments in part and contended that the Petitioner has not furnished the particulars of the vehicle including the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further it is denied having insured the vehicle involved in the accident. Further it is alleged that there is no compliance of provision under Section 134(C), 158, of M.V. Act and Rule 232, 235 of Karnataka Motor Vehicle Rules 1989. Further it is alleged that the Respondent No.1 being insurer of vehicle said to have been involved in the alleged accident is not under legal obligation to indemnify insured since insurer of vehicle has patently SCCH - 7 6 MVC No.4743/2019 violated specified terms and conditions of the policy respecting intimation of occurrence of accident/claim arising there under to insurer and has also failed to produce driving licence among other mandatory documents as mandated under Section 134(C) of M.V. Act. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and in order to obtained compensation the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present claim petition. Further it is denied that the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petition is false and frivolous in the eye of law and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and reserves the right u/s.170 of M.V.Act. Hence sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. In the written statement Respondent No.3 by admitting the facts of the case and further admitting the death of Sri. R. Murali who was dead due to injuries sustained in the alleged accident and contended that Respondent No.3 is the absolute owner of the said offending Vibrator Roller Double Drum and further alleged that the Respondent No.3 has entered into agreement of sale with Respondent No.4 for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,45,000/- and delivered the possession of the said vehicle in favour of Respondent No.4 upon receiving the entire sale consideration. Under these circumstance Respondent No.3 is not liable to any SCCH - 7 7 MVC No.4743/2019 compensation to the Petitioners and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition against the Respondent No.3.
7. On the basis of pleadings/contentions of both parties, my predecessors have framed the following issues:
:: I S S U E S ::
1) Whether the Petitioners proves that they are legal heirs of deceased Sri. Murali.R.?
2) Whether the Petitioners prove that accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of rider of Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-
04-HV-8614 and as a result Murali.R., sustained fatal injuries and succumbed to said injuries?
3) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? from whom?
4) What Order or Award?
8. Issue No.2 is recasted and reframed as follows:
Recasted Issue No.2:
Whether the Petitioners proves that on 12.08.2018 at about 08:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Gownapalli Police Station, near the land property of Nirmala situated at Nagireddygaripalli village main road, Gownapalli - Kothakota road the rider of the offending Hero Passion Pro Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-04-HV-8614 SCCH - 7 8 MVC No.4743/2019 drove the same along with the deceased Murali as pillion rider in a rash or negligent manner and so as to endanger to human life and at near the land property of Nirmala suddenly the dog came across the road and in order to avoid the dog the rider Manjunath dashed to the another offending road roller Chassis No.22340230126, which was parked on the road without giving any indication and causing danger, obstruction in the public way and as a result the rider/Accused and pillion rider/deceased R.Murali fell down along with the Motor Cycle and the said pillion rider R.Murali has sustained grievous injuries on his head, cheek, fractures on his knee and broken his teeth and thereafter deceased R.Murali was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar but during the course of treatment on the same night at 10.30 p.m., the said injured R.Murali was dead due to efficacious of treatment?
9. In order to prove their claim, the first petitioner No.2 is examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to 13 and eye witness by name Shivareddy Boosipalli @ Shivareddy got examined as PW- 2 and got marked Ex.P.14 and closed their side. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 got examined their Store Manager as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 and Accountant of Respondent No.3 company got examined as RW-2 and got marked Ex.R.2(a) and closed their side.
SCCH - 7 9 MVC No.4743/2019 10. I heard the arguments of both side. 11. Having heard the arguments, based on the
pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1... In the affirmative
Recasted
Issue No.2 ... In the affirmative
Issue No.3 ... Partly in the affirmative Issue No.4... As per final order For the following:
REASONS
12. Recasted Issue No.2 : This petition is filed u/s.166 of M.V.Act 1989 for seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Sri. R.Murali.R., S/o T.N. Ramakrishna.
13. The petitioners' in the petition have contended that on 12.08.2018 at about 08:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Gownapalli Police Station, near the land property of Nirmala situated at Nagireddygaripalli village main road, Gownapalli - Kothakota road the rider of the offending Hero Passion Pro Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-04-HV-8614 drove the same along with the deceased Murali as pillion rider in a rash or negligent manner and so as to endanger to human life and at near the land property of Nirmala suddenly the SCCH - 7 10 MVC No.4743/2019 dog came across the road and in order to avoid the dog the rider Manjunath dashed to the another offending road roller Chassis No.22340230126, which was parked on the road without giving any indication and causing danger, obstruction in the public way and without possessing valid insurance policy and the RC owner of the said offending road roller has permitted the driver of the said offending road roller to run the same in which the said driver has not possessing valid driving licence.
As a result the rider/ Accused and pillion rider/ deceased R.Murali fell down along with the Motor Cycle and the said pillion rider R.Murali has sustained grievous injuries on his head, cheek, fractures on his knee and broken his teeth. Thereafter deceased R.Murali was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar but during the course of treatment on the same night at 10.30 p.m., the said injured R.Murali was dead due to efficacious of treatment. It is contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller. The Respondent No.1 admitted the alleged accident and its version is that, the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence, fault and rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller. As such both the rider and driver of the SCCH - 7 11 MVC No.4743/2019 respective offending vehicles were negligent. Therefore the alleged accident occurred due to fault of the driver of the offending road roller and no fault of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and therefore rider of the offending Motor Cycle cannot be held to be negligent. In case of composite negligence the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasor and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort-feasors is joint and several. Further it is alleged that the driver of the offending vehicle is not possessing valid DL, FC and effective permit at the time of alleged accident and also terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As such the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and in order to obtained compensation the Petitioners have constrained to filed the present claim petition. Further it is denied that the age, income and occupation of the deceased and the petition is false and frivolous in the eye of law and the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the petition.
14. The Respondent No.3 admitting the death of the deceased R. Murali due to injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident and the version of the Respondent No.3 is that Respondent No.3 is the absolute owner of the said offending Vibrator Roller Double Drum and further alleged that the Respondent No.3 has entered into agreement of sale with Respondent No.4 for total sale SCCH - 7 12 MVC No.4743/2019 consideration amount of Rs.3,45,000/- and delivered the possession of the said vehicle in favour of Respondent No.4 upon receiving the entire sale consideration. Under these circumstance Respondent No.3 is not liable to any compensation to the Petitioners.
15. The burden to prove the framed issues lies on the Petitioners. Hence, in order to prove their case, the Petitioner No.2 herself examined as P.W.1 and she has reiterated the entire petition averments and contentions taken in the course of claim petition in her evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Exs.P.1 to P.13 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. In support of the Petitioner's case and in order to substantiate the oral evidence of P.W.1, the Petitioner has examined eye witness by name Shivareddy Boosipalli @ Shivareddy as Pw.2 and he has reiterated the entire petition averments and contentions taken in the course of claim petition in his evidence before this Court. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again and got marked Ex.P-14/Adhar Card. I have gone through the documents produced by the PW-1. Ex.P-1 is the True copy of FIR in Crime No.75/2018, Ex.P-2 is the True copy of complaint dated 13.08.2018, Ex.P-3 is the true copy of the spot panchanama dated 13.08.2018, Ex.P-4 is the True copy of the spot sketch, Ex.P-5 is the true copy of Motor vehicle inspection report, Ex.P-6 is the Postmortem SCCH - 7 13 MVC No.4743/2019 report, Ex.P-7 is the true copy of Charge Sheet, Ex.P.8 is the Notice issued under Section 133 of MV Act, Ex.P.9 is the Reply to Notice issued under Section 133 of MV Act, Ex.P.10 is the Adhar Card of the deceased, Ex.P.11 is the Adhar Card of Petitioner No.1, Ex.P.12 is the Adhar Card of Petitioner No.2, Ex.P.13 is the Adhar Card of Petitioner No.3 is the Adhar Card of PW-2.
16. In the cross-examination of PW-1 by the counsel for Respondent No.1 she has deposed that she is not an eye witness to the alleged accident. Further she has denied that at the time of alleged accident her deceased son was not wearing helmet and due to his negligence the alleged accident occurred and due to his fault he died due to injuries sustained in the alleged accident. Further she has deposed that the police have filed Charge Sheet against the rider of the Motor Cycle and driver of the road roller. Further she has deposed that the deceased was perusing the degree at the time of accident and doing part time job after his college hours. Further she denied that she has not incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral of the deceased. In the cross-examination of PW-1 by counsel for Respondent No.3 she has deposed that the deceased is her son. At the time of alleged accident Manjunath was riding the offending Motor Cycle along with her deceased son as pillion rider. At the time of accident the dog suddenly crossed the road and to avoid the dog the alleged accident occurred. She do not know SCCH - 7 14 MVC No.4743/2019 whether the Respondent No.3 has sold the offending road roller to Respondent No.4 in the year 2012. Further she denied that Respondent No.3 is not the owner of the offending road roller. During the cross examination Pw.1 has consistently deposed on the lines of the prosecution case/petition averments and she has made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination.
17. In the cross-examination of PW-2, by the counsel for Respondent No.1 he has deposed that he is the eye witness of the alleged accident and the said accident is occurred near his house. Further he has denied that he has not seen the alleged accident and in order to help the family of the deceased he is deposing as eye witness of the alleged accident. Further he has denied that the deceased was riding the alleged offending Motor Cycle at the time of accident and the said Manjunath was not riding the bike and he was not present therein. Further he has denied that the said Manjunath was not sustained any injuries in the alleged accident. Further he has denied that the alleged accident occurred only due to negligent and fault of the driver of the offending road roller. Further he has deposed that the driver of the offending road roller caused obstruction by negligent parking in a public way and due to such fault the alleged accident occurred. Further he has denied that in order to help the family of the deceased he has filed false evidence SCCH - 7 15 MVC No.4743/2019 affidavit and deposing falsely. During the cross examination Pw.2 has consistently deposed on the lines of the petition/prosecution case and he has made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination and according to prosecution this witness is an eye witness to the prosecution case.
18. In order to prove the version of Respondent No.3, the Stores Manager of the Respondent No.3 examined as R.W.1 and he has reiterated the entire written statement averments and contentions taken in the course of version in his evidence before this Court and also produced as many as Exs.R.1 to R.4 documents. Therefore, there is no necessity to repeat those facts again. In support of the Respondent No.3 case and in order to substantiate the oral evidence of R.W.1, the Respondent No.3 has examined witness of the Ex.R.2 Sale Agreement dated 25.06.2012 as a witness by name Sri.Thyagarajan.R as Rw.2 and got marked his signature as Ex.R.2(a) in the Ex.R.2 Sale agreement. I have gone through the documents produced by the RW-1. The Ex.R.1 is the Authorization letter issued by the Respondent No.3 Company in favour of RW-1 to adduce evidence on his behalf, Ex.R.2 is the Sale Agreement dated 25.06.2012, on going through the same it is seen that Respondent No.3 company has entered into agreement of sale to sell the offending road roller in favour of Respondent No.4 for a sale consideration amount of Rs.3,45,000/- and SCCH - 7 16 MVC No.4743/2019 Respondent No.3 received the entire sale consideration and delivered the possession of the said offending road roller in favour of Respondent No.4 in the presence of witness/ RW-2. Ex.R.3 is the invoice in relating to purchase of the road roller by Respondent No.3. Ex.R.4 is the ledger account extract of the Respondent No.4.
19. In the cross-examination of RW-1 by counsel for Petitioner he has deposed that the RC of the offending road roller stands in the name of Respondent No.3 at the time of alleged accident. Further he has denied that in order to escape from his liability he has produced false documents and false affidavit and deposing falsely.
20. In the chief examination of RW-2 he has deposed that he has put his signature as witness in the Ex.R.2/Agreement of sale dated 25.06.2012. In the cross- examination of RW-2, he has deposed that he is working under Respondent No.3 company as accountant since from 2009. Further he has deposed that the purchaser of the offending road roller was working as contractor under Respondent No.3 company and in order to repayment of money towards completion of the contract work the Respondent No.3 has sold the said offending vehicle in favour of Respondent No.4. Further he has denied that in order to escape from the liability and in order to help the Respondent No.3 company they have produced concocted Ex.R.2/Agreement and deposing falsely.
SCCH - 7 17 MVC No.4743/2019
21. On careful reading of Ex.P5/IMV report, it specifies that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has been clearly opined that, in the accident road roller was not sustained damages and the front wheel mudguard, head light and doom assembly, front registration number plate and left side crash guard of the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-04-HV-8614 sustained damages and the cause of an accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the both vehicles.
22. On going through the Ex.P-6/Postmortem report it is seen that Doctor opined that cause of death of deceased Sri.R.Murali is due to multiple injuries sustained in the alleged road traffic accident.
23. On going through the Ex.P-2/Complaint it is seen that on 12.08.2018 at about 08:30 p.m., within the jurisdiction of Gownapalli Police Station, near the land property of Nirmala situated at Nagireddygaripalli village main road, Gownapalli - Kothakota road the rider of the offending Hero Passion Pro Motor Bike bearing registration No.KA-04-HV-8614 drove the same along with the deceased Murali as pillion rider in a rash or negligent manner and so as to endanger to human life and at near the land property of Nirmala suddenly the dog came across the road and in order to avoid the dog SCCH - 7 18 MVC No.4743/2019 the rider Manjunath dashed to the another offending road roller Chassis No.22340230126, which was parked on the road without giving any indication and causing danger, obstruction in the public way and without possessing valid insurance policy and the RC owner of the said offending road roller has permitted the driver of the said offending road roller to run the same in which the said driver has not possessing valid driving licence. As a result the rider/ Accused and pillion rider/ deceased R.Murali fell down along with the Motor Cycle and the said pillion rider R.Murali has sustained grievous injuries on his head, cheek, fractures on his knee and broken his teeth. Thereafter deceased R.Murali was shifted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Kolar but during the course of treatment on the same night at 10.30 p.m., the said injured R.Murali was dead due to efficacious of treatment. On going through the Ex.P3/spot Mahazar it is seen that in pursuance of the alleged Ex.P2/complaint on 13-08-2018 informant/Manjunath showed the place of incident to the police. The police have conducted the detailed spot mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses and during the mahazar the police have prepared Ex.P4/spot sketch. Admittedly, the accused No.1/Manjunath.N is the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and Accused No.2 is the driver of the offending road roller and Accused No.3/ Respondent No.3 is the RC owner of the offending road roller and further admitted that, Sri. R.Murali was a pillion rider and died due to SCCH - 7 19 MVC No.4743/2019 alleged accident caused by the offending vehicles in question. The Counsel for the Respondent No.2 contended that the alleged accident occurred due to the negligence, fault and rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller and therefore both rider and driver of the offending vehicles are made as Accused No.1 and 2 respectively in this matter and hence there is is composite negligence and to recover the entire compensation of liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The counsel for Respondent No.3 contended that though the Respondent No.3 company is the RC owner of the offending road roller but it has sold the said offending vehicle in favour of Respondent No.4 by virtue of Ex.R.2/ Agreement for valuable sale consideration and therefore any liability, i.e, fastened on Respondent No.3 would have to be indemnify by Respondent No.4. On going through the prosecution papers, FIR, mahazar, spot sketch, IMV Report, Inquest mahazar, Postmortem report and Charge Sheet and the evidence of PW-1 are specific to the effect that, the rider and driver of the offending vehicles/accused No.1 and 2 are the reason for the said incident and at their instance, the incident took place. The alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller and SCCH - 7 20 MVC No.4743/2019 fault of both of them. The evidence of Pw.1 was corroborated to the case of the prosecution and she has supported the manner of occurrence in her evidence in the court and the manner of occurrence is the same as alleged in the Ex.P2/complaint. It seems that Pw.1 has clearly made those versions, which could not be shattered in cross examination. Therefore, considering the above discussed aspects collectively, it is the considered opinion of the Court that, the incident having been taken place in the manner asserted by the prosecution and the same being proved to have been taken place in the manner alleged by the prosecution, that due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller at the spot and as a result pillion rider Sri.R.Murali sustained grievous injuries and died due to alleged accident. The evidence of Pw.1, Ex.P-1/FIR, Ex.P-2/Complaint, Ex.P3/spot Mahazar, Ex.P4/spot sketch, Ex.P-5/IMV Report, Ex.P-6/Postmortem Report and Ex.P-7/Charge Sheet clearly establishes that the alleged accident occurred at the spot. It is not in dispute as to the aspect that, the deceased Sri. R.Murali sustained grievous injuries and died in the alleged incident. Because, for the above reasons collectively, it is clear that, the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, SCCH - 7 21 MVC No.4743/2019 obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller. It is evident that injuries and cause of death of deceased Sri. R. Murali noted in the Ex.P6/PM report would be caused by a road accident. At the same time, it has come out in evidence that the alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller. Matters being so, the acts of the accused persons clearly constitute the offences punishable under sections 279, 304A, 283 of IPC R/w Section 180, 181, 122, 177, 196 of MV Act. Thus because of such negligent act of the accused No.1 and 2/rider and driver of the offending vehicles, it resulted in the death of the innocent citizen Sri. R.Murali aforesaid, as the rider of the offending Motor Cycle drove the same in a rash or negligent manner so as to endanger human life and on the spot dashed to the another offending road roller vehicle in which the said driver of the offending road roller was caused obstruction by negligent parking in a public way. Therefore, the alleged accident occurred due to the fault of the accused No.1 and 2/rider and driver of the offending vehicles. Accordingly I answered recasted Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No.1 and 3:- The Learned counsel for the Petitioners has contended that the deceased was aged SCCH - 7 22 MVC No.4743/2019 about 21 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Further the counsel contended that as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram reported in 2018 ACJ 2782, the Petitioners being legal heirs of deceased, each of the Petitioners are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of love and affection consortium and prays to award the compensation as prayed in the petition.
25. On the other hand the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 insurance company contended that even though the Petitioners claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m., the same is not established by the claimants by producing the documents. Since the Petitioners have not established the income of the deceased, they are not entitled for compensation towards future prospects and hence prays dismissal of the petition.
26. On going through the Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13 Adhar Cards of the Petitioners respectively it is seen that the Petitioner No.1 is the father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. Hence on the strength of Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-13 Adhar cards of the Petitioners it is crystal clear that the Petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased.
SCCH - 7 23 MVC No.4743/2019
27. The petitioners are contended that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 21 years and earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioners relied on the Ex.P.10/Ahdar Card of the deceased and wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 16.03.1998 and this accident was took place on 12.08.2018. Hence it is clear that as on the date of the accident the deceased was aged about 20 years. Hence the age of the deceased is considered as 20 years.
28. It is not in dispute that the deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred due to due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending Motor Cycle and causing danger, obstruction by negligent parking in a public way by the driver of the offending road roller. In the instance case the petitioners claimed that deceased was earning income Rs.20,000/- p.m. But they have not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of proof of income the notional income as to be assessed. As per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, for the accident taken place in the year 2018, the notional income of the deceased taken at Rs.11,750/-. To the aforesaid income, 40% to be added on account of future prospects in view of the law laid down by the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in AIR 2017 SC 5157 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethy and other. Thus the monthly income comes to Rs.16,450/-
SCCH - 7 24 MVC No.4743/2019 (Rs.11,750/- + 40%). Since the deceased is bachelor, it is appropriate to deduct 50% towards personal and living expenses and remaining amount, i.e., Rs.8,225/- (Rs.16,450/- - 50%) has to be taken as his/deceased contribution to the family. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of accident and multiplier applicable to his age group is '18'. Thus the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.17,76,600/- (Rs.8,225/- x 12 x 18) on account of loss of dependency.
29. In addition, the Petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of Loss of estate and compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of Funeral expenses. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2018 ACJ 2782 in the Case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Nanu Ram, Petitioner No.1 is the father and Petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of loss of consortium and also petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each under the head of love and affection. Thus the Petitioners are entitled to the following compensation:
30. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
SCCH - 7 25 MVC No.4743/2019
Sl.No. Compensation under Amount in (Rs)
different heads
1 Loss of dependency 17,76,600.00
2 Funeral Expenses 15,000.00
3 Loss of Estate 15,000.00
4 Loss of filial consortium 80,000.00
5 Loss of love and affection 1,20,000.00
Total 20,06,600.00
31. The Petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.20,06,600/-.
32. The counsel for the respondent No.3 contended that though the Respondent No.3 company is the RC owner of the offending road roller but it has sold the said offending vehicle in favour of Respondent No.4 by virtue of Ex.R.2/ Agreement for valuable sale consideration and therefore any liability, i.e, fastened on Respondent No.3 would have to be indemnify by Respondent No.4. On the strength of the Ex.R.2/Agreement dated 25.06.2012 the respondent No.3 contended that it has sold the offending road roller in favour of respondent No.4 as such respondent No.3 is not liable and any liability, i.e., fastened on respondent No.3 would have to be indemnify by respondent No.4, but on going through the evidence, documents and material available on records it is seen that the RC owner of the offending road roller is respondent No.3 at the time of alleged accident and the respondent No.3 company has not taken any pain to transfer the RC of the offending road roller in favour of SCCH - 7 26 MVC No.4743/2019 respondent No.4 prior to the alleged accident and therefore after investigation the police have rightly arrayed the RC owner/ respondent No.3 as the accused No.3 in the charge sheet of this matter and in this regard the respondent No.3 has not challenged before any competent authority or any competent court. Hence there is no force in the contention taken by the respondent No.3 in its version.
33. In the instance case the rider of the offending motor cycle and driver of the road roller were negligent at 50% each and in case of composite negligence the claimants are entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several and it is the settled law and in this regard I have relied the decision reported in 2015(9) SCC 273 in the case of Khenyei V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others. Hence in view of the position of law the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. In view of the above discussion the respondent No.1 insurance company is directed deposit the entire compensation along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment with liberty to recover 50% of the same in execution petition from respondent No.3. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
SCCH - 7 27 MVC No.4743/2019
34. Issue No.4:- In view of my above discussions and findings on above Issues and recasted Issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,06,600/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Six Thousand and Six Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The Insurance company/Respondent No.1 is directed to the deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from the date of this order with liberty to recover 50% of the same in execution petition from respondent No.3 Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Father - 45%
Petitioner No.2 - Mother - 45%
Petitioner No.3 - Brother - 10%
After deposit, entire compensation
amount with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioners No.1 to 3 respectively under E-payment with proper verification and identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
SCCH - 7 28 MVC No.4743/2019 Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on 15th day of January 2025) (SHYAM PRAKASH) IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Kalavathamma
P.W.2 : Shivareddy Boosipalli @ Shivareddy
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 : Kumar.K
RW-2 : Thiyagarajan.R
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P-3 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P-4 : Spot Sketch Ex.P-5 : IMV Report Ex.P-6 : Postmortem report Ex.P-7 : Charge Sheet Ex.P-8 : Notice issued under Section 133 of MV Act Ex.P-9 : Reply to notice SCCH - 7 29 MVC No.4743/2019 Ex.P-10 : Aadhar Card of deceased Murali Ex.P-11 to Adhar Cards of Petitioners Ex.P-13 : Ex.P-14 : Adhar Card of PW-2
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R-1 Authorization letter
Ex.R-2 Sale Agreement of Vibrator roller double drum
Ex.R-2(a) Signature of witness
Ex.R-3 Invoice
Ex.R-4 Ledger account
(SHYAM PRAKASH)
IX ADDL. JUDGE & ACJM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by
SHYAMPRAKASH SHYAMPRAKASH
Date: 2025.01.20
16:16:58 +0530