Point of Law: Deduction can be ordered only where the tortfeasor satisfies the court that the amount has accrued to the claimants only on account of death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident

JUDGMENT :

B.VEERAPPA, J.

The claimants, who are the mother, father and brother of the deceased have filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 21.11.2019 made in MVC No.1618/2018 on the file of the XIV Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-10), insofar deducting Rs.17,87,336/- out of the compensation awarded, on the ground that the deceased has not contributed any premium to the Insurance Company, personally.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 10.02.2018, at about 10.30 am, deceased Sagar N, was riding his Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.KA01/HU-6345 from Bengaluru towards Kanakapura, slowly and cautiously and when he reached near Vani Talkies, opposite to Yallamma Dasappa Kalyana Mantapa, Kanakapura Town, Kanakapura, at that time, the driver of the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-42/A-6449 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased’s motorcycle. As a result, the deceased fell down on the road along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, dead body was shifted to Kanakapura Government Hospital for postmortem and after the postmortem, the claimants received the dead body and performed the funeral and obsequies ceremony. The deceased Sagar N was aged about 26 years, hale and healthy at the time of the accident and was working as a Process Associate and drawing salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. The claimants are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased and due to the unexpected death, they lost the sole bread earner. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending lorry. Therefore, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/-.

II. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/ OWNER OF THE LORRY:

4. The first respondent filed objections and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant and fanciful. The accident in question has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, on the other hand, due to negligent act of deceased Sagar. The policy was insured with second respondent and was in force as on the date of the accident and therefore, sought to dismiss the claim petition.

III. OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-INSURANCE COMPANY

5. The second respondent-Insurance Company contended that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be rejected in limine. The second respondent denied the issuance of the policy to the offending vehicle and contended that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. It is further contended that the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and also he had no permit to ply the vehicle as on the date of the accident. Hence, the driver of the offending vehicle has violated the policy conditions. The second respondent also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and relationship of the claimants with the deceased and their dependency on the income of the deceased. It was contended that the deceased was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and without any basis and therefore, sought to dismiss the claim petition.

IV. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIBUNAL

6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues.

(i) Whether the petitioners proves that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sagar. N?

(i