Bangalore District Court
In Mvc 1. Smt.Narasamma vs In All 1. The Oriental Insurance on 24 January, 2022
KABC020195292019
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH18)
On this the 24th day of January 2022
Present: V.NAGAMANI
B.A.L., LL.B., LL.M.,
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
Petitioners in MVC 1. Smt.Narasamma,
2310/2019 Wife of Late Venkatarayappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at Hanumaiahgarihalli,
Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District,
2. Smt.H.V.Eashwaramma,
Daughter of Late
Venkatarayappa,
2 SCCH18
MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
Wife of Raghunatha Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Sunnappagutta
Village, Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District.
3. Smt.H.V.Ravanamma,
Daughter of Late
Venkatarayappa,
Wife of G.V.Venkataravanappa,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at T.Gollahalli Village,
Chilakalanerpu Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District.
4. Shri H.V. Subbireddy,
Son of Late Venkatarayappa,
Aged about 30 years,
5. Smt.H.V.Mamatha,
Daughter of Late
Venkatarayappa,
Wife of Shivareddy,
Aged about 25 years,
6. Smt.H.V.Nagamani,
Daughter of Late
Venkatarayappa,
Aged abut 23 years,
the petitioner No.4 to 6 are
resident of Hanumaiahgarihalli
Village, Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
3 SCCH18
MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
Chickballapura District.
(By Pleader Shri S.R.Byra
Reddy)
Petitioners in MVC 1.Smt.Prameelamma,
2311/2019 Wife of H.M.Byra Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
2. Smt.Architha H.B.,
Daughter of Late H.M.Byra
Reddy,
Aged about 21 years,
3. Arjun H.B.,
Son of H.M. Byra Reddy,
Aged about 18 years,
All are residing at
Hanumaiahgarihalli Village,
Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District.
(By Pleader Shri S.R.Byra
Reddy)
Petitioners in MVC 1.Smt.Shankaramma,
4517/2019 Wife of Late Konappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at
Hanumaiahgarrihalli,
Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District.
4 SCCH18
MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
2. Narendra,
Son of Late Konappa,
Aged about 18 years,
3. Kum.Nayana,
Daughter of Late Konappa,
Aged about 12 years,
The petitioner No.3 is minor
represented by her mother and
natural guardian the petitioner
No.1.
4. Smt.Ramalakshmamma,
Wife of Chikkaramappa,
Agd about 65 years,
All are residing at
Hanumaiahgarihalli,
Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District.
(By Pleader Shri S.R.Byra
Reddy)
V/s
Respondents in all 1. The Oriental Insurance
the cases Company Ltd.,
D.O. No.28,
22 DVG Main Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru4.
5 SCCH18
MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
(Cover Note No.502411 valid
from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007)
(By Pleader Shri
B.R.Venkatesha Kamath)
2. Shri Sreeeramappa,
Son of Konappa,
Aged aobut 50 years,
Residing at Hanumaiahgarihalli
Village,
Munganahalli Hobli,
Chintamani Taluk,
Chickballapura District.
(Owner of Tempo bearing
registration No.KA076410)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petitions filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/, Rs.25,00,000/ and Rs.15,00,000/ respectively along with interest, due to the death of Venkatarayappa, H.M.Byra Reddy and Konappa, in a road traffic accident.
6 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
2. These three petitions are arising out of the same accident. Hence, these petitions are clubbed and taken together for common discussion, for the sake of convenience and to avoid the repetition.
FACTS OF THE CASE IN NUTSHELL.
3. Facts leading to the case of the petitioners forthcoming in the petition averments that, on the fateful date of the alleged accident, on 25.10.2007 at about 00.30 hours, Venkatarayappa, H.M.Byra Reddy and Konappa were proceeding in a Tempo bearing registration No.KA 076410 by carrying Tomatoes to the bengaluru Market. The same was driven by its driver from Chintamani towards Hosakote road, in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life, without observing the traffic rules and regulations. When they reached near Chokkahalli gate, he lost control over the vehicle, and dashed against the Trailer lorry bearing registration 7 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 No.HR47A5910 from behind, which was stopped on the extreme left side of the road and the cleaner was allowing other opposite vehicles to move. Due to this tremendous impact, Venkatarayappa, H.M.Byra Reddy and Konappa were died in the spot. Later post mortem was conducted at Hosakote Government Hospital and the bodies were handed over to the respective petitioners.
4. It is stated that, prior to the accident the deceased Venkatarayappa was hale and healthy, aged about 55 years, doing agriculture and dairy forming, used to get an income of Rs.25,000/ per month. On account of the sudden death of Venakatarayappa, the petitioners were put into great mental shock and lost the bread earner of the family.
5. It is stated that, prior to the accident, deceased H.M. ByraReddy was hale and healthy, aged about 33 years, doing agriculture and dairy forming and was getting an income of Rs.25,000/ per month. On account of 8 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 sudden death of Byra Reddy, the petitioners were put into great mental shock and lost the bread earner of the family.
6. It is stated that, prior to the accident, deceased Konappa was hale and healthy, aged about 27 years, doing coolie and was getting an income of Rs.8,000/ per month. On account of sudden death of Konappa, the petitioners were put into great mental shock and lost the bread earner of the family.
7. It is alleged in the petitions that, the accident had taken place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo bearing registration No.KA07 6410. Therefore, the respondent No.1, being the insurer and the respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed the respective petitions claiming compensation in the case on hand.
9 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
8. After registration of the case, as usual notices were issued to the respondents. In response to the notices, respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel, and filed written statement in answer to the case of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has not appeared before the court, remained absent and placed exparte, as per the order of this court.
9. In the written statement of the respondent No.1 has not seriously disputed the accident, and also, the injuries, sustained by the petitioners. But denied the allegation of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the involvement of the offending vehicle, in the accident. And contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of the accident. Further contended that, policy so issued being a goods carrying commercial vehicle package policy in respect of the Tempo bearing registration No.KA076410, 10 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 the occupants/inmates of the tempo is not covered under the policy and the insured was not paid any additional premium against the inmates or coolie. Further contended that the Trailerlorry bearing No.HR475910 driver who knowing the risk, had made a turning in applying the brakes, all of a sudden had stopped the vehicle in the middle of the road. Therefore, driver of the Trailer is solely responsible for the accident. It is another contention that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, without any basis. With all these main grounds, sought for to dismiss the case against respondent No.1.
10. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties, for final determination of this case, following issues were framed:
11 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 ISSUES IN MVC 2310/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that Shri Venkatarayappa, son of Late Subbanna had died in the accident, that was taken place on 25.10.2007 at about 00.30 a.m. near Chokkahalli Gate, on ChintamaniHosakote road, Hosakote involving Tempo bearing regsitration No.KA076410 belonging to respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.1 ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident has mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the only legal heirs and dependants of deceased?
4. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is barred by limitation?
12 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
5. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
6. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC 2311/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that Shri H.M.Byra Reddy, had died in the accident, that was taken place on 25.10.2007 at about 00.30 a.m. near Chokkahalli Gate, on Chintamani Hosakote road, Hosakote involving Tempo bearing regsitration No.KA07 6410 belonging to respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.1 ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident has mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the only legal heirs and dependants of deceased?
13 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
4. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is barred by limitation?
5. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
6. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC 4517/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that Shri Konappa, son of Chikkaramappa had died in the accident, that was taken place on 25.10.2007 at about 00.30 a.m. near Chokkahalli Gate, on Chintamani Hosakote road, Hosakote involving Tempo bearing regsitration No.KA07 6410 belonging to respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.1 ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident has mainly occurred 14 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the only legal heirs and dependants of deceased?
4. Whether the respondent proves that the petition is barred by limitation?
5. Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
6. What order or award?
11. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners in MVC 2310/2019, the petitioner No.1 by name Narasamma, during the course of her evidence, placed her affidavit evidence in lieu of examinationin chief, who examined as PW1. The petitioner No.1 Smt. Prameelamma, in MVC 2311/2019 has placed her affidavit evidence, in lieu of examinationinchief, who 15 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 examined as PW2. And the petitioner No.1Smt. Shankaramma in MVC 4517/2019 has placed her affidavit evidence in lieu of examinationinchief, who examined as PW3. At the time of their respective evidence, 30 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P30, for consideration.
12. On the other hand, to prove the defence forthcoming in the objection, the respondent No.1, has examined its Assistant Manager as RW1. At the time of her evidence, 11 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R11. The respondent No.2, placed exparte in the case on hand. Thereafter matter was set down for arguments.
13. Heard the argument of both the learned counsel. At the time of the argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, filed written argument for consideration. And both the learned counsel, relied on some authorities, 16 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 for consideration. I have gone through the propositions laid down in the authorities, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.1.
14. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, my findings to the issues in MVC No.2310/2019 are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the Negative.
Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.6: As per final order for the following:
15. On the other hand, my findings to the issues in MVC No.2311/2019 are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative.
17 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 Issue No.4: In the Negative.
Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.6 : As per final order
For the following:
16. On the other hand, my findings to the issues in MVC No.4517/2019 are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the Negative.
Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.6: As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE NO.4 IN ALL THE CASES:
17. These issues are with respsect to the point of limitation. Hence, taken at first, for consideration before discussion of the other issues, for the final determination of the case.
18 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
18. The respondent No.1, in Para No.5 of the written statement, contended that, the alleged accident had taken place on 25.10.2007. And the present petitions have been filed in the year 2019. That is, after laps of 12 years, without giving proper reasons for delay, filed the petitions for consideration. As such, the petitions are barred by limitation. The respondent No.1, except this contention in the written statement, not made an effort to place evidence on the point of limitation, in connection with the claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act.
19. It is pertinent to note that, section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, includes provisions for who all can apply for compensation in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), in case they get involved with a road accident. Even though there is no prescribed time limit within which the application for the claim is to be filed, it should still be ensured that, it is done within a reasonable amount of time. This Act was enacted as a preventive 19 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 measure for road accidents, as well as a remedial measure in the case an accident occurs.
20. The General Insurance Council, the association of 30 insurance companies, has recommended a deadline of one year insurance claims in case of death in road accidents, and six months for injuries. R. Chandrasekaran, Secretary General, General Insurance council, said the Motor Vehicles Act, provided for a similar deadline till 1994, but was removed by the parliament, after the Supreme Court observed that, compensation should not be denied, on account of delay in filing of a case. Apart from this, the provisions of section 166 of the 2019 Act, has several implications, which can be flagged namely, limitation, which was not there, has been introduced. Thus the proposed limitation period of six months for filing claim petition before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal has not yet come into force. 20 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
21. In 1997(1) CTC Page 761, New India Assurance Company Limited V/S. C. Padma and Another "In the above case, it was observed that, there cannot be a limitation under the new Motor Vehicles Act, to file a claim petition. However, one cannot lose right of the fact that, the legislation being beneficial one intended to provide succor and relief to the innocent motor accident victims, the welfare orientation given to the bestowal of benefits under Act 54 of 1994, visàvisa removal of section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, may be in keeping with it"
22. Further, in the case between Oriental Insurance Company Limited V/S Madhu dated 21 st December 2020, it was observed that, "No limitation fixed for filing claim petition. It is the grave injustice and injury which was being caused to the heirs and the legal representatives, of the victims, who died in the accident, by rejecting their claim petitions, only on the ground of limitation. 21 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 It is a matter of common knowledge that, majority of the claimants for such compensation are ignorant about the period during which such claims should be preferred. "
23. In the light of the propositions laid down in the above cases, attaching to the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is pertinent to note that, in all the three petitions, in the case on hand, the claimants are the legal heirs of the respective deceased persons. As such, the claim petitions filed by the claimants, after laps of 12 years, cannot be dismissed on the question of limitation. Since, after the deletion of section 166(3), of Motor Vehicles Act, no period of limitation is fixed and Motor Vehicles Act, being a beneficial legislation. As such, the claim petitions filed by the petitioners, are maintainable in the case on hand. The respondent No.1, except taking this plea in the written statement, has not made an effort to question in this regard, to the PW1 to PW3, at the time of their respective cross examination.
22 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 And at the time of the evidence of the RW1, not strongly canvassed this defence.
24. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, I am answering the issue No.4, in all the cases are in the Negative.
ISSUE NO.1 to 3 IN ALL THE CASES:
25. These THREE issues are interconnected with each other. Hence, taken together for common discussion, in order to avoid the repetition.
26. It is my humble opinion that, already facts of the case and the defence taken by the respondent No.1 has been discussed in detail, while narrating the facts of the case. Hence, once again discussion of the facts of the case is not necessary in connection with the discussion of the above issues.
27. The petitioners herein, to prove the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle 23 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 Temp bearing registration No. KA076410 relied on the affidavit evidence of PW1 to P.W.3, and placed the documentary evidence in toto, ExP1 to ExP30 for consideration. In the affidavit evidence of the PW1 to P.W.3, reiterated the main petition averments with respect to the negligent Act of the driver of the offending vehicle which caused the death of Venkatarayappa, H M Byra Reddy and Konnappa. On the other hand, to disprove the assertion of the petitioners, the respondent No.1 relied on the evidence of the assistant manager by name, P Parimala, who examined as RW1. In the evidence of RW 1, by way of affidavit reiterated the contentions forthcoming in the written statement of the respondent No.1. In connection with the aforesaid issues, this witness has not seriously disputed the accident and the death of the respective deceased persons in the accident. But, denied the allegation of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In such a 24 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 situation, scrutiny of the documentary evidence placed by both the parties to the lis, is important in the case on hand, in order to come to the fair conclusion with respect to the aforesaid issues.
28. Among the documentary evidence placed by the PW1 to 3, ExP1 to ExP7 are the material documents to prove the above issues. And the remaining documents are to be discussed at the relevant circumstances. On perusal of ExP1 to ExP7, reflect that, on the basis of the first information given by one Chandrashekar S/o Periyanna who was the driver of trailer, bearing registration No. HR 47A3910, and eye witness to the accident, criminal law set in motion against the driver of the offending vehicle alleging that, he has committed the offences punishable under sec. 279, 337, 304(a) of IPC. There is no delay in giving first information about the accident. In the recitals of the ExP2, the complainant has narrated about the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the 25 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident. This material document and the ExP1, has not been challenged by the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle well in time, if at all, the driver was innocent about the accident and in connection with the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
29. Further, on perusal of ExP3Mahazar, speaks that, after registration of the case, on the same day, the investigation officer, visited the spot and conducted spot mahazar in the scene of occurrence and the seizure of the offending vehicle in the spot clearly speaks about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Further, ExP4 Motor vehicle accident report, collected by the investigation officer discloses that, the alleged accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles tested during the course of investigation by the motor vehicle inspector. Added to this, ExP5, ExP17, ExP23 Inquest reports and the statement of the witness, ExP6, 26 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 ExP16 and ExP24 P. M. reports speaks that, on the history of RTA, corpus of the deceased persons were referred to the doctor for postmortem. Since, the death of the deceased persons is not disputed point in question, in the case on hand, more discussion of the said documents is not necessary in the case on hand.
30. Ultimately, on going through the final report submitted by the investigation officer reveals that, after due investigation process, charge sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle Tempo, bearing registration No. KA076410 by name Venkatarayappa alleging that, he has committed the offences punishable under section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. This material document remained unshaken by the other side, by placing the rebuttal evidence. Though the RW1 gave evidence in support of the defenses of the respondent No.1, 27 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 the said witness has not seriously disputed the accident and the final report submitted by the investigation officer.
31. At the time of crossexamination of PW1 to P.W. 3, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has put several questions to them, about the police documents and on the point of actionable negligence. But, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the aforesaid issues. The petitioners to prove their respective relationship with the deceased persons, relied on their respective Aadhar cards and ration cards, marked as ExP 9 to ExP15, ExP19 to ExP22 and ExP26 to ExP30. The recitals of these documents substantiate the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased persons. The material point that the petitioners are the legal heirs of the respective deceased persons has not been seriously disputed by the other side. Further, the respondents have not placed any satisfactory documents to show that, the petitioners have engineered the documentary evidence to 28 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 claim wrongfully from the company in the form of compensation. The RW1 during the course of her evidence produced insurance policy and other documents pertaining to the offending vehicle and also the notice issued from the company to the owner of the offending vehicle. But, all these documents will not eradicate the assertions of the petitioners in connection with the above issues.
32. Over all appreciation of evidence placed by both the parties to the lis, it is crystal clear from the evidence adduced by the petitioners that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the offending vehicle death of Venkatarayappa S/o Late. Subbanna, H M Byra reddy S/o Maddireddy and Konnappa S/o Chikkaramappa had taken place and the petitioners are the legal heirs of the said deceased person. In the light of the discussions held above, without making much discussion on the point 29 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 of rash and negligent driving, I hold that, the accident was occurred purely on the part of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle Tempo bearing registration No.KA 076410. Accordingly, I am of the view that, the petitioners have placed satisfactory materials on record to prove the aforesaid issues. The said evidence remained unshaken. Resultantly, I am answering the Issue No.1 to 3, in all the cases are in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.5 IN ALL THE CASES.
33. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners through these petitions, claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/, Rs.25,00,000/ and Rs.15,00,000/ respectively on account of death of Venakatarayappa, H.M.Byra Reddy and Konappa in the accident, under different heads. 30 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
34. Now coming to the point of quantum of compensation for which, the petitioners are entitled is concerned, every legal representative who suffers on account of the death of a person, due to a motor vehicle accident, should have remedy for realization of compensation. Since in the death case, the legal heirs are the claimants. In the case on hand, the relationship of deceased persons with the respective petitioners is not in dispute. At the same time, the documents produced by the petitioners, to prove their relationship with the deceased persons, marked at ExP9 to ExP15, ExP19 to ExP22 and ExP26 to ExP30 have not been disputed by the other side. The recitals of the above documents, clearly speak about the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased persons.
35. Another aspect to be considered herein, on going through the age particulars of the petitioners, mentioned 31 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 in the cause title of the petition, reflect that, in MVC No.2310/2019, the petitioner No.1, in her middle age, lost her husband. And the petitioner No.2 to 6 being the children of the deceased Venakatarayappa, lost the love and affection, as well as the care of their father, who was the main bread earner of the family. The petitioners of MVC No.2311/2019, is concerned, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased H M Byra Reddy, lost her husband in her young age and the petitioner No. 2 and 3 lost the love and affection of their father, in their tender age, who was the main bread earner of the family. In MVC No.4517/2019, is concerned, the petitioner No.1 being the wife of Konnappa, lost her husband and his love and affection in the young age and the petitioner No.2 and 3 lost the love and affection of their father and the petitioner No.4 being the mother of the deceased Konappa lost her son in her old age, who was the main bread earner of the 32 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 family. The respondents herein, have not produced documents on record, to show the independent economic status of the petitioners. And to disprove their dependency, with the respective deceased persons during their life time. By taking into consideration of all these factors, along with the evidence of PW1 to 3, it is crystal clear that, the petitioners were the dependents to the respective deceased persons during their lifetime.
36. Firstly, in M.V.C No. 2310/2019 is concerned, to prove the actual age of the deceased Venkatarayappa, the legal heirs of the said Venkatarayappa, have not placed, authenticated documents placed on record for consideration. In the P.M. report marked at ExP6, age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 50 years. In the main petition also, his age has been mentioned as 55 years. In the absence of the material document with the respect to the age proof of the deceased, it is apt to rely 33 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 on the P.M report marked at ExP6. Wherein, his age has been mentioned as 50 years. And the said document remained unquestioned by the other side. Hence, it is apt to take the age of the deceased Venakatarayappa as 50 years as on the date of the accident. For his age, multiplier '13' is applicable as per the ratio in "Sarala Verma" Case.
37. In connection with the work of the deceased, in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW1, it is stated that, he was doing Agricultural work and Dairy farming and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month. But no documents are available on record to show the actual income of the deceased prior to the accident, except the production of ExP8, RTC extracts for consideration. The said RTC extracts will not helpful for the court, to come to the fair conclusion in connection with the actual income of the deceased prior to the accident. In such a situation, 34 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 court has to take the notional income for fair adjudication of the case by considering the year of accident, date of institution of the petition as well as other facts and circumstance of the case. Overall appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is apt to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ per month, Hence, the income of the deceased Venkatarayappa is apt to be considered as Rs.5,000/ p.m., prior to the accident. The same will meet the ends of justice.
38. Another point to be taken in to consideration herein that, as per the petition, 6 persons were depending on the earning of the deceased. In this regard, about the deduction of the personal and living expenses is concerned, the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14 is to be considered. Having considered the above as per law laid down in the above case, in connection with the 35 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 deduction of personal and living expenses is concerned, it is settled that, "where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependent family member is 4 to 6 and one fifth (1/5th ) where the number of the dependant family members exceeds six." In the light of the above proposition, in the case on hand, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses out of the total compensation.
39. In the present case, deceased was aged about 50 years, as on the date of the accident. For this age multiplier "13" is applicable. And by taking into consideration of the selfemployment mentioned in the petition, I am of the view that, 10% income of the deceased has to be taken into account towards future prospects. Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ per month. And Rs.60,000/ per year. Along with this, the future prospects of 10% is to be taken in to 36 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 consideration, then the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.60,000+6,000) = Rs.66,000/. And 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in the income of the deceased. Thus net loss income comes to Rs.49,500/ (Rs.66,000Rs.16,500). This income has to be multiplied by multiplier "13". Which comes to Rs.6, 43,500/ .
40. Apart from this, aspect, in connection with the loss of estate, consortium, and with respect to the funeral expenses, to calculate the quantum of the compensation under the aforesaid heads is concerned, I am of the view that, petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased and the petitioner No.2 to 6 being the children of the deceased, are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/ in the head of loss of consortium. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. And also the petitioners are entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ in the 37 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 head of loss to the estate. Further the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,000/ towards transportation of dead body is apt to be taken into consideration. In connection with the medical expenses, no iota of documents is available on record for consideration.
41. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners of MVC No. 23102019 are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 6,43,50000
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,00000
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,00000
Towards funeral & obsequies Rs. 15,00000
ceremony expenses
Towards transportation of dead Rs. 5,00000
body
Total Rs. 7,18,50000
42. Accordingly, the petitioners of MVC
No.2310/2019 herein, are entitled to get total
38 SCCH18
MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 compensation of Rs.7,18,500/ (Rupees Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Five Hundred only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation.
43. Secondly, in connection with M.V.C No.2311/2019 is concerned, to prove the actual age of the deceased H.M. Byrareddy, no authenticated documents placed on record for consideration. In the P.M. report marked at ExP16, age of the deceased has been mentioned as 36 years. In the main petition, his age was mentioned as 33 years. In the absence of material document with the respect to the age proof of deceased, it is apt to rely on the P.M report marked at ExP16. Wherein, his age has been mentioned as 33 years. And the said document remained unquestioned by the other side. Hence, it is apt to take the age of the deceased H.M Byrareddy as 36 years as on the date of the accident. For 39 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 his age, multiplier '15' is applicable as per the ratio in "Sarala Verma" Case.
44. In connection with the work of the deceased, in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW2, it is stated that, he was doing Agricultural work and Dairy farming and was earning Rs.25,000/ per month. But no documents are available on record to show the actual income of the deceased prior to the accident except the production of ExP18 RTC extracts for consideration. The said RTC extracts will not helpful for the court to come to the fair conclusion in connection with the actual income of the deceased prior to the accident. In such a situation, court has to take the notional income for fair adjudication of the case by considering the year of accident, date of institution of the petition as well as other facts and circumstance of the case. Overall appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is apt to take the notional 40 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ per month, Hence, the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.5,000/ p.m., which will meet the ends of justice.
45. Another point to be taken in to consideration herein that, as per the petition, 3 persons were depending on the earning of the deceased. In this regard, about the deduction of the personal and living expenses is concerned, the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14 is to be considered. Having considered the above as per law laid down in the above case, in connection with the deduction of personal and living expenses is concerned, it is settled that, "where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one third (1/3rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4th where the number of dependent family member is 4 to 6 and one fifth (1/5th ) where the number of the dependant family members exceeds six." In the light of the above proposition, in the 41 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 case on hand, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses out of the total compensation.
46. In the present case, deceased was aged about 36 years, as on the date of the accident. For this age multiplier "15" is applicable. And by taking into consideration of the selfemployment mentioned in the petition, I am of the view that, 40% income of the deceased has to be taken into account towards future prospects. Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ per month. And Rs.60, 000/ per year. Along with this, the future prospects of 40% is to be taken in to consideration, then the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.60,000+24,000) = Rs.84,000/. And 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in the income of the deceased. Thus net loss income comes to Rs.56,000/ (Rs.84,000Rs.28,000). This income has 42 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 to be multiplied by multiplier "15". Which comes to Rs.8,40,000/ .
47. Apart from this, aspect, in connection with the loss of estate, consortium, and with respect to the funeral expenses, to calculate the quantum of the compensation under the aforesaid heads is concerned, I am of the view that, petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased and the petitioner No.2 & 3 being the children of the deceased, are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/ in the head of loss of consortium. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. And also the petitioners are entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ in the head of loss to the estate. Further the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,000/ towards transportation of dead body is apt to be taken into consideration. In connection with the medical expenses, no iota of documents are available on record for consideration. 43 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
48. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners of MVC No.2311/2019 are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 8,40,00000
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,00000
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,00000
Towards funeral & obsequies Rs. 15,00000
ceremony expenses
Towards transportation of dead Rs. 5,00000
body
Total Rs. 9,15,00000
49. Accordingly, the petitioners of MVC
No.2311/2019 herein are entitled to get total
compensation of Rs.9,15,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Fifteen Thousand only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
44 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
50. Thirdly, in connection with the M.V.C No.4517/2019 is concerned, to prove the actual age of the deceased Konappa S/o. Chikkaramappa, no authenticated documents placed on record for consideration. In the P.M. report marked at ExP24, age of the petitioner has been mentioned as 27 years. In the main petition, his age was mentioned as 27 years. In the absence of material document with the respect to the age proof of deceased, it is apt to rely on the P.M report marked at ExP24. Wherein, his age has been mentioned as 27 years. And the said documents remained unquestioned by the other side. Hence, it is apt to take the age of the deceased Konappa as 27 years as on the date of the accident. For his age, multiplier '17' is applicable as per the ratio in "Sarala Verma" Case.
51. In connection with the work of the deceased, in the main petition and also in the evidence of PW3, it is 45 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 stated that, he was doing coolie work and was earning Rs.8, 000/ per month. But no documents are available on record, to show the actual income of the deceased prior to the accident except the production of ExP25 RTC extract for consideration. The said RTC extract will not helpful for the court, to come to the fair conclusion in connection with the actual income of the deceased prior to the accident. In such a situation, court has to take the notional income for fair adjudication of the case by considering the year of accident, date of institution of the petition as well as other facts and circumstance of the case. Overall appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case, it is apt to take the notional income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ per month, Hence, the income of the deceased Konappa is considered as Rs.5,000/ p.m., which will meet the ends of justice.
46 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
52. Another point to be taken in to consideration herein that, as per the petition, 4 persons were depending on the earning of the deceased. In this regard, about the deduction of the personal and living expenses is concerned, the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Sarala Verma Case at para No.14 is to be considered. Having considered the above as per law laid down in the above case, in connection with the deduction of personal and living expenses is concerned, it is settled that, "where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one third (1/3 rd) where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/4 th where the number of dependent family member is 4 to 6 and one fifth (1/5th ) where the number of the dependant family members exceeds six." In the light of the above proposition, in the case on hand, 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses out of the total compensation. 47 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
53. In the present case, deceased was aged about 27 years, as on the date of the accident. For this age multiplier "17" is applicable. And by taking into consideration of the selfemployment mentioned in the petition, I am of the view that, 40% income of the deceased has to be taken into account towards future prospects. Therefore, by considering the earning of the deceased as Rs.5,000/ per month. And Rs.60,000/ per year. Along with this, the future prospects of 40% is to be taken in to consideration, then the annual income of the deceased comes to (Rs.60,000+24,000) = Rs.84,000/. And 1/4th has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses in the income of the deceased. Thus net loss income comes to Rs.63,000/ (Rs.84,000Rs.21,000). This income has to be multiplied by multiplier "17". Which comes to Rs.10,71,000/ .
48 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
54. Apart from this, aspect, in connection with the loss of estate, consortium, and with respect to the funeral expenses, to calculate the quantum of the compensation under the aforesaid heads is concerned, I am of the view that, petitioner No.1 being the wife of the deceased and the petitioner No.2 & 3 being the children and petitioner No.4 being the mother of the deceased, are entitled for sum of Rs.40,000/ in the head of loss of consortium. Further, the petitioners are also entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses. And also the petitioners are entitled for sum of Rs.15,000/ in the head of loss to the estate. Further the petitioners are entitled for Rs.5,000/ towards transportation of dead body is apt to be taken into consideration. In connection with the medical expenses, no iota of documents are available on record for consideration.
49 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
55. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners of MVC No.4517/2019 are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs.10,71,00000
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,00000
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,00000
Towards funeral & obsequies Rs. 15,00000
ceremony expenses
Towards transportation of dead Rs. 5,00000
body
Total Rs. 11,46,00000
56. Accordingly, the petitioners of MVC
No.4517/2019 herein, are entitled to get total
compensation of Rs.11,46,000/ (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Six Thousand only), along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
50 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 LIABILITY:
57. In so far as liability is concerned, it is the assertion of the petitioners in all the cases that, the respondent No.1, being the insurance company and the respondent No.2, being the owner of the offending vehicle tempo bearing reg. no. KA076410 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
And as per the assertion of the petitioners, policy cover note No. 5024 was valid from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007. Alleged accident had taken place on 25.10.2007.
58. Per contra, it is the strong assertion of the respondent No.1 that, policy issued in respect of the tempo bearing reg. No. KA076410 is concerned, the travellers or passengers are not covered under the said policy. The deceased persons were travelling as a passengers, as on the date of the accident. As such, the petitioners are not entitle for any compensation from the respondent No.1. 51 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 Further, contended that, the respondent No.2, has acted in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by allowing persons more than the permitted number of seating capacity being 1 + 1, including the driver to be travelled in the vehicle. Therefore, there is express breach and violation of the statutory provisions and conditions of the motor vehicles act. As such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Further contended that, as per the policy, the coolies were not covered and the deceased were not a paid cleaner. On the said ground also, the respondent company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
59. In support of the stand of the respondent No.1 relied on the evidence of RW.1 along with 11 documentary evidence for consideration. In the Ex.R1 insurance policy under the nomenclature of policy schedule, it is mentioned in the said document that, the said policy is package policy. It is standing in the name of the 52 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 respondent No.2 Sriramappa and the said policy is valid from 26.10.2006 to 25.10.2007. In the said document, it is mentioned as, any person including insured provided that, a person driving holds and effective driving license at the time of the accident, and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also, that a person holding an effective learners license, may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfied the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules 1989. And it is also mentioned in the said document that, P.A. cover under Sec. III for owner driver ( CSI) and also there is a recitals that use only for carriage of goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act. The policy does not cover organized reaching, pace making reliability trials or speed testing drawing a trailer except the towing, carrying passengers in vehicles, except employees not exceeding the number permitted in the registration document and coming under the purview of W.C. Act 1823. Ex.R.2 is the 53 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 notice issued to the owner of the offending vehicle through RPAD as per Ex.R3, and the said notice duly served. Ex.R5 is nothing but the report of the motor vehicle inspector, which is the replica of Ex.P5. Ex.R6 is the driving license pertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle. As per the said document, DL was valid upto 3.3.2009. Ex.R7 Form No.38. Ex.R8 form of cover note pertaining to the offending vehicle. Wherein expiry date has been mentioned as 25.10.2007. In the Ex.R8 likened carrying capacity has been mentioned as 1+ 2. Ex.R9 & Ex.P.R0 are the RC pertaining to the offending vehicle standing in the name of respondent No.2. Ex.R11 is the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, by name Venkataramappa. As per the said document, as on the date of the accident, driving licence of the said driver is valid from 16.5.2006 to 15.5.2009.
60. At the time of crossexamination of RW.1, denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioners 54 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 that, as per the policy, four persons can sit on the offending vehicle, and the persons who are sitting in the cabin of the tempo will also get the benefit of the insurance. Further, RW.1 has not denied that, the deceased persons were sitting in the offending vehicle along with the goods tomato and were proceeding towards Chintamani and in continuation of his answer stated that, they were proceeding as the travellers in the offending vehicle. Further he denied that, the deceased persons were travelling in the said vehicle as the owners. And denied the further suggestion that, in spite of knowing the fact that, the deceased persons were agriculturist, only to escape from the liability to give compensation to the petitioners denying the said factum.
61. Apart from this aspect, at the time of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the respective petitioners. In this regard, relied on the 55 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 authority reported in, 2020 ACJ Page 1574 between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Thara Bai Ghulabrao Shelke and others, in para No.20 & 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it was observed that, in view of the law settled by Apex Court in cases of B.V. Nagaraju V/s. Oriental Ins. Co, Ltd. and Lakshmichand V/s. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., "Carrying excess passengers does not amount to fundamental breach and in view of law settled by the Apex Court, in the case of Fahi Mohammed V/s. United India Ins. Co. Ltd., 2014 AcJ 1254 ( SC) and Manuara Katum V/s. Rajesh Kumar Singh 2017 ACJ 1031 ( SC) at least pay and recovery order can be passed against the insurer of the offending vehicle. Though the insurer of the offending vehicle has proved that, the owner of the offending vehicle has committed breach of condition of the policy of insurance, it does not amount to fundamental breach to exonerate it in toto from payment 56 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 of compensation. The insurance company be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and later on recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle.
62. Further relied on the recent authority reported in, 2021 (1) KCCR page 164 Munikrishna Murthy @ Munikrishna V/s. Abraham and Another, In the aforesaid case, it was observed that, "mere statement that, the victim was unlawfully travelled in the tractor without any evidence cannot be taken into consideration. The insurance company in order to substantiate the defence did not choose to examine either any official or driver of the goods vehicle and also any of the persons including the investigation officer. the defence remains as defence only and when such being the case, and when the oral and documentary evidence substantiate the contention that, the claimant was coolie and travelled in the goods vehicle, the tribunal has committed an error in coming to the 57 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 conclusion that he was a gratuitous passenger." Hence, company is held liable to pay compensation.
63. On the other hand, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, also relied on some authorities for consideration. Among them, in the recent authority reported in, 2018 ACJ page 156, Bombay between United India Ins. Co, Ltd., V/s. Raghunath Damoji Share and others, in para No.7 of the judgment, it was observed that, "the principles governing excise of discretion of tribunal to issue a direction to pay and recover is concerned, the deceased was travelling in the truck in question as an unauthorized passenger. In other words, he was gratuitous passenger of the truck in question. No fact established on record, that no premium was paid for such passenger travelling in truck in question. Therefore, the deceased could not be considered to be a third party, who was involved in the 58 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 accident, thereby leading to a claim of compensation involving third property damage. In such a situation, there was no occasion for the tribunal, to have exercised its extraordinary discretion, in issuing the impugned direction of pay and recovery, which is contrary to the legal principles."
64. In another authority, reported in, 2018 ACJ 160, High Court of Himachal Pradesh between United India Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s. Manasa Devi and others, it was observed in para No.9 to11 and 15 that, " When the vehicle was under valid coverage at the time of accident, then the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. "
65. Added to this, in another authority, reported in 2017 ACJ page 1725, between Matharam V/s. National Ins. Co. Ltd., and others, it was observed in para No.9 that, "the insurance company has charged a premium from the insured for three persons excluding the driver. 59 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 Then the insurance company cannot be absolved from its liability on the death of a person. "
66. In the light of the propositions laid down in the aforesaid authorities, on going through the recitals of Ex.P1 & the Ex.P.2, reveal that, the four persons were sitting in the tempo No. KA076410, as on the date of the accident, and sustained grievous injuries and the said four persons succumbed to the injuries in the spot and one person was severely injured and shifted to the hospital. In the final report, submitted by the investigation officer, speaks that, in the tempo one Venkatarayappa, Gangaraju, Byra Reddy and Konappa succumbed to the injuries in the spot and the cleaner sustained grievous injuries. It means, four persons + one cleaner and driver of the offending vehicle were travelling in the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. Along with these two documents, on perusal of Ex.R8 LCC passenger number has been mentioned as 1 + 2. As
60 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 such, there is a prima facie material on record, to show that, as on the date of the accident, the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. And due to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent No.2, being the owner of the offending vehicle, is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. At the same time, it is to be noted herein, that, since the present case is the death case, and the petitioner's being the legal representatives of the respective deceased persons, filed these claim petitions, by losing the sole bread earners of the respective families. In such a situation, in the light of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, if the principle of pay and recovery is followed, will meet the ends of justice. Since, main object of this beneficial legislation is to help the persons, well in time, who are the victims of the accident, by granting the just compensation, well in time, to them.
61 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019
67. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, I am of the view that, in view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent NO.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle is sole liable for payment of compensation amount determined by this court, to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.1, being the insurance company is directed to pay the award amount determined by this court, to the petitioners of the above cases, later on recover the same from the owner/insured through due process of law. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.5 in all the cases are partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.6 IN ALL THE CASES:
68. In view of above discussion on issue Number 1 to 5 in all the three cases, I proceed to pass the following; 62 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 O R D E R The claim petitions filed by the respective petitioners, as per MVC No.2310/2019, 2311/2019 and MVC No.4517/2019, under section 166 of M.V. Act, are hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation amount as noted below, with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of deposit.
MVC No.2310/2019 Rs.7,18,500-00 MVC No.2311/2019 Rs.9,15,00000 MVC No.4517/2019 Rs.11,46,00000 The respondent No.2, being the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation to the respective petitioners, 63 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
However, the respondent No.1, being the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation amount determined by the Court to the respective petitioners and recover the same from the respondent No.2 through due process of law.
In MVC No. 2310/2019, Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners together with interest, the petitioner No.1 is entitle the share of 50%. And the petitioner No.2 to 6 are entitle the share of 10% each out of the total award amount.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner No.1, shall 64 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 deposit 40% out of her share, in any nationalized/schedule bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to her through due process of law.
Since the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No. 2 to 6 are meagre, entire amount is ordered to be released to them through due process of law.
In MVC No.2311/2019, Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners together with interest, the petitioner No.1 is entitle the share of 50%. And the petitioner No. 2 is entitle for 20% share & and petitioner No.3 is entitle for 30% share out of the total award amount.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioners, shall 65 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 deposit 40% out of their share, in any nationalized/schedule bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to them through due process of law.
In MVC No.4517/2019, Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners together with interest, the petitioner No.1 is entitle the share of 50%. And the petitioner No.2 & 3 are are entitle the share of 20% each out of the total award amount. And petitioner No.4 is entitle for 10% out of the total compensation awarded.
After deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner No.1 & 2, shall deposit 40% out of their share, in any nationalized/schedule bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to them through due process of law. 66 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 On the other hand, with respect to the share of the minor petitioner No.3 is concerned, entire compensation amount shall be deposited in any nationalized/schedule bank, till she attains the age of majority. After attaining the age of majority, entire amount shall be released to her, through due process of law. The petitioner No.1 being natural guardian mother is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposited amount, from time to time, and directed to be utilized the same to the welfare of the minor child.
Since the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No. 4 is meagre, entire amount is ordered to be released to her through due process of law.
67 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.2310/2019, and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC No.2311/2019 and 4517/2019.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/ each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, online, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of January 2022).
(V.NAGAMANI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Smt.Narasamma PW2 Smt.Prameelamma PW3 Smt.Shankaramma
List of documents exhibited on petitioners' side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P5 Inquest 68 SCCH18
MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 Ex.P6 P.M. report Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 RTC extracts Ex.P9 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P10 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P11 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P12 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.4 Ex.P13 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.5Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P14 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.6 Ex.P15 Notarised copy of ration card Ex.P16 P.M. report of deceased Byra reddy Ex.P17 Inquest Ex.P18 RTC Extracts Ex.P19 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P20 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P21 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P22 Notarised copy of ration card Ex.P23 Inquest of deceased Konappa Ex.P24 P.M. report Ex.P25 RTC Extracts Ex.P26 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P27 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P28 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner 69 SCCH18 MVC 2310/2019, 2311/2019 & 4517/2019 No.3 Ex.P29 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.4 Ex.P30 Notarised copy of ration card List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Smt.P.Parimala List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Policy copy
Ex.R2 Notice issued to the owner of the offending
vehicle
Ex.R3 Postal receipt
Ex.R4 Endorsement
Ex.R5 IMV report
Ex.R6 Driving licence extract
Ex.R7 Fitness certificate
Ex.R8 Cover note extract
Ex.R9 Taxation card
Ex.P10 R.C.
Ex.R11 Driving licence extract
(V.NAGAMANI)
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& ACMM, BANGALORE.