Bangalore District Court
Sridevi.R.P vs Hdfc Ergo General Ins Co Ltd on 18 December, 2024
KABC020280472022
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
PRESENT : SRI J.N.SUBRAMANYA, B.A., L.L.M.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 5134/2022
PETITIONERS: 1. Sridevi R.P.,
W/o. Late Manjunatha Y.S.,
Age: 36 years.
2. Namana Shree M.,
D/o. Late Manjunath Y.S.,
Aged 14 years.
3. Lirish M.,
S/o. Late Manjunath Y.S.,
Aged about 12 years.
All the petitioners are residing at
No.116/1, Ward 10. K.T.Road,
Kote Chikkaballapur,
Karnataka-562 101.
Petitioner No.2 and 3 are being minors
Represented by their mother and
natural Guardian Sridevi R.P..
(By Sri H.V.Kumara Swamy,
Advocate)
SCCH.1 2 MVC No.5134/2022
-Vs-
RESPONDENTS:1. HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.25/1, 2nd floor, Building No.2,
Shankaranarayana Building,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru -560 001.
Policy issued by its office in Policy
No.2319101140795700000
Date of validity from
15.12.2021 to 14.12.2022
(By Smt.Geetha Raj, Advocate)
2. Anantha Krishnan R.,
S/o. Raghavaraj,
Residing at Flat NO.1A,
Palace Avenue Olayil,
Thevally post, Kollam
Kerala-691 009.
(By Sri K.P.M.Vargheese, Advocate)
*******
JUDGMENT
Wife , minor children of deceased Manjunatha Y.S.
filed petition under Section 166 of IMV Act claiming
compensation worth of Rs.75,00,000/- from the
respondents , who are the insurer and owner of car bearing
No.KL-02-AG-8692 asserting that on 15.08.2022 at 0.30
a.m., when Manjunath crossing Sarjapura road , opposite
SCCH.1 3 MVC No.5134/2022
to Anand Sweets shop, near fire station , Bengaluru driver
of car bearing No.KA-02-AG-8692 , drove the same
negligently , dashed the same to Manjunath , thereby
caused the accident, caused grievous injuries to
Manjunath. Immediately after the accident Manjunath has
been shifted to Manipal hospital, Bengaluru, wherein first
aid was provided, then taken to Victoria hospital,
Bengaluru wherein on 18.08.2022 Manjunath succumbed
to the injuries.
2. As on the date of accident, Manjunath being aged
about 39 years, used to earn Rs.40,000/p.m. by working
as driver and used to contribute the entire income to the
family.
3. Regarding accident HSR Layout Traffic police
registered a case in crime No.48/2022 .
4. In response to the notice, respondents No.1 and 2
appeared through their respective advocates , filed separate
written statements denying the allegation regarding reason,
mode of accident, age, occupation , income of the deceased
Manjunath .
SCCH.1 4 MVC No.5134/2022
5. In the written statement, respondent No.2 owner of
the car bearing No.KA-02-AG-8692 asserted that
respondent No.1 insurance company has to indemnify his
liability if any.
6. On the basis of the pleadings on 17.01.2023, this
Authority has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on
15.08.2022 at about 12.30 a.m. opposite Anand
Sweets near Fire station on Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru, when the deceased Manjunatha Y.S.
being the pedestrian was crossing the road, had
met with an accident due to rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692
by its driver and the deceased succumbed to
injuries sustained in the accident as averred?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation and if so, what amount and from
whom?
3. What order?
7. On 21.07.2023, 03.08.2023, petitioner No.1
Sridevi R.P. deposed as PW1 and produced 19 documents
at Ex.P.1 to P.19. On 13.12.2023, 16.01.2024, respondent
No.2 owner of the car deposed as RW1 and produced 5
documents at Ex.R.1 to R.5. On 01.08.2024, respondent
SCCH.1 5 MVC No.5134/2022
No.1 insurance company produced the evidence of officer
as RW2 and produced copy of the policy at Ex.R.6.
8. I heard the arguments submitted on behalf of both
the parties and perused the records.
9. On the basis of the record, my findings on the
above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 … In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 … Petitioners are entitle to
receive Rs.20,62,082/- with current
and future interest at 6%p..a. from
the respondents as compensation.
Issue No.3 … As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 :- In the evidence PW1 stated that on
15.08.2022 at 12.30 a.m. when Manjunath was crossing
Sarjapura road , opposite to Anand Sweets shop, near fire
station , Bengaluru, driver of car bearing No.KL-02-AG-
8692 , drove the same negligently , dashed the same to
Manjunath , thereby caused the accident, caused grievous
injuries to Manjunath, who succumbed to those injuries at
Victoria hospital on 18.08.2022.
SCCH.1 6 MVC No.5134/2022
11. In the written statements respondents No.1 and 2
have denied the allegation regarding reason and mode of
the accident.
12. In the cross-examination PW1 stated that her
husband was standing on the footpath by leaving the
passengers. PW1 admitted that in the police records the
facts stated by her has been mentioned regarding alleged
standing of her husband on the footpath by leaving the
passengers. PW1 stated that at about 6.30 a.m. police have
informed her about the accident suffered by her husband.
PW1 stated that Nanjundaswamy colleague of her
husband has filed the complaint.
13. In the evidence affidavit RW1 , Ananatha
Krishnan R., owner/driver of car stated that due to the
fault of Manjunatha Y.S., pedestrian, accident taken place
and stated that immediately after the accident he has
shifted the injured to the Manipal hospital, Bengaluru
wherein he has paid Rs.45,000/- towards treatment
transferred Rs.14,179/- under UTR dated 15.08.2022 and
Rs. 30,000/- paid to the Manipal hospital directly.
SCCH.1 7 MVC No.5134/2022
14. In the evidence RW1 produced copy of the
driving licence , copy of insurance policy , copy of R.C. ,
computer generated bank credit summary receipt
regarding payment/money transferred to Manipal hospital
at Ex.R.1 to R.5.
15. In the cross-examination RW1 admitted that
when deceased was crossing the road accident took place
and HSR layout police have filed charge sheet against him.
RW1 stated about payment of Rs.49,000/- directly to
Manipal hospital towards medical expenses of petitioner.
16. In the evidence RW2 officer of insurance
company, an hear say witness reiterated the same facts as
asserted in the written statement about reason and mode
of accident.
17. In the cross-examination RW2 admitted that she
is not having personal knowledge about the incident.
18. Ex.P.1 is the copy of the FIR pertaining to crime
No.48/2022 registered by HSR Layout traffic police station
against respondent No.2 , Anantha Krishnan R. , driver of
car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692 for having committed
offence punishable under Section 279,338 of IPC on the
SCCH.1 8 MVC No.5134/2022
basis of complaint presented by Nanjunda Swamy, S/o.
Basavaraju.
19. Ex.P.2 is the complaint dated 15.08.2022 filed
at 3.20 a.m. by Nanjundaswamy , s/o. Basavaraju at HSR
layout traffic police station. Ex.P.3 is the copy of statement
of Manjunath, S/o. Kariyappa recorded on 19.08.2022.
Ex.P.4 is the copy of the intimation dated 19.08.2022
forwarded by PSI Traffic police, HSR layout to 6 th MMTC ,
Bengaluru intimating the death of Manjunath seeking
permission to continue the investigation by inserting
Section 304 (A) of IPC in crime No.48/2022.
20. Ex.P.5 is the copy of sketch of place of accident,
Ex.P.6 is the copy of spot mahazar. Ex.P.7 is the copy of
vehicle seizure mahazar. Ex.P.8 is the copy of the
chargesheet filed by HSR layout traffic police in crime
NO.48/2022 against respondent No.2/RW1 Anantha
Krishnan R., S/o. Raghavaraj, driver of car bearing No.KL-
02-AG-8692 for having committed offence punishable
under Section 279,304 of IPC , Section185 of IMV Act.
21. Ex.P.9 is the copy of the P.M.Report , Ex.P.10 is
the copy of inquest mahazar. Ex.P.11 is the copy of the
SCCH.1 9 MVC No.5134/2022
statement of respondent No.2/RW1, owner/driver of the
car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692 recorded on 15.08.2022.
Ex.P.12 is the particulars of respondent No.2 Anantha
Krishnan recorded by Investigation officer.
22. In the file there are neither documents nor oral
evidence to disbelieve or rebut the evidence , contents of
police records regarding reason, mode and consequence of
the accident. Hence, I have concluded that on 15.08.2022
at 0.30 a.m., when Manjunath crossing Sarjapura road ,
opposite to Anand Sweets shop, near fire station ,
Bengaluru , respondent No.2/RW1/Anantha Krishnan R.
drove car bearing No.KA-02-AG-8692 negligently , dashed
the same to Manjunath , thereby caused the accident,
caused grievous injuries to Manjunath, who succumbed to
those injuries at Victoria hospital, Bengaluru on
18.08.2022 .Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.2: In the evidence affidavit PW1 stated
that as on the date of accident her husband Manjunath,
being aged 39 years, used to earn Rs.40,000/p.m. by
working as driver and used to contribute entire income to
the family.
SCCH.1 10 MVC No.5134/2022
24. In the written statements respondents No.1 and
2 denied the allegation regarding occupation and income
of deceased Manjunath as on the date of accident.
25. In the cross-examination PW1 admitted non-
production of documents regarding occupation and income
of her husband worth of Rs.40,000/p.m.
26. In the evidence affidavits RW1 and 2 stated
nothing regarding occupation and income of the deceased.
27. In the DL marked at Ex.P.13, date of birth of
deceased Manjunath is noted as 20.10.1983. Driving
licence shows that deceased Manjunath had licence to
drive LMV NT. In the police records age of Manjunath is
noted as 39 years. The medical bills shows that since from
the time of accident till 18.08.2022, petitioner No.1 get
treated Manjunath by spending Rs.26,962/. The aadhar
cards shows that petitioners No.1 to 3 are the wife and
minor children of Manjunath. .
28. In the file there are no documents regarding
occupation and income of deceased Manjunath. As noted
above, DL shows that Manjunatha had licence to drive
LMV-NT and there are no evidence to show that Manjunath
SCCH.1 11 MVC No.5134/2022
had permanent quantum of income. Hence, it is neither fit,
nor proper to add money towards future prospects. Hence,
I have calculated the loss of dependency in the following
terms:
Age of the deceased as on the date of 39 years
accident –
Monthly notional income of deceased – Rs.15,500/-
Manjunath as on the date of accident
Less : 1/ 3rd towards personal expenses of Rs.10,334/-
the deceased Manjunath (15,500 – 5,166/- =
10,334)
Annual income of the deceased Rs.1,24,008/-
Multiplier Applicable 15
Loss of dependency 1,24,008×15 Rs.18,60,120/-
29. Hence, I award Rs.18,60,120/- towards loss of
dependency. Rs.16,500/- towards loss of estate,
Rs.16,500/- towards funeral expenses , Rs.44,000/-
towards spousal consortium to petitioner No.1,
Rs.88,000/- towards parental consortium to petitioners
No.2 and 3 at the rate of Rs.44,000/- each, Rs.26,962/-
towards treatment charges, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant
and conveyance charges.
SCCH.1 12 MVC No.5134/2022
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1. Loss of dependency 18,60,120-00
2. Loss of estate 16,500-00
3. Funeral expenses 16,500-00
4. Loss of Consortium to 1,32,000-00
petitioners No.1to 3 at
Rs.44,000/each
5. Treatment charges 26,962-00
6. Attendant, conveyance 10,000-00
charges
Total 20,62,082-00
30. Hence, I came to the conclusion that the
petitioners being wife and minor children of deceased
Manjunath are entitle to receive Rs.20,62,082/- with
current and future interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as
compensation. Hence,I answer issue No.2 accordingly.
31. Issue No.3: In the evidence affidavit RW2, officer
of insurance company stated that the respondent No.2
insured drove the vehicle under intoxication, therefore,
police have filed chargesheet alleging committing offence
punishable under Section 185 of IMV Act, therefore,
insurance company is not liable to indemnify respondent
No.2 owner of car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692 .
SCCH.1 13 MVC No.5134/2022
32. In cross-examination, RW2 stated that after
investigation police have filed chargesheet against Anantha
Krishnan R., driver of car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692 for
having committed offence punishable under Section
279,304 of IPC , Section 185 of IMV Act.
33. RW2, gave answer no to the question, to the effect
that whether in the policy marked at Ex.R.6 any clause of
non-liability to indemnify the respondent No.2/insured ,
the person who drove the vehicle under intoxication and
as per Section 149(2) of IMV Act driving the vehicle under
intoxication amounts to violation of policy condition.
34. In the evidence affidavit, RW1 i.e., owner/driver of
the car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692 in several words stated
that the respondent No.1 insurance company who is bound
to indemnify him .
35. In the lengthy argument, learned Advocate
appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the
insurance company is liable to deposit the compensation
amount by relying on a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of
Kerala reported in 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 52 , MACA
SCCH.1 14 MVC No.5134/2022
No.616/2018 D.D. 30th January 2023 (Muhammed Rashid
@ Rashid Vs. Girivasan E.K. ) wherein it is held that :
22. Ext.B1, the insurance policy stipulates
the condition that the insurance company shall
not be liable to make any payment in respect of
any accidental loss or damage suffered whilst the
insured or any person driving the vehicle with
the knowledge and consent of the insured is
under the influence of intoxicating liquor or
drugs. Since the offending vehicle was validity
insured with the 3rd respondent -Insurance
company and the appellant/claimant is a third
party , the Company is liable to compensate him
initially, but the company is eligible to recover
the same from the respondents 1 and 2.
23. As far as a third party is concerned, the
insurance policy with regard to liability to pay
compensation is enforceable, as he is not
supposed to know about the intoxicated state of
the driver. Therefore, the violation of policy
conditions will not exonerate the insurance
company from payment compensation to third
parties, though the car was driven by the driver
in a drunken state. As already found,
respondents 1 and 2 , the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle, remained exparte throughout,.
Exts. B2 and B3 clearly show that the 1 st
respondent drove the car in a drunken state and
he was chargesheeted for drunken driving. The
SCCH.1 15 MVC No.5134/2022
2nd respondent owner permitted the 1 st
respondent driver to drive the vehicle in a
drunken state and so, he is also vicariously liable
for the act of the 1st respondent. So ultimately
the liability is of respondents 1 and 2, though
the 3rd respondent insurance company has to
make the payment initially.
36. As referred above, after investigation police have
filed chargesheet alleging that the respondent No.2
Anantha Krishnan R. , driver of the car bearing No.KL-02-
AG-8692 has committed offence punishable under Section
279,304 of IPC and 185 of IMV Act.
37. The material available on file shows that as on the
date of incident petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors i..e, aged
about 14 years and 12 years respectively.
38. In the written statement , the respondent No.1
insurance company sought permission to defend the case
under Section 170 of IMV Act i.e., on all the grounds
available to the respondent No. 2 insured, therefore, the
insurance company also liable for all the activities of
respondent No.2 insured. Hence, I came to the conclusion
that in this case, respondents being insurer and insured of
SCCH.1 16 MVC No.5134/2022
car bearing No.KL-02-AG-8692 are liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners, the respondent No.1
insurance company is liable to deposit the compensation
amount and entitle to recover the same from respondent
No.2 by taking steps in accordance with law. Hence, I
answer issue No.3 accordingly and pass the following :
ORDER
The petition filed under Section 166 of IMV Act is
hereby partly allowed.
The respondents shall either jointly or severally pay
Rs.20,62,082/- with current and future interest at the
rate of 6% p.a., to petitioners towards compensation.
The respondent No.1, Insurer of the car bearing No.KL-
02-AG-8692 shall deposit the compensation amount with
interest within 3 months from today reserving liberty to
recover the so deposited compensation amount from
respondent No.2 by taking steps in accordance with law.
The compensation amount and interest are distributed
among petitioners equally .
After deposit of the compensation amount, entire
compensation amount and interest allotted in favour of
SCCH.1 17 MVC No.5134/2022petitioner No.1 Sridevi R.P. may be released by crediting
the same to her bank account directly.
Entire compensation amount and interest allotted in
favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 (minors) shall be
deposited in any of the bank in their names till they
attain the age of 19 years without permitting to create any
encumbrances and reserving liberty to their mother
petitioner No.1/guardian to withdraw periodical interest
once in 3 months in accordance with law.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
Draw an Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected,
signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this
the 18th day of December , 2024)(J.N.SUBRAMANYA)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Sridevi R.P. dt. 21.07.2023, 03.08.2023
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of FIR
SCCH.1 18 MVC No.5134/2022
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of further statement of
the complaint
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of requisition of police to
the Court
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of sketch
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of seizure mahazar
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of chargesheet
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of P.M.Report
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of inquest report
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of voluntary statement of
the accused
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of accused detail Form
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of DL of deceased
Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of aadhar card of
deceased
Ex.P.15 to Notarized copies of Aadhar card of
P.17 petitioners No.1 to 3
Ex.P.18 Medical bills (9)
Ex.P.19 Prescriptions (8)Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent :
RW-1 : Anantha Krishnan r. dt. 13.12.2023, 16.01.2024,
RW-2 : Deepthishree K.J. dt. 0108.2024, 20.09.2024Documents marked on behalf of the respondent:
Ex.R.1 Notarized copy of DL of 2nd respondent
Ex.R.2 Computerized copy of Insurance policy
along with certificates under Section
65B of Indian Evidence Act
Ex.R.3 Notarized copy of RC
Ex.R.4 Computer generated copy of bank credit
summary
Ex.R.5 Copy of receipt regarding payment of
money transferred to Manipal hospital
SCCH.1 19 MVC No.5134/2022towards medical expenses of deceased
along with certificate under Section 65B
of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.R.6 True copy of policy pertaining to Car
bearing NO.KL-02-AG-8692(J.N.SUBRAMANYA)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.