Bangalore District Court
Muniraju B vs Bmtc on 21 December, 2024
SCCH-21 1 MVC No.4484/2023
KABC0B0076052023
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21)
PRESENT: Vijaykumar S. Hiremath., L.LB.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small
Causes & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21st day of December-2024
M.V.C. No.4484/2023
Petitioner: 1. Muniraju. B
S/o Balayya,
Aged about 47 years,
2. Mamatha
W/o Muniraju. B,
Aged about 39 years,
Both are R/at #47, 19th main,
20th cross, Viratnagar,
Bommanahalli, Bangalore.
(By Sri. M. Subramani, Adv.,)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1. The Manager
BMTC Division,
K. H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore.
[BMTC Bus No. KA-57-F-2816]
(By Sri. Afzal Ahmed, Adv.,)
Date of institution of the : 11-07-2023
petition
SCCH-21 2 MVC No.4484/2023
Nature of the Petition : U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act
Date of commencement of : 20-03-2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 21-12-2024
Judgment was
pronounced
Duration of the Year/s Month/s Day/s
Petition
01 05 10
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner filed this petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
from the respondent with regard to the death of his son Sri.
Dhanush.M S/o Muniraju. B, in the road traffic accident that took
place on 27-06-2023.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
It is the case of the Petitioner that, on 27.06.2023 at about
5.20 p.m., the deceased was pillion rider on Scooter bearing Reg.
No. KA-51-HK-0688 along with rider Vishal on Whitefield main
road, the rider was riding the above scooter slowly and cautiously
by following all traffic rules and regulations and by observing on
moving vehicles and both are wearing headguard, when they
reached near Garudacharpalya metro station, at that time one
BMTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-2816 driven by its driver in a
SCCH-21 3 MVC No.4484/2023
rash and negligent manner endangering to human life came from
behind at high speed from same direction and dashed against the
scooter from behind. Due to forced impact, deceased along with
rider fell down from the scooter and front left side wheel ran over
his head and he succumbed the accidental injuries on the way to
vydehi hospital. The duty doctors examined and declared brought
dead. Thereafter, the post mortem was conducted and after
conducting post mortem the Petitioner had shifted the dead body to
her native place and performed the last rites and obsequies
ceremony and spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards funeral
expenses. On account of the sudden and sad demise of the
deceased in the said accident, the Petitioners were undergoing deep
mental shock, pain and suffering and hardship.
Prior to the accident the deceased was hale, healthy and was
aged about 17 years and he was working as Milk and Paper
distributor and also II year PUC student and earning Rs.20,000/-
per month. The Petitioners being the father and mother of the
deceased, has lost love and affection and undergoing great mental
shock and mental agony.
The respondent being the owner cum internal insurer of the
offending vehicle is liable to pay Rs.50,00,000/- with cost and
interest to the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
SCCH-21 4 MVC No.4484/2023
3. After service of notice, the respondent has appeared
through his counsel and filed the written statement by denying the
contents of the claim petition and denied the rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle. This respondent further submits
that, on 27.06.2023 while the said bus was proceeding on the
schedule route from Kempe Gowda Bus stand to ITPL, the same
was driven by it driver Nagaraj, slowly and cautiously observing all
the traffic rules and regulations, at about 05.15 p.m., while the
said bus was proceeding on Whilefield main road, near
Garudacharpalya Metro station, at that time a two wheeler driven
by its rider and pillion rider, who are minors and without wearing
helmets driving the scooter in rash and negligent manner, in high
speed proceeding in the same direction, on the left side of the bus
and in order to over take the slow moving bus. As there was not
much space to pass through the right side of the scooter came in
contact with the left side front middle portion of bus. As a result of
which the rider of the scooter suddenly lost balance, both rider and
pillion rider fell on the hard surface of the road. This accident and
injuries which has occurred to the deceased is only due to his own
negligent act. Further, this respondent also denied the age,
occupation and income of the deceased. By these reasons, it is
prayed to dismiss the petition.
SCCH-21 5 MVC No.4484/2023
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned predecessor
has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the Petitioners proves that on
27.06.2023 at about 5.20 p.m., the deceased
Dhanush. M was pillion rider on Scooter
bearing Reg. No. KA-51-HK-0688 along with
rider on Whitefield main road, the rider was
riding the above scooter slowly and
cautiously by following all traffic rules and
regulations and by observing on moving
vehicles and both are wearing headguard,
when they reached near Garudacharpalya
metro station, at that time one BMTC bus
bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-2816 driven by its
driver in a very rash and negligent manner
at a high speed, so as to endangering human
life, came from behind and dashed against
the scooter, as a result the deceased fell
down and front life side wheel ran over his
head and he succumbed on the way to the
hospital as alleged by them?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much?
3. What order or award?
5. In order order to prove the case of the Petitioner, the
Petitioner got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents
at Ex.P.1 to 13. On the other hand, respondent examined the driver
of the offending bus as RW.1 and got marked a document at Ex.R1.
6. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the
material placed on record.
SCCH-21 6 MVC No.4484/2023
The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the following
decisions :
1. 2014 ACJ 1012 between Meera Devi and another
Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.
2. 2008 ACJ 1834 between Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs.
Surinder Singh and others.
3. 2018 ACJ 982 between Shaktisinh Zala Vs. Zala
Ranvirsinh Ranubha and others.
The learned counsel for respondent relied upon the following
decisions :
1. MFA No.7074/2016 between The oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Sri. Naresh Babu.N and another.
7. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 … In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 … Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3 … As per final order,
for the following:
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1: The petitioner contended that on 27.06.2023
at about 5.20 p.m. deceased Dhanush. M met with road traffic
accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of BMTC Bus
bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F2816.
9. The petitioners are the father and mother of the deceased.
The petitioner in order to establish this case 2nd petitioner filed the
affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW-1 and reiterated the
SCCH-21 7 MVC No.4484/2023
petition averments and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 13.
Ex.P.1 is the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Spot
Mahazar, Ex.P.4 is the Sketch, Ex.P.5 is the Inquest report, Ex.P.6
is the IMV Report, Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem Report, Ex.P.8 is the
Police intimation, Ex.P.9 is the Charge-sheet, Ex.P.10 is the
Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased, Ex.P.11 & 12 are the
Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners and Ex.P.13 is the
school transfer certificate.
10. On going through the materials, it could be seen
that on 27.06.2023 at about 5.20 p.m., the deceased was
pillion rider on Scooter bearing Reg. No. KA-51-HK-0688
along with rider Vishal on Whitefield main road, the rider
was riding the above scooter slowly and cautiously by
following all traffic rules and regulations and by observing on
moving vehicles and both are wearing head-guard, when they
reached near Garudacharpalya metro station, at that time
one BMTC bus bearing Reg. No.KA-57-F-2816 driven by its
driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human
life came from behind at high speed from same direction and
dashed against the scooter from behind. Due to forced
impact, deceased along with rider fell down from the scooter
and front left side wheel ran over his head and he
succumbed the accidental injuries on the way to vydehi
SCCH-21 8 MVC No.4484/2023
hospital. Accordingly, the Mahadevapura Traffic Police have
registered a case in Cr.No.76/2023. After completion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet
against the driver of offending vehicle for the offences punishable
U/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC.
11. The negligence in common parlance means and
simply failure to exercise due care, expected of a
reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and
negligence in law ranging from an advertence to shameful
disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused
or heedlessness or inadvertence, by which the negligent party
is unaware of the results, which may follow from his act.
Negligence is that, a breach of duty or lack of probable care
in doing something. In short, it is want of attention and
doing of something, which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. The burden is upon the petitioners to prove
that, the accident occurred due to negligent driving by the
driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-2816.
12. As we know evidence in any Summary Proceedings,
” The act of Negligence” will have to be assessed on the basis
of broad preponderance of probabilities and degree of proof
required is not one of beyond reasonable doubt, as it is
insisted in criminal case for ” The Negligent Act “.
SCCH-21 9 MVC No.4484/2023
13. The certified copy of the First Information (First
information statement/s complaint in common para-lace)
lodged before the Mahadevapura Traffic Police has been
marked as Ex.P2. On receiving the First Information, the
Station House Officer chose to register a case in Crime No.
76/2023. The said certified copy of First Information Report
(F.I.R.) is marked as Ex.P1.
14. During the Course of examination-in-chief, he got
marked Ex.P.1 to 19 are the only documents, which are to be
scrutinized to arrive at conclusion- whether the accident was
owing to the negligent manner of driving by the driver of
offending BMTC Bus. The Ex.P.3 (spot panchanama) and
Ex.P.4 (Spot Sketch), clearly discloses the place of accident
and that the police, after registering the First Information,
held investigation and filed the Ex.P.9, Charge-Sheet against
the driver of the offending BMTC Bus U/s. 279 and 304(A) of
IPC. The Ex.P.6 i.e., certified copy of the IMV Report discloses
that, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical
defects of the vehicle in question. The Ex.P.7 i.e., Postmortem
Report discloses that, the cause of death is due to ‘shock and
hemorrhage consequent upon injuries sustained’. During the
course of cross-examination learned counsel for respondent
suggested that, due to rash and negligent act of minor
SCCH-21 10 MVC No.4484/2023
scooterist accident is caused, but witness denied the said
suggestions. Further, learned counsel for accused also
suggested to the witness that, rider of Scooter and pillion
rider was not wearing helmets and rider also not having
Driving license to drive the scooter. But witness denied the
said suggestion, however witness admits that, both are not
having Driving license.
15. In order to rebut the claim of the petitioner,
respondent examined the driver of the said BMTC Bus as
RW.1 and deposed that, when he was proceeding on
Whitefield main road near Garudacharpalya metro station at
that time a two wheeler driven by its petitioner along with his
friend as a pillion rider who were minors and having no
driving license and also not wearing headgear (helmet) was
driving the scooter in rash and negligent manner in a high
speed and proceeding in the same direction and tried to
overtake from the left side of the bus. As there was no much
space to pass through the rider of the scooter who suddenly
lost his balance and fell on the left side back portion of the
bus and sustained injuries and said injuries caused due to
rash and negligent riding of Scooter. Further he depose that,
he is not responsible for the accident and police falsely filed
case against him and for that he has filed complaint before
SCCH-21 11 MVC No.4484/2023
the Joint-Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Bangalore.
16. On perusal of Ex.R.1, it reveals that, RW.1 i.e.,
driver of the offending vehicle has filed complaint before the
Joint-Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Bangalore on 01-07-
2023 i.e., after lapse of 05 days. But the driver of offending
vehicle has not challenged the charge-sheet submitted
against him. Moreover, he has not taken any positive steps
after filing of the complaint before the Joint-Commissioner of
Police (Traffic), Bangalore.
17. In a claim of compensation U/s.166 of M.V.Act
1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on
preponderance of probabilities and standard of proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not required as held by Honble Apex
Court in Kusum and others Vs. Satveer and others
reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319.
18. The learned counsel for respondent argued that, in this
case accident is caused due to the minor scooterist and as such,
the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation if any is
awarded by this tribunal. Further he also argued that, in this case,
minor scooterist was not wearing helmet at the time of accident, if
he was wearing helmet at the time of accident death may be
avoided. Hence, insurance company is not liable to pay
compensation. In support of his argument, he relied upon the
SCCH-21 12 MVC No.4484/2023
Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in MFA
No.7074/2016 (MV) between the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
and Naresh babu and another, wherein it is observed in para
No.18 that, tribunals while dealing with claims for compensation
shall have to record a finding as to rider or pillion rider wherein
helmet of required standard in case of two-wheeler and occupants
of the car wherein seat belts in order to entitle for compensation.
Further also observed that, if it is found that there is violation in
not wearing proper head-guard or seat belts, such claimants should
be denied compensation.
19. But in this case, on perusal of records, nowhere police
have filed charge-sheet against minor scooterist u/s 129 of M. V.
Act. On the other hand, respondent has not produced any material
to show that, as on the accident, minor scooterist was not wearing
helmet. Though RW.1 examined before this court and got marked
01 document at Ex.R.1, wherein he mentioned that, minor
scooterist was not wearing helmet. But said document is copy of
complaint given by the driver of the offending vehicle to the Joint-
Commissioner (Traffic), Bengaluru. But as discussed above, I. O has
filed charge-sheet against driver of the offending vehicle, but
wherein he has not mentioned that minor scooterist not wearing
helmet at the time of accident. Moreover, as discussed above,
respondent has not taken any steps in connection with his defence.
SCCH-21 13 MVC No.4484/2023
Hence, above decision is not helpful to the respondent. On perusal
of IMV Report at Ex.P.6 front left side bumper of offending vehicle is
scratched and rear right side of the Scooter body and silencer
scratched. So, this report as well as on perusal of Ex.P.4 Sketch
map along with charge-sheet clearly goes to show that, offending
vehicle came from behind the Scooter and dashed against the
Scooter from behind. In view of the detailed discussion held above,
I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved negligence on
the part of driver of the offending vehicle and as such the accident
in question had taken place.
20. The learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the
following decisions :
1. 2014 ACJ 1012 between Meera Devi and another
Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others.
2. 2008 ACJ 1834 between Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs.
Surinder Singh and others.
3. 2018 ACJ 982 between Shaktisinh Zala Vs.
Zala Ranvirsinh Ranubha and others.
In above decisions, Hon’ble Apex Court as well as
Hon’ble High Courts held that, once driver of the offending
vehicle is held to be solely negligent for the accident,
motorcyclist may be minor and may not be having license
cannot held to be negligent or contributory negligence. The
above decisions are aptly applicable to the present facts of the
SCCH-21 14 MVC No.4484/2023
case. Admittedly in this case, this Court as per above
discussion opine that, accident is caused solely on the
negligent act of driver of the offending vehicle. As discussed
above, accident is not caused due to negligent act of the
minor scooterist. As such, in view of above decisions, the
arguments of learned counsel for respondent regarding the
contributory negligence is also not acceptable.
21. By relying on evidence of PW.1 and the Police records, I
am of the considered view that the accident in question took place
due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC Bus
bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-2816 and resulted in death of
deceased Dhanush. M. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in
the affirmative.
22. ISSUE No.2: This issue is regarding dependency,
quantum of compensation to be awarded to petitioners and who is
liable to pay the same, which is answered under the following
heads:
23. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the actual loss of
dependency, the age, income of deceased and the number of
dependents of the deceased are to be taken into consideration. It is
the contention of the petitioners that they are solely depending
upon the income of the deceased and due to death of Dhanush. M,
SCCH-21 15 MVC No.4484/2023
they have lost love and affection of the deceased.
24. The petitioners are the father and mother of the
deceased. Fact to be noted here that petitioner is none other than
the father and mother of the deceased is not seriously disputed by
the contesting respondent. Even there is no material on record to
show this dependent has independent income of their own and
thereby not depended on deceased at all, the deceased out of his
income contributed to the income of family consisting of himself
and petitioner herein. Hence, it is clear that, petitioners are
depending upon the income of the deceased Dhanush. M. Since,
the deceased is bachelor 1/2 of the income should be taken
towards personal expenses of the deceased.
25. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs.
Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Others), Wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “there can not be distinction where
there is evidence of income and where minimum income is
determined on guesswork, as such addition on account of future
prospects is admissible where in the absence of proof of income”.
26. The petitioners contended that, at the time of accident,
the deceased was aged 17 years and working as Milk and Paper
distributor and also II year PUC Student and earning Rs.20,000/-
per month. The petitioners have produced the postmortem report of
SCCH-21 16 MVC No.4484/2023
deceased Dhanush. M which is marked at Ex.P.7. On perusal of
the Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card, age of the deceased is
mentioned as 17 Years as on the date of accident. The accident
took place in the year 2023. It is stated by PW.1 that, prior to an
accident the deceased Dhanush. M was working as Milk and Paper
distributor and also II year PUC Student and earning Rs.20,000/-
per month. But to prove the same PW.1 has not produced any
documents. The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka fixed notional
income of the year 2023 at Rs.16,000/- per month for
determination of income before Lok-Adalat for the Districts
coming under the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru
Bench. So, in view of fixing of notional income by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka, it is just and proper to the Tribunal to follow
the notional income fixed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
to decide the cases before the Tribunal also. Case on hand, the
petitioners have not produced any relevant documents to prove
income of the deceased. Accordingly, the notional income of the
deceased during the year 2023 treated as Rs.16,000/- per month
fixed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision reported in
Civil appeal No.19-20/2021 dated: 05.01.2021, in the case of
Keerthi and others V/s Oriental Insurance company ltd., has
also observed that, Hemaraju V/s Oriental Insurance company
SCCH-21 17 MVC No.4484/2023
Ltd., decisions puts at rest, any argument concerning non-payment
of future prospects to the present case, we are of the view that,
there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of the
income and where minimum income is determined on guess work
in the facts and circumstances of the case. Both the situation
stands at the same fitting. Hence, the income of the deceased is the
Tribunal has to consider the future prospects on actual salary less
tax and even for self employed or were engaged on fixed wages.
Considering recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Special leave petitioner (Civil No.25590/2014
dated:31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others), in which it is observed that, “in case if
the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
40% of the established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation”. So 40% of
future prospects is taken into consideration. Taking into
consideration of the same, if 40% is added to the income of the
deceased it would be Rs.16,000/- + 40% (Rs.6,400/-) =
Rs.22,400/- per month. Since, the deceased is bachelor 50% has to
be deducted towards personal expenses. So, 50% of Rs.22,400/-
SCCH-21 18 MVC No.4484/2023
would be Rs.11,200/-. Income for consideration is Rs.11,200/- per
month. Therefore the annual income (Rs.11,200 x 12) is
Rs.1,34,400/-. As such correct multiplier as per guidelines of
Sarala Varma case would be “18”. Thus the loss of dependency
works out to (Rs.1,34,400/- x 18) is Rs.24,19,200/-.
28. TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY,
FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF ESTATE: The petitioners
have spent the amount towards shifting the dead body and
performing funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment passed in Special Leave
petitioner (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated:31-10-2017 (National
Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and
under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-.
29. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: The counsel for petitioners
relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil
appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.3192/2018)
in case of Muama General Insurance co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram
alias Chuhru Ram and others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
“A constitution bench of this court in pranay sethi
(supra) dealt with the various heads under which
SCCH-21 19 MVC No.4484/2023the compensation it so be awarded in a death case.
One of these heads is “Loss of consortium”.
In legal parlance “consortium” is a compendious
term which encompasses spousal consortium;
parental consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would include the company,
care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his
family. With respect to a spouse, it would include
sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally defined as rights
pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife
which allows compensation to the surviving spouse
for loss of “company”, society, co-operation, affection
and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”.
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the
premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid,
protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and
training”.
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to
compensation in the case of an accidental death of a
child. An accident leading to the death of a child
causes great shock and agony to the parents and
family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a
parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.
Children are valued for their love, affection,
companionship and their oral in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflection changing
norms about the status and worth of actual
relationship. Modern jurisdictional world-over have
recognized that the value further on perusal of
child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of
the compensation awarded in case of death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be
awarded compensation under loss of consortium on
the death of a child. The amount awarded to the
parents is a compensating for loss of love, affection,
care and companionship of the deceased child.
SCCH-21 20 MVC No.4484/2023
30. The petitioners are the father and mother of the
deceased, so they are entitled for consortium for loss of “protection,
affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. Therefore,
Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioners under the head of
loss of consortium.
31. Considering the above facts and for the above reasons,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following
heads:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.24,19,200/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/-
3 Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/-
body and funeral expenses
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.25,29,200/-
Hence, this Tribunal feels to award just and proper
compensation of Rs.25,29,200/- to the petitioners.
32. LIABILITY: As discussed in Issue No.1, the accident
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
BMTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-57-F-2816 and the police have
conducted due enquiry and filed charge sheet against the said
driver of the BMTC. However, the respondent being the owner cum
internal insurer of the offending BMTC bus is liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner.
SCCH-21 21 MVC No.4484/2023
33. INTEREST: As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, I have relied In a decision in
M.F.A. No.100090 of 2014 in between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and
others V/s The divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co.Ltd 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., & Others), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has awarded interest at the rate of 6%. Accordingly,
ISSUE No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of
Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of
Rs.25,29,200/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners with interest. The respondent being the
owner cum internal insurer is liable to deposit the
amount before Tribunal within two months from the date
of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, 50% each
share is apportioned in favour of the petitioners.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to
petitioners, 50% shall be deposited as FD in their names
in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period of
SCCH-21 22 MVC No.4484/2023three years and remaining 50% balance amount with
accrued interest shall be released to the petitioners on
proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest
thereon, disburse amount as mentioned above as per
guidelines laid down by Hon’ble High Court in MFA
No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.
2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
The petitioners are hereby directed to produce
particulars of their Bank Account, with name of Bank,
IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of
Bank Pass Book which contains compulsorily photograph
of petitioners, which is duly attested by concerned Bank.
Further petitioners shall produce PAN Card/Aadhaar
Card.
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest,
the petitioners are entitled to receive amount as
mentioned above after expiry of period provided for
filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall
not cause premature release of FD without permission by
the Tribunal.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and then corrected by me and
pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of December, 2024)(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
SCCH-21 23 MVC No.4484/2023
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt. Mamatha
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 Sketch Ex.P.5 Inquest Report Ex.P.6 IMV Report Ex.P.7 Postmortem Report Ex.P.8 Police intimation Ex.P.9 Charge-sheet Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased
Ex.P.11 & 12 Notarized copies of Aadhar card of petitioners
Ex.P.13 School Transfer CertificateWitnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 : Nagaraj F. S
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : C/c of complaint
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.