Bangalore District Court
Srinivasa Alias Srinivasappa vs Lakshmamma on 1 August, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
KABC020322942019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF
SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH-_14)
-: PRESENT:-
SMT. PRAKRITI KALYANPUR, B.A(L),LL.B., LL.M.
C/c XVI Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF AUGUST 2024
MVC No.7768/2019 c/w 7769/2019 & 7770/2019
Petitioner/s : 1.Sri.Srinivasa alias
In MVC.7768/2019 Srinivasappa,
S/o Doddavenkataramappa,
Aged about 47 years.
2.Kum.Lakshmi.H.S
D/o Srinivasa alias
Srinivasappa,
Aged about 21 years.
3.Kum.Padmashree.H.S
D/o Srinivasa alias
Srinivasappa,
Aged about 19 years.
4.Smt.V.Rathnamma,
W/o Doddavenkataramappa,
Aged about 65 years.
5.Doddavenkataramappa,
SCCH-14 2 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
S/o Late Seethappa,
Aged about 70 years.
All are R/at:
Hollamballi Village,
Shapur Post,
Kolar Taluk & District.
(By Sri.N.Manjunath,Adv)
Kum.Swathi.T
Petitioner/s In D/o Thimmarayappa,
MVC.7769/2019 Aged about 19 years.
Residing at:
Chakanahalli Village,
Araleri Post,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri.N.Manjunath,Adv)
Mast.Avinasha.T.
Petitioner/s In S/o Thimmarayappa,
MVC.7770/2019 Aged about 17 years,
Since the petitioner is minor
Rep. By his father/natural
guardian.
Sri.Thimmarayappa,
S/o Late Kittappa,
Aged about 41 years.
Both are residing at:
V/s Chakanahalli Village,
SCCH-14 3 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
Araleri Post, Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By Sri.N.Manjunath,Adv)
Respondent/s
In all the cases
1.Smt.Lakshmamma,
W/o Muniswamy,
R/at No.648,
3rd Cross, PWD Qaurters,
Noor Nagar,
Kolar Town - 563101.
(By Sri.N.Byra Reddy, adv.)
2. Liberty General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Office No.1, Alyssa,
1st floor, Rear portion
Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond Road,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
(By Sri.Ravi.S.Samprathi,adv.)
:JUDGMENT:
The Petitioners in M.V.C. No.7768/2019, 7769/2019 and 7770/2019 have filed the Petitions against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Girish.H.S S/o Srinivasa alias Srinivasappa and Rs.10,00,000/- for the SCCH-14 4 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 injuries sustained by the petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 and Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 in a Road Traffic accident,
2. Since these Petitions arise out of the same accident and in view of the Order dated 14-03-2022 in MVC.No.7768/2019, these cases were clubbed together and taken for common disposal.
3. The substance of averments made in all the Petitions are as under:
That on 22-08-2019 at about 8.15 a.m. the deceased Girish in MVC.7768/2019 along with the petitioners in MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2019 were travelling in a Hero Splendor bearing No.KA-08-W-3362. When they reached near Shapur cross on Bethamangala-Kolar road, Kolar Taluk & District, one Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-EB-
9744 came from opposite direction ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler.
Due to the said impact, the said Girish and petitioners in SCCH-14 5 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2019 fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Girish succumbed to the injuries on the spot.
Immediately after the accident, Petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 was shifted to R.L.Jalappa hospital wherein she was treated as an inpatient.
Immediately after the accident, Petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 was shifted to R.L.Jalappa hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient.
Prior to the date of accident, the deceased Girish.H.S in MVC.7768/2019 was hale and healthy and he was studying in 1st PUC and was self employed and was earning Rs.30,000/-
per month.
Prior to the date of accident, the petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 was hale and healthy and she was studying in 1st year B.Sc., Prior to the date of accident, the petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 was hale and healthy and he was studying in 1st year PUC.SCCH-14 6 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
4. The Petitioners of all the Petitions have contended that the accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-07-EB-9744 which is owned by the Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2. As such, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
5. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their respective counsel, but respondent No.2 alone filed detailed Objection Statement.
Respondent No.2 denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and of the petitioners in MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2010. It has further denied that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent riding of the offending Royal Enfield motor cycle by its rider. Further it contended that the rider of the Royal Enfield motor cycle was not possessing valid and effective driving license to ride the Royal Enfield motor SCCH-14 7 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 cycle. It has further contended that the owner of the Royal Enfield motor cycle knowing fully well that the rider did not possess valid driving licence has entrusted the said vehicle to him and has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It has further denied the injuries sustained by the deceased and Petitioners in all the petitions and the expenses incurred for the treatment of the Petitioners. It has further contended that the deceased sustained injuries and died due to self fall from motor cycle which he was riding. It has further contended that deceased was not wearing ISI mark headgear at the time of accident. It has further contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle by carrying 2 pillion riders in violation of provisions of MV Act and while so lost balance and control over the motor cycle fell down sustained injuries and died. On these grounds, it has prayed to dismiss all the petitions.
6. On the rival pleadings, my Learned Predecessor in office has framed following Issues.
ISSUES IN MVC NO.7768/2019 SCCH-14 8 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Sri.Girish.H.S succumbed to the injuries in Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 22.08.2019 at about 8.15 a.m., near Shapu cross, on Bethamangala Kolar road, Kolar Taluk and District, arising out of accident due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-EB-9744?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.MVC.7769/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred 22.08.2019 at about 8.15 a.m., near Shapu cross, on Bethamangala Kolar road, Kolar Taluk and District, arising out of accident due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of SCCH-14 9 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA- 07-EB-9744?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
ISSUES IN MVC NO.7770/2019
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred 22.08.2019 at about 8.15 a.m., near Shapu cross, on Bethamangala Kolar road, Kolar Taluk and District, arising out of accident due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA- 07-EB-9744?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
7. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the SCCH-14 10 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 Petitioner No.1 in MVC.No.7768/2019 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12. The petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 got examined herself as P.W.2 and got marked documents as per Ex.P-13 to 16. The natural guardian of the petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 got examined himself as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.17 to 21. The petitioner in MVC.7770/2018 got examined a witness as PW.4 and got marked Ex.P.22 to 24 and closed their side evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 got examined its Area Manager as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
1. 2014 ACJ 1012 (SC)(FB) (Meera Devi and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others) 2.2023 ACJ 346 (SC) (Anjana Narayan Kamble and others Vs.Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., and another).
3. 2023 ACJ 2390 (Jeyarani and another Vs. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., and another) SCCH-14 11 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 4.2021 ACJ 1146 (Chetana and others Vs. Babuji.M and others)
9. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and of the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2. I have perused the depositions, documents exhibited, materials available on record and the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. My answer to the Issues in MVC.7768/2019 are as under :
Issue No. 1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
11. My answer to the Issues in MVC.7769/2019 are as under :
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
12. My answer to the Issues in MVC.7770/2019 are as under :
SCCH-14 12 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per the Final Order,
for the following :
REASONS
13. Issue No.1 in MVC.7768/2019 to 7770/2019:-It is the case of the Petitioners that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-EB-9744 by its rider and in the said accident, petitioners in MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2019 sustained grievous injuries and Girish.H.S had succumbed to the injuries.
14. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, Petitioner No.1 in MVC.7768/2019 has been examined as P.W.1, petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 got examined herself as P.W.2 and the natural guardian of the petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 examined himself as PW.3. The petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 got examined doctor as PW.4 and got marked Ex. P.1 to 24. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-6, Ex.P.13 and 14 are the True SCCH-14 13 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 copies of FIR along with Complaint, Spot Panchanama along with sketch, IMV report, Inquest panchanama along with statement of witnesses, PM report and charge sheet.
15. Upon going through the said documents, it shows that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner in MVC.7769/2019, the case was registered against the rider of the offending Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-EB- 9744 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304A of IPC. The document Ex.P2 justifies the fact that in the presence of pancha witnesses IO has conducted the procedure of spot mahazar. The document Ex.P.3 justifies the fact of involvement of vehicles bearing Reg.No.KA-08-W-3362 and KA- 07-EB-9744 in the accident. The said document also shows that accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. Ex.P.4 and 5 justify the fact of death of Girish.H.S. Moreover, Ex.P.5 discloses that the cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of injuries sustained. The prime document i.e., Ex.P.6 discloses the fact that IO after SCCH-14 14 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 thorough investigation charge sheeted the rider of offending vehicle for the offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 338, 304(A) of IPC. At this juncture it is to be noted that the charge sheet allegations do not support the contention of respondent No.2 with regard to the allegation that the rider of offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to ride the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Ex.P.7 to 11 are the notarised copy of Aadhar card of Petitioners and of the deceased in MVC.7768/2019. Ex.P.12 is the notarised copy of ration card.
16. Ex.P.13 is the true copy of wound certificate of petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 reveals that as a result of RTA the petitioner has sustained injuries. Ex.P.14 is the discharge summary, Ex.P.15 is the notarised copy of aadhar card and Ex.P.16 is the Medical bills.
17. Ex.P.17 is the true copy of wound certificate of petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 reveals that as a result of RTA the petitioner has sustained injuries. Ex.P.18 is the discharge summary, Ex.P.19 and 20 are the notarised copy of aadhar SCCH-14 15 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 cards and Ex.P.21 is the Medical bills.
18. Further, PW.3 in MVC.7770/2019 has examined a witness as PW.4 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.22 to 24 i.e., Ex.P.22 is calculation sheet, Ex.P.23 is IP case sheet and Ex.P.24 is X-ray.
19. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has cross examined the P.W.1 to PW.4 at length. In the cross-examination PW.1 to PW.4 have denied the suggestions and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the testimony of the Petitioners.
20. Further, the Respondent No.2 got examined its Area Manager as RW.1. RW.1 in his affidavit filed by him in lieu of his oral examination in chief reiterated the Objection statement contentions. Through him, true copy of policy has been marked as Ex.R.1. In the cross examination, he has admitted that he is deposing based on the documents. He has also admitted that as on the date of accident, the policy in respect of the offending SCCH-14 16 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 vehicle in question was valid and effective. However, the other suggestions have been denied by RW.1.
21. Moreover, the charge sheet is the material document, which is not challenged by the rider of the offending vehicle. In addition to this, the documents Ex.P.13 and 17 justify the fact that as a result of occurrence of accident, the petitioners in MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2019 sustained injuries as mentioned in the said document.
22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
1. 2014 ACJ 1012 (SC)(FB) (Meera Devi and another Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others) Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the deceased cannot be held liable for contributory negligence merely on the doctrine of common law that deceased was a minor and not permitted to drive.
2.2023 ACJ 346 (SC) (Anjana Narayan Kamble and others Vs.Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., and another).SCCH-14 17 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the motor cyclist cannot be held negligent merely on the ground that he was not wearing helmet and was tripple riding. Violation of traffic rules is no ground to hold negligence unless there is evidence that either the accident could have been averted or the impact could have been minimised.
3. 2023 ACJ 2390 (Jeyarani and another Vs. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., and another) Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that there has to be specific evidence regarding negligence and liability cannot be attributed only because additional pillion rider was carried on the two wheeler.
23. Therefore, on perusal of the above decisions it is clear that only on the ground that the deceased was a minor and triple riding without helmet cannot be considered as contributory negligence in the absence of specific evidence to show that the deceased in any way contributed to the accident. The oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 to PW.4 and the materials available on record, clearly show that the said accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider. Therefore, this Tribunal is of SCCH-14 18 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 the considered opinion that the said accident has occurred as a result of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider and the Petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2019 sustained grievous injuries and the deceased Girish.H.S in MVC.7768/2019 succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in MVC.7768/2019 to 7770/2019 in the "Affirmative".
24. Issue No.2 in MVC.7768/2019: The Petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased, Petitioner No.2 and 3 are sisters of the deceased, petitioner No.4 and 5 are grand parents of the deceased Girish.H.S. To prove their relationship with the deceased, PW.1 has produced Aadhar cards of the Petitioners and ration card at Ex.P7 to 12. The document Ex. P.12 justifies that the deceased is the son of petitioner No.1 herein. Apart from that, these documents also support the case of petitioners that the petitioners are related to the deceased. The document Ex. P.12 also supports the case of petitioners regarding the fact that they were residing together. Hence, the Petitioners are SCCH-14 19 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 considered as the L.Rs of deceased Girish.H.S, they are entitled for the compensation.
25. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 18 years and he was a 1st year PUC student and was assisting his father in agriculture and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. In this regard, petitioners have not produced any document to substantiate the said fact.
26. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decision:
2021 ACJ 1146 (Chetana and others Vs. Babuji.M and others) Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that in rural area, it is common for a 17 year old to be involved in milk vending or similar occupation.
27. The petitioners have averred that the deceased was helping his parents in agricultural work. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income to be assessed SCCH-14 20 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e., Rs.14,000/-p.m. as the accident has occurred in the year of 2019, for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
28. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Girish.H.S was 18 years at the time of the accident. PW.1 has produced Ex.P.12 i.e., ration card. As per Ex.P.12, the age of the deceased is shown as 15 years during the year 2014. The alleged accident occurred on 22-08-2019. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Girish.H.S was 19 years. Hence, the age of the deceased Girish.H.S to be taken at 19 years for the purpose of assessment.
29. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, SCCH-14 21 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
The deceased has left behind his father, sisters and grandparents. The Petitioner No.1 is the father and Petitioner No.2 and 3 are sisters and petitioner No.4 and 5 are grandparents of the deceased. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "Loss of estate has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 15,000/-, loss of consortium should be Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/-".In Civil Appeal No.2410-2412 of 2023 between Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Bhagat Singh Ravat and others with SLP(C) Nos.1185-1186/2021, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that "Having said so, learned counsel for the respondent points out that this amount so determined by us is liable to be SCCH-14 22 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 enhanced by a percentage of 10 per cent every 3 years as opined in para 61 (viii) of the judgement in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) which reads as under:- 61(viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/- Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the The Petitioner No.1 is the father and Petitioner No.2 and 3 are sisters and petitioner No.4 and 5 are grandparents of the deceased Girish.H.S, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/- towards loss of consortium to petitioner No.1 and Rupees 16,500/-
collectively towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- collectively towards funeral expenses.
II. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
The Petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. Hence, I am of the SCCH-14 23 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- collectively under this head would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the same is awarded.SCCH-14 24 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
III. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDANCY:
It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased to be taken at Rs.14,000/- pm. At this juncture, I would like to go through the decision reported in :
1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, contract worker in a company - High Court did not consider future prospects while computing compensation - Whether claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
- Held : - yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance SCCH-14 25 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High Court disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes: there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork: executing Court directed to respondent compute entitlement of claimants by adding 40 per cent of income for future prospect and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses".
The decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s SCCH-14 26 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "In case self employed or person on fixed salary the addition should be 40% when the age is below 40 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged 19 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.14,000/- comes to Rs.5,600/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,600/- p.m. (Rs.14,000/- + Rs.5,600/-). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 18. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the number of dependent of family members is 4 to 6, 1/4th of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
30. In this case, the petitioners have stated that deceased is the son of petitioner No.1, brother of petitioner No.2 and 3 and grandson of petitioner No.4 and 5. There is no dispute of SCCH-14 27 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 the fact that the petitioner No.1 is the son of petitioner No.4 and 5. As the petitioner No.1 is very much alive, the petitioner No.4 and 5 cannot become dependents on the deceased. There is no dispute of the fact that the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the daughters of petitioner No.1 and the siblings of the deceased. As the petitioner No.1 is very much alive, the petitioner No.2 and 3 cannot become dependents on the deceased. Considering the situation, it appears that the deceased has left his father as sole dependent. Record also reveals that at the time of his death Girish was a bachelor. As such, half of the income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. After deducting 1/2 towards his personal expenses in Rs.19,600/- it comes to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.19,600/- - 9,800/-) and multiplier applied is 18 which comes to Rs.21,16,800/- (9,800 x 12 x 18). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.21,16,800/- which is rounded off to Rs.21,16,800/- towards loss of dependency.
31. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH SCCH-14 28 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 44,000/-
2. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
3. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Transportation of dead body Rs. 20,000/-
5. Loss of Dependency Rs.21,16,800/-
Total Rs.22,13,800/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.22,13,800/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
32. Issue No. 2 in MVC.7769/2019 :- As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending Royal Enfield motor cycle by its rider, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
33. It is to be noted here that according to the petitioner, SCCH-14 29 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 she has sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate shows that the Petitioner had sustained following injuries.
1.Multiple abrasions over right knee
2. Abrasion over right toes.
As per the opinion of the doctor, the injuries are simple in nature.
34. In order to prove the gravity of the injuries, the Petitioner is expected to produce documents. But, the documents produced by the Petitioner shows that she had sustained grievous injuries. As per the discharge summary, the petitioner was admitted on 22.08.2019 and discharged on 07.09.2019 i.e., for 16 days and incurred expenditure of Rs.50,000/- for her treatment and other expenses. But, upon going through the medical bills, i.e., at Ex.P.16 which amounts to sum of Rs.19,677.46/-. Apart from that, there is no serious dispute made regarding the medical bills furnished by the petitioner. Accordingly, the medical bills are accepted. SCCH-14 30 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
35. The petitioner has claimed sum of Rs.30 lakhs as compensation by asserting that she has sustained grievous injuries as a result of accident occurred on 22-08-2019 due to the fault of the rider of offending vehicle. Law expects proof of this aspect regarding the gravity of injuries for which examination of any medical practitioner/doctor is necessary. However, the petitioner herein has not taken any such pain in getting the treated doctor examined before this court to justify the injuries which according to her she has sustained. In the absence of same, this Tribunal is of the opinion that if the global compensation is awarded to the petitioner it would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, this Tribunal is of the opinion that awarding global compensation of Rs.50,000/- would be just and proper. Hence, same is awarded accordingly.
36. Issue No. 2 in MVC.7770/2019 :- As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending Royal Enfield motor cycle by its rider, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation. SCCH-14 31 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
37. It is to be noted here that according to the petitioner, he has sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P.17 Wound Certificate shows that the Petitioner had sustained following injuries.
1.Multiple abrasions on upper limb
2. Multiple abrasion of lower limb.
3. Fracture both bone right leg.
4. Mild traumatic brain injury.
As per the opinion of the doctor, the injury No.1 and 2 are simple in nature and injury No.3 and 4 are grievous in nature.
38. In the petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 17 years. He has produced aadhar card at Ex.P.19 to prove his age. As per aadhar card, date of birth is shown as 15-02-2004. The accident has taken place on 22.08.2019. Hence, the age of the Petitioner, as on the date of accident was taken as 15 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.
39. The PW.1 deposed that his son was admitted as an inpatient from 22-08-2019 to 26.09.2019. Further, P.W.4 SCCH-14 32 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 Dr.Arun.H.S has also reiterated the same in his evidence.
40. The Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Arun.H.S as PW-4 and he deposed that he examined the minor Petitioner on 18.04.2022 and found that the Petitioner is suffering from total disability of lower limb at 29% and whole body at 10%. The age of the Petitioner is 15 years. As such question of occupation and income does not arise. In the circumstances, any disability shown to his limb cannot be assessed as functional disability.
41. According to the evidence of doctor/PW-4, the minor Petitioner suffered physical disability at 29% to the lower limb and 10% to the whole body. But he admitted in the cross examination that he has not treated the petitioner. He has admitted that after removal of implants, the fractures were found united. However, the doctor assessed the whole body disability of the petitioner at 10%, In view of a decision passed in Civil Appeal No.7139/2013 (Master Mallikarjun Vs Division Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., and SCCH-14 33 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 another) by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held that if the disability is above 10% and upto 30% to the whole body, the minor Petitioner would be entitled for compensation of Rs.3 lakhs in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendance etc., towards conventional heads like pain and sufferings already undergone and to be suffered in future, mental and physical shock, hardship inconvenience, discomforts etc., and loss of amenities in life on account of permanent disability.
42. In addition to the compensation towards conventional heads, the minor Petitioner is also entitled for compensation under the heads like discomfort and inconvenience to the parents and their loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization of the Petitioner and towards medical expenditure. With regard to the case on hand, the petitioner was hospitalized for a period of 35 days i.e., from 22-08-2019 to 26-09-2019. During the said period, since the petitioner is minor and just 15 years old, his parents might have attended SCCH-14 34 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 him. As such, his parents might have lost their earnings during that period. In the absence of proof of income of his parents, it would be lawful to award Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards loss of earnings and their discomfort.
43. With regard to medical expenditure, the PW.3 has deposed that he has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses of the petitioner. In order to prove this fact, he has produced 54 medical bills i.e., Ex.P.21 which is totally amounting to Rs.66,170/-. I have gone through the medical bills and the same are acceptable. Hence, by rounding of the same, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.66,200/- as a compensation under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
44. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering, Rs.3,00,000/-
loss of amenities SCCH-14 35 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
2. Loss of income during Rs. 20,000/-
the laid up period
3. Medical expenditure Rs. 66,200/-
Total Rs.3,86,200/-
45. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has occurred by the rash and negligent riding on the part of the rider of Royal Enfield motor cycle bearing No.KA-07-EB-9744. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of Royal Enfield motor cycle. The Policy is valid and in force at the time of accident. There is no dispute about the validity of the policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in MVC.7768/2019, MVC.7769/2019 and MVC.7770/2019 "Partly in the Affirmative".
46. Issue No.3 in MVC.7768/2019, MVC.7769/2019 and in MVC.7770/2019: In view of my findings on the above SCCH-14 36 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners in MVC.7768/2019 against the Respondent No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 against the Respondent No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners in MVC No.7770/2019 against the Respondent No. 1 and 2 under Sec.
166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners in MVC.7768/2019 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.22,13,800/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
SCCH-14 37 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
The Petitioner in MVC.7769/2019 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Petitioner in MVC.7770/2019 is
entitled for total compensation of
Rs.3,86,200/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondents in all the cases are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle in all the cases, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
The compensation amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 to 5 in MVC.7768/2019 are apportioned among SCCH-14 38 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 them are as shown below:
Petitioner No.1 is entitled to
Rs.8,13,800/-
Petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.5 lakhs each.
Petitioner No.4 and 5 are entitled to Rs.2 lakhs each After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 in MVC.7768/2019, an amount of Rs.5 lakhs shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining amount shall be paid to the Petitioner No.1 by way of E-payment after proper identification.
After deposit made in respect of petitioner No.2 to 5, entire amount of their respective share is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.2 to 5 respectively by way of E-payment after proper identification.
SCCH-14 39 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019On deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2 in MVC.7769/2019, entire amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E-payment after proper identification.
On deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2 in MVC.7770/2019, entire amount is ordered to be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank till he attains the age of majority. The natural guardian of the petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest for the benefit of the petitioner.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-
respectively in all the cases.
Draw Award accordingly.
Keep the Original Judgment in
MVC.7768/2019 and the copy of the
Judgment in M.V.C. No.7769/2019 and
MVC.7770/2019.
SCCH-14 40 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 1st day of August 2024) (PRAKRITI KALYANPUR) C/c XVI Addl. SCJ, MEMBER MACT Bengaluru.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Srinivas alias Srinivasappa P.W.2 : Swathi.T P.W.3 : Thimmarayappa P.W.4 : Dr.Arun.H.S Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR along with complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot panchanama along with sketch map Ex.P3 True copy of IMV report Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest panchanama along with statement of witnesses Ex.P5 True copy of PM report Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P8 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P9 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.3 SCCH-14 41 MVC.7768 TO 7770/2019 Ex.P10 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.4 Ex.P11 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.5 Ex.P12 Notarised copy of Ration card Ex.P13 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P14 Discharge summary Ex.P15 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P16 Medical bills (20 in nos.) Ex.P17 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P18 Discharge summaries (2 in nos.) Ex.P19 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of minor petitioner Ex.P20 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P21 Medical bills (20 in nos.) Ex.P22 Calculation sheet Ex.P23 IP case sheet Ex.P24 X-ray Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents : RW.1 - B.L.Santhosh Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents : Ex.R.1 - True copy of policy (PRAKRITI KALYANPUR) C/c XVI Addl. SCJ, MEMBER MACT