Bangalore District Court
Gurrapu Santhamma vs Royal Sun All Ins Co Ltd on 2 December, 2024
KABC020077862022
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Additional Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1290/2022
Dated this 02nd day of December, 2024
Petitioners: 1. Gurrapu Santhamma
W/o G. Vemanarayana,
Aged about 43 years,
2. G. Sadvika D/o G. Vemanarayana,
Aged about 18 years,
3. G. Reddy Sowmya
D/o G. Vemanarayana,
Aged about 16 years,
4. G. Lakshmamma
W/o G. Peddanarasimhalu,
Aged about 78 years,
All are R/at No.14-4,
Budalavaripalli HW,
2 MVC No.1290/2022
B. Kothakota, Kotavooru,
Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh - 517 325.
(Since the 3rd petitioner is minor,
she is represented by her
mother/natural guardian)
(Smt. Asha A., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Royal Sundaram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.30, Third Floor, JNR City Centre,
Rajaram Mohan Roy Road,
Sampangiramanagar,
Bengaluru - 560027.
(Insurer of vehicle No.AP-39-DJ-
3067)
(Policy No.MOBL207209, valid from
02-01-2020 to 01-01-2023)
(Sri V. Shrihari Naidu, Advocate)
2. G. Bharath Kumar S/o Copu Rama
Krishna A.R.,
R/at 8/247, Sreeramulapeta,
Proddatur, Cuddapah,
Andhra Pradesh - 516360.
(Owner of vehicle No.AP-39-DJ-3067)
(Ex-parte)
3 MVC No.1290/2022
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
from the respondents, on account of death of G.
Vemanarayana, who is husband of petitioner No.1, father of
petitioners No.2 and 3 and son of petitioner No.4, in a road
traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 15-01-2022 at about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased
was riding a two-wheeler bearing Reg. No.AP-03-BJ-3864,
slowly and by following all the traffic rules and regulations,
infront of Srihari Hotel, nearby Golden Valley College, on
Angallu-Kadiri main road, Angallu Village, Kurabalakota
Mandal, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, the car bearing
Reg.No.AP-39-DJ-3067, driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner, without caring for human safety, dashed
to the two-wheeler of the deceased from behind. Due to said
impact, the deceased fell down and sustained severe injuries
4 MVC No.1290/2022all over his body. Immediately after the accident, he was
taken to Madanapalli Government Hospital, wherein the
doctors examined and declared as brought dead. Earlier to
the accident, the deceased was working as forest guard and
mason and was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. He
was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to
untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are
struggling for their livelihood. The Mudivedu Police have
registered the case against the driver of the said car for the
offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of
I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent
No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and
award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the
respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed the
5 MVC No.1290/2022
written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.2 did not
choose to appear and remained absent. Hence, the
respondent No.2 is placed as ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has
denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has
admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the car
bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067 in favour of respondent No.2
and its validity as on the date of accident. It has denied that,
the car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067 was involved in the
alleged accident and also denies the manner of accident.
Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary and proper parties for the adjudication
of the petition. At the time of alleged accident, the rider of the
motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-BJ-3864 was not wearing
helmet and he was not holding valid and effective driving
licence to ride the said vehicle. It has further contended that,
the accident has occurred due to collusion of two vehicles
which are registered at Andra-Pradesh, place of accident
6 MVC No.1290/2022
comes within the jurisdiction of Mudivedu Police limits,
Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioners are resident
of Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh and the insurance policy
issuing office of both the vehicles is at Andhra Pradesh. But,
the petition is filed before this Hon’ble Court, in order to avoid
easy discovery of the fraudulent claim made by the
petitioners. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Further it is contended that, the accident in question has
taken place solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the
rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-BJ-3864. Whereas, the
driver of the car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067 was driving
his vehicle carefully, cautiously and on the correct side of the
road. The driver of the car was not holding valid and effective
driving licence as on the date of accident and the owner of
the said car has intentionally/willfully entrusted the vehicle to
the person who did not hold valid and effective driving licence
to drive the said vehicle. Further, it has sought protection
under Section 147 and 149 of Motor Vehicles Act. The petition
7 MVC No.1290/2022
is bad for non compliance of provision under Sections 134(C)
and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the age,
income and avocation of the deceased. It has contended that,
the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-BJ-3864 has
contributed to the cause of the accident and the degree of
negligence on the part of the motorcycle was at the higher
side. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on
behalf of respondent No.2, as per Section 170 of the Motor
Vehicles Act. The compensation claimed is highly excessive
and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is
prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the
following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, G.
Vemanarayana has succumbed to the
injuries sustained in a road traffic
accident, alleged to have occurred on
8 MVC No.1290/202215-11-2022 at about 9.30 a.m., due to
the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the car bearing Reg. No. AP-
39-DJ-3067 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to
compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has
got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked total 14
documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the
respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on its
behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and
perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
9 MVC No.1290/2022
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on
15-01-2022 at about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased was
riding a two-wheeler bearing Reg. No.AP-03-BJ-3864, slowly
and by following all the traffic rules and regulations, infront
of Srihari Hotel, nearby Golden Valley College, on Angallu-
Kadiri main road, Angallu Village, Kurabalakota Mandal,
Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, the car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-
3067, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner,
dashed to the two-wheeler of the deceased from behind.
Due to said impact, the deceased fell down and sustained
severe injuries all over his body and succumbed to injuries.
Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident the
deceased was working as forest guard and mason and was
earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. He was
10 MVC No.1290/2022
contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to
untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioners are
struggling for their livelihood.
10. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 has
got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief
affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments
made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral
evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 14
documents as Ex.P.1 to 14. Out of the said documents,
Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 and 2(a) are true copy of
first information statement and its translated copy, Ex.P.3 is
true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.4 is true
copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.5 is attested copy of death
certificate of Vemanarayana, Ex.P.6 to 9 are notarized copies
of Aadhar card of petitioners No.1 to 3 and deceased,
Ex.P.10 and 10(a) are true copy of inquest and its translated
copy, Ex.P.11 and 11(a) are true copy of sketch and its
translated copy, Ex.P.12 is true copy of post-mortem report,
11 MVC No.1290/2022
Ex.P.13 is notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner No.4
and Ex.P.14 is notarised copy of ration card.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents
marked as Ex.P.1 to 4, 10 to 12, prima-facia it reveals that,
on 15-01-2022 at about 9.30 a.m., when the deceased was
riding a two-wheeler bearing Reg. No.AP-03-BJ-3864, slowly
and by following all the traffic rules and regulations, infront
of Srihari Hotel, nearby Golden Valley College, on Angallu-
Kadiri main road, Angallu Village, Kurabalakota Mandal,
Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, the driver of offending car
bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067, drove the same in rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the two-wheeler of the
deceased from behind. Due to said impact, the deceased has
fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries all over
his body and succumbed to said injuries. The investigation
officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as
Ex.P.4, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken
place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
12 MVC No.1290/2022
offending car bearing Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067 and dashing
the said vehicle to the ongoing motorcycle bearing No. AP-
03-BJ-3864.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, the date, time
and place of accident, the issuance of insurance policy by
the respondent No.1 with respect to car bearing Reg. No.AP-
39-DJ-3067 and its validity as on the date of accident are not
in dispute. Further, the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by the petitioners has remained undisputed by the
owner of offending vehicle/Respondent No.2, as he did not
choose to appear and contest the case of the petitioners.
Whereas, the respondent No.1 insurance company has
specifically denied the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067 and taken
specific defence that, the said accident has occurred solely
due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased rider of
motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-BJ-3864 and at the time of
accident the deceased was not wearing helmet and he was
13 MVC No.1290/2022
not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the said
vehicle. But, the respondent No.1 has failed to establish the
said contentions. The respondent No.1 has neither adduced
any evidence, nor it has produced any document to establish
the contentions taken in its written statement or to disprove
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the
petitioners. Even the respondent No.1 has not stepped into
witness box to depose the contentions taken in its written
statement on oath. On the other hand, the petitioner
No.1/P.W.1 has clearly deposed in her evidence that, the
said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067
and dashing to the ongoing motorcycle of her deceased
husband. Further, she has unequivocally denied the
suggestion made in her cross-examination that, the alleged
accident has occurred due to sole rash and negligent riding
of her deceased husband, he was riding the motorcycle in
rash and negligent manner, he was not wearing helmet at
14 MVC No.1290/2022
the time of accident and he was not holding valid and
effective driving licence. Though, the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length,
nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth which
creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence.
13. It seems very strange to note that, the respondent
No.1 has taken contrary stand in his written statement. At
one point in the written state, the respondent No.1 has
taken specific contention that, the car bearing No. AP-39-DJ-
3067 is not at all involved in the alleged accident and the
same has been falsely implicated in the case by the
petitioners. At the other point in the same written
statement, the respondent No.1 has contended that, at the
time of accident the driver of the car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-
DJ-3067 was driving his vehicle carefully, cautiously and on
the correct side of the road and the said accident has taken
place due to the sole rash and negligent riding of the rider
of motorcycle bearing No.AP-03-BJ-3864. Further it is
15 MVC No.1290/2022
contended that, as on the date of accident the driver of the
car was not holding valid and effective driving licence and
the owner of the said car has intentionally/willfully entrusted
the vehicle to the person who did not hold valid and
effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle.
14. Further, the Ex.P.11 and 11(a) sketch also clearly
speaks that, the said accident has taken place on the
extreme left side of Kadiri-Angallu main road, infront of Hari
Hotel, near Goldenvalley College, Angallu Village,
Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, in between
car bearing Reg. No.AP-39-DJ-3067 and motorcycle bearing
No. AP-03-BJ-3864. Further, it clearly speaks that, the said
accident has occurred due to dashing of offending car to the
ongoing motorcycle of the deceased. The investigation
officer in his Ex.P.4 final report/charge-sheet, has clearly
stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing
Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067.
16 MVC No.1290/2022
15. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.3 Motor
Vehicle Accident Report, the accident had not occurred due
to any mechanical defects in the vehicle involved in the
accident. When the accident was not occurred due to the
any mechanical defects in the offending car bearing Reg.
No.AP-39-DJ-3067 and there was no negligence on the part
of the deceased motorcycle rider, then in the present facts
and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the
said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of offending vehicle. There is absolutely no
rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.1 to
disprove the case of the petitioners and even nothing is
elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that, the
said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding
of the deceased motorcycle rider and there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of offending car bearing
Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067.
17 MVC No.1290/2022
16. Further, the Ex.P.12 Post-motem report, clearly speaks
that, the deceased Vemanarayana has died due to head
injury sustained in the road traffic accident. The
investigation officer in his Ex.P.4 final report/charge-sheet,
has clearly stated that, the accident is caused due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing
Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067 and the deceased motorcycle rider
has sustained grievous injuries on his head and succumbed
to said injuries. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-
sheet has not been challenged either by the driver of the
owner of offending car. In such circumstances, there is no
impediment to believe the final report filed by the
investigation officer and other police records, with regard to
date, time and place of accident, involvement of the
offending vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving
of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to
deceased Vemanarayana in the said accident and the cause
of his death.
18 MVC No.1290/2022
17. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case
relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not
required to prove the case as required to be done in a
criminal trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in
(2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, “in a road accident
claim cases the strict principle of proof as in a criminal case
are not required.”
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi
and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation
and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held
that, “in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the
claimants are merely required to establish their case on
touch stone of preponderance of probability and the
standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be
applied.”
19 MVC No.1290/2022
19. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the
above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this
Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have
successfully proved through cogent and corroborative
evidence that, the deceased Vemanarayana has succumbed
to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, occurred
on 15-01-2022 at about 9.30 a.m., infront of Srihari Hotel,
nearby Golden Valley College, on Angallu-Kadiri main road,
Angallu Village, Kurabalakota Mandal, Chittoor, Andhra
Pradesh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of car bearing Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067. Hence, I answer Issue
No.1 in Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the
reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the
petitioners have successfully proved through cogent and
corroborative evidence that, the accident has caused due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car
20 MVC No.1290/2022
bearing Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067 and deceased
Vemanarayana has sustained grievous injuries in the said
accident and succumbed to said injuries. Now the
petitioners are required to establish that, they are the legal
representatives of the deceased. In this regard, they have
produced their respective Aadhar cards and Aadhar card of
deceased Vemanarayana and ration card, which are marked
as Ex.P.6 to 9, 13 and 14. The said documents clearly goes to
show that, the petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3
are the children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of
deceased Vemanarayana. On the other hand, the
relationship of the petitioners with the deceased
Vemanarayana is not seriously disputed by the respondents.
In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the
above documents produced by the petitioners and hold that,
the petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased
Vemanarayana.
21 MVC No.1290/2022
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of National
Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356,
has clearly held that,
” The legal representatives of the
deceased could move application for
compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section
166(1). The major married son who is also
earning and not fully dependant on the
deceased, would be still covered by the
expression “legal representative” of the
deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra)
had expounded that liability to pay
compensation under the Act does not cease
because of absence of dependency of the
concerned legal representative. Notably, the
expression “legal representative” has not been
defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an
award, determine the amount of compensation
which is just and proper and specify the person
or persons to whom such compensation would
be paid. The latter part relates to the
entitlement of compensation by a person who
claims for the same.
According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal
representative” means a person who in law
represents the Tractor and Trally bearing
No.AP-03-AN-8690 & AP-03-AN-8712 estate of a
deceased person, and includes any person who
intermeddles with the estate of the deceased
and where a party sues or is sued in a
22 MVC No.1290/2022
representative character the person on whom
the estate devolves on the death of the party so
suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the
definition of legal representative under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under
Section 2(1)(g).
As observed by this Court in Custodian of
Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs.
Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275, the
definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is
inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is
not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it
stipulates that, a person who may or may not
be legal heir competent to inherit the property
of the deceased can represent the estate of the
deceased person. It includes heirs as well as
persons who represent the estate even without
title either as executors or administrators in
possession of the estate of the deceased. All
such persons would be covered by the
expression “legal representative”. As observed
in Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai
[(1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one
who suffers on account of death of a person
due to a motor vehicle accident and need not
necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and
child.
In Manjuri Bera (supra), in paragraph 15
of the said decision, while adverting to the
provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court
observed that even if there is no loss of
dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal
representative, will be entitled to
compensation. In the concurring judgment of
23 MVC No.1290/2022
Justice S. H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was,
it is observed that there is distinction between
“right to apply for compensation” and
“entitlement to compensation”. The
compensation constitutes part of the estate of
the deceased. As a result, the legal
representative of the deceased would inherit
the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was
dealing with the case of a married daughter of
the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of
the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying
the exposition in this decision would clearly
come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2
(claimants) even though they are major sons of
the deceased and also earning.
It is thus settled by now that the legal
representatives of the deceased have a right to
apply for compensation. Having said that, it
must necessarily follow that even the major
married and earning sons of the deceased
being legal representatives have a right to
apply for compensation and it would be the
bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the
application irrespective of the fact whether the
concerned legal representative was fully
dependent on the deceased and not to limit the
claim towards conventional heads only.”
22. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the
legal representatives though not fully dependent on the
deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the
heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional
24 MVC No.1290/2022
heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age,
avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the
deceased and other conventional heads are to be
ascertained.
23. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The
petitioner No.1 is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are the
children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of deceased
Vemanarayana. The petitioners have established that, they
are legal representatives of the deceased Vemanarayana.
Further, the petitioner No.1 has deposed in her evidence
that, before accident the petitioners were depending on the
deceased. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In
order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to
determine the age and income of the deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased: The
petitioners have averred that, the age of deceased as on the
date of accident was 48 years. To substantiate this point, the
25 MVC No.1290/2022
petitioners have produced the Aadhar Card of deceased
Vemanarayana, which is marked as Ex.P.9, wherein the year
of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1974. Admittedly,
the accident has occurred on 15-01-2022. Therefore, as on
the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 48
years. It is averred in the petition that, as on the date of
accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was
working as a forest guard and mason and was earning a
sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the petitioners have not
produced any document to show that, the deceased
Vemanarayana was working as a forest guard or mason and
he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In such
circumstances, there is no other option before this Court,
except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines
of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases of, G.
T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in MFA
No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022, Ramanna and
26 MVC No.1290/2022
another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in MFA
No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA
No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly
held that, “when the income of the deceased is not proved,
then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by
Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as
the income of the deceased.”
Admittedly the accident took place in the year 2022.
Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per the
guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services
Authority is to be treated as Rs. 15,500/- per month.
Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present
case is held as Rs.1,86,000/-.
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC
680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future
27 MVC No.1290/2022
prospects of the deceased, though he was not a permanent
employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was
aged about 48 years and was not a permanent employee,
the future prospects would be 25% of his income, which
comes to Rs.46,500/-. Therefore, the future prospects of the
deceased is held as Rs.46,500/-. If this income is added to
the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,32,500/-. Further,
the annual income of the deceased comes within the
exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and
calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased
consist of 4 persons i.e., petitioners No.1 to 4. The total
number of the dependents of the deceased are four.
Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of
deceased is taken as 1/4th of the total income, which comes
to Rs.58,125/-. After deducting 1/4th out of total income,
towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual
income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,74,375/-.
28 MVC No.1290/2022
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased
was 48 years. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s
Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in
2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in the present
case is taken as 13. Accordingly, the compensation under
the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.1,74,375/- x 13
= Rs.22,66,875/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: In
the present case, admittedly the petitioner No.1 is wife,
petitioners No.2 and 3 are the children and petitioner No.4 is
mother of deceased Vemanarayana. Hence, the petitioners
No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation under the head of
spousal, parental and filial consortium. As per the guidelines
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others,
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the compensation under the
following conventional heads is awarded:
29 MVC No.1290/2022
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/- each
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
The compensation under above heads has to be
enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been
lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the
compensation under the above conventional heads is
enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-,
the loss of spousal, parental and filial consortium comes to
Rs.48,000/- each to petitioners No.1 to 4 and funeral
expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
24. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for
compensation under different heads as follows :
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,66,875-00
2. Loss of spousal, parental Rs. 1,92,000-00
and filial consortium
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
30 MVC No.1290/2022
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 24,94,875-00
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that,
the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.
24,94,875/-, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of petition till its realization.
25. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the
respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the
owner of the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence placed
on record by the petitioners clearly establishes that, due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car
bearing Reg. No. AP-39-DJ-3067, the accident has occurred
and the deceased Vemanarayana has succumbed to
grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such
circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of
offending vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the
damage caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.1
being the insurer of the said vehicle has to indemnify the
31 MVC No.1290/2022
respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners. However, the primary liability is on the
respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the
petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,94,875/-
from the respondent No.1, with interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
26. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to
pass the following order:
ORDER
The petition is partly allowed with
costs.
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation of Rs.24,94,875/- (Rupees
twenty four lakh ninety four thousand
eight hundred and seventy five only)
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from
the date of petition till realisation.
32 MVC No.1290/2022
The respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay the above
compensation amount to the
petitioners. However, the primary
liability to pay the compensation
amount is fastened on respondent No.1 –
Insurance Company and it is directed to
pay the compensation amount within
two months from the date of this order.
The above compensation amount is
apportioned as follows:
Petitioner No.1 – Wife – 40%
Petitioner No.2 – Daughter – 20%
Petitioner No.3 – Daughter – 20%
Petitioner No.4 – Mother – 20%
Out of total compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioner No.1, 2
and 4, 40% of the compensation amount
with proportionate interest shall be
deposited in their names as fixed
deposit in any nationalized bank for the
period of three years with liberty to
draw the accrued interest periodically
33 MVC No.1290/2022and the remaining 60% amount with
proportionate interest shall be released
in favour of petitioners No.1, 2 and 4,
through e-payment on proper
identification and verification.
The entire compensation amount
awarded in favour of petitioner No.2,
with proportionate interest shall be
deposited in her name as fixed deposit
in any nationalized bank till she attains
the age of majority.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him,
corrected and then pronounced in the open Court this the 02nd day of
December, 2024)(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners
P.W.1: Gurrapu Santhamma W/o Late G.
Vemanarayana
34 MVC No.1290/2022Documents marked on behalf of petitioners
Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2 & True copy of First Information Statement
2(a): and its translated copy
Ex.P.3: True copy of M.V.A. Report
Ex.P.4: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.5: Attested copy of Death Certificate of
Vemanarayana
Ex.P.6 to Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
9: Petitioners No.1 to 3 and deceased
Ex.P.10 & True copy of Inquest and its translated copy
10(a):
Ex.P.11 & True copy of Sketch and its translated copy
11(a):
Ex.P.12: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.13: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of Petitioner
No.4
Ex.P.14: Notarized copy of Ration card
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.