Bangalore District Court
Seshamma Maganti vs Sri.Deenadayalu on 5 February, 2022
KABC020129502018
1 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018
SCCH-26
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M.
(SCCH26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5th FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT:
Sri. R.Mahesha, B.A.L, LL.B,
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& A.C.M.M.
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.3018/2018
PETITIONERS : 1. Seshamma Maganti
W/o Late M.Murthy
Aged about 64 years
2. Sri.Ramesh Maganti
S/o Late.M.Murthy
Aged about 39 years
3. Suryaprakash Maganti
S/o Late M.Murthy,
Aged about 35 years
All are residing at No.4071,
1st cross, Pipeline road, Kumaraswmay
layout,
2nd stage,
Bengaluru560 078.
(By Sri.C.R.V., Adv.,)
V/s
KABC020129502018
2 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018
SCCH-26
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri.Deenadayalu
S/o Govindappa
Aged about 28 years
Residing at No.168/1, 3rd cross
Chikkanna garden, Shankarapuram
Bengaluru560 004
(Sri.V.R.L.Advocate)
2. Liberty Videocon general Insurance
company Ltd.,
Office No.1, Alyssa, 1st floor
Rear portion, Old no.28,
New No.23, Richmond road
Bengaluru560 025
(Sri.R.S.R.Advocate)
3. Smt.Menaka
D/o Govindappa
residing at No.168/1, 3rd cross,
Chikkanna garden, Shankarapuram
Bengaluru560 004.
(Exparte)
::JUDGMENT::
This petition is filed by the Petitioner Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/ for the death of M.Murthy., in a road traffic accident.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that:
KABC020129502018 3 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 On 2242018 near Jayanagar BMTC bus stand, Bengaluru, M.Murthy was crossing the road by observing the prevailing traffic rules, Sri.Deenadayalu who was driving auto bearing No.KA05AF9480 by violating the traffic rules, rushed with high speed and negligent manner by driving auto rickshaw and hit to M.Murthy who died on the spot owing to the accidental head injuries etc., Immediately he was shifted to Apollo speciality hospital, Jayanagar, Bengaluru where he was brought declared dead. That Murthy was sent to KIMS hospital and research centre, VV puram, Bengaluru for post mortem wherein it is confirmed that Murthy died an account of head injury associated with other injures sustained in the road accident. That due to death of Murthy, the petitioners put to mental agony, hardship. Hence petitioner prays to award compensation of Rs.20 lakhs from the respondents.
3. After service of summons, respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement.
4. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement by denying the entire averments of the petition. That the petition is not maintainable either in law KABC020129502018 4 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 or on facts. That as per section 134 (c) of MV Act 1988,it is mandatory duty of the insured respondent No.1 to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the injured and the name of the driver and particulars of driving licence. That the insured has not complied with statutory demand. That as per section 158(6) of MV Act 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but the Jayanagara traffic police station have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand. That the driver of the auto was not holding valid and effective DL at the time of accident. That the first respondent handed over the possession of the auto to the said driver and therefore has contravened the proviso of MV Act and the rules framed there under and have committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy willfully, intentionally and consciously. Hence prays to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, this tribunal has framed the following:
KABC020129502018 5 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 ::ISSUES::
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, deceased Sri.M.Murthy S/o Late Venkataramaiah, aged about 70 years, was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 2242018 at about 10.10 a.m. while deceased was crossing the road at 30th cross, near Puttanna junction, Opp BMTC bus stop, Jayanagar, 4th block, Bengaluru, at that time, a driver of the auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF 9480 driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased M.Murthy, as a result of which he fell down and sustained fatal injuries and died, as mentioned in claim petition ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which respondent?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the above said Issues, Petitioner No.2 got examined himself as PW1, got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 documents. Suresh got examined as RW1. Venkatesh got examined as RW2.
7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners and respondents. The learned petitioner advocate has filed written argument.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
KABC020129502018 6 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 Issue No.1 : Partly In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following:
::REASONS::
9. Issue No.1:As this claim petition has been filed by the Petitioners under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989, the burden is on them to prove that the Murthy S/o Late Venkataramaiah, 70 years died because of the accident which took place, as a result of rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw bearing reg.No.KA05AF9480.
10. In order to prove the actionable negligence, the petitioner No.2 examined as PW1 and produced ExP1 to 3 are the police documents which are copy of FIR with complaint, copy of PM report, copy of charge sheet. On perusal of Ex.P.1 to 3, it clearly discloses that, on 2242018 near Jayanagara BMTC bus stand, Bangalore while Murthy was crossing the road by observing the prevailing traffic rules one auto bearing No.KA05AF9480 driver by violating the traffic rules, rushed with the high speed and negligent KABC020129502018 7 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 manner drove the autorickshaw and hit Murthy and died on the spot owing to the accidental head injuries etc., immediately after the accident, the locals and traffic police shifted the deceased neareby Apolo speciality hospital, Jayanagar 3rd block, Bangalore where he was brought declared dead.
11. Admittedly PW1 is not an eyewitness to the alleged accident and he has been crossexamined by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. During course of cross examination, PW1 admitted that he was working in Cococola company as national Manager and he getting monthly salary of Rs.2 lakhs, 3rd petitioner was his brother and he working as software engineer he also getting monthly salary of Rs.1 lakh to 1,50,000/. The deceased M.Murthy was father of petitioner No.2, 3 and husband of petitioner No.1. Deceased N.Murthy retired KPCL engineer and he getting pension after retirement. He did not aware about his father pension i.e., how much pension he getting after retirement. After the death of his father, they moved necessary application for getting family pension for his mother i.e., petitioner No.1., the said application not yet cleared, it is pending for consideration. During life time of N.Murthy, he lead his life on his pension amount. PW1 clearly and categorically admitted that petitioner No.2 and 3 were not KABC020129502018 8 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 dependent during life time of deceased N.Murthy. They independent working and getting salary from their jobs. PW1 was not an eye witness to this incident, as per his information from police constables, Jayanagara police, at the time of accident, his deceased father Murthy was trying to crossing road, he denied the suggestion of respondent No.2, there is no zebra crossing prescribed by traffic authority. Further PW1 denied the suggestion of respondent, due to self negligence of deceased M.Murthy without observing vehicles he tried to crossing road the present accident occurred and there is no fault from driver of auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF9480. On perusal of police documents, it depicts that on the written complaint given by petitioner No.2, the Jayanagara traffic police station SHO registered case against driver of auto bearing No.KA05AF9480 for alleged offence committed u/s 279, 304A of IPC in Crime No.33/2018. The injured immediately shifted to Apolo speciality hospital, Jayanagar, they issued MLC register extract, it clearly depicts that on 2242018 at 9.55 a.m. Mr.Murthy M. injured brought by Jayanagara traffic police, alleged history of RTA on 2242018 at about 9.35 a.m. near BMTC bus stop, Jayanagara bus stop, Bangalore, while injured walking on the road got hit by autorickshaw and sustained injuries to head, traffic constables and by KABC020129502018 9 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 standers brought injured, on examination, the injured declared as dead at 10.29 a.m. due to head injury. The IO of this case referred to conduct postmortem on deadbody to KIMS hospital, Bangalore. After detail investigation by the medical officers, they opined that death is due to head injury associated with other injuries sustained. After detail investigation by IO of this case, he came to conclusion that due to rash and negligent driving of passenger autorickshaw driver bearing No.KA05AF9480 and owner of said autorickshaw permitted to drove said vehicle in public without having proper valid DL to its driver. So therefore the investigation officer of this case charge sheeted against driver of auto bearing No.KA05AF9480 u/s 279, 304A of IPC and 3(1) r/w sec.181 of IMV Act and further he charge sheeted against owner of autorickshaw bearing No.KA05AF9480 u/s 5 r/w 180 of IMV Act. The main defence of the respondent No.2 was also the driver of auto was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The first respondent handed over possession of the auto to the said driver. Therefore contravened the provisions of MV Act, the auto in question did not held valid permit, route permit, FC as on the date of accident. Insurance policy had issued in favour of first respondent in respect of auto bearing No.KA05AF KABC020129502018 10 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 9480, due to violation of contract terms, respondent No.2 is not obligated to indemnify first respondent. The liability of this respondent if any is limited to terms and conditions of the policy and subject to valid and effective driving licence of the driver in question. In order to prove its defence, the respondent No.2 called IO of this case one Suresh and examined as RW1 before this tribunal and respondent No.2 called Superintendent in charge Shanthinagar autorickshaw permit division, one Mr.Venkatesh and examined him as RW2 and he produced ExR1 and R2, entire permit details of passenger auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF9480. The petitioner did not opt conduct cross examination of RW1 and 2. So from evidence of RW1 and 2 clears that the auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF9480 had no route permit and driver of said auto had no valid and effective driving licence and badge at the time of accident.
12. The next and foremost defence of the respondent No.2 that due to self negligence of deceased N.Murthy, the alleged accident occurred while deceased crossing road the deceased himself contribute for this accident. There is no zebra crossing for cross the road. Due to the negligence of deceased, the alleged accident occurred. Therefore the respondent No.2 KABC020129502018 11 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 counsel during course of argument took this court attention about manner of accident, as per police record and he prayed for some extent of contributory negligence may fixed on deceased. In this background peruse the police records. On perusal of entire charge sheet, it indicates that the deceased was crossing Jayanagara road, near BMTC bus stand to BDA shopping complex, driver of autorickshaw came with rash and negligent manner and hit to Murthy and who died on the spot due to accidental head injuries. During course of cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion of respondent, there is no zebra crossing at the place of accident. But police records did not depicts there is zebra crossing at the place of accident the deceased N.Murthy while crossing zebra crossing road, the driver of auto hit to N.Murthy. So this accident occurred while crossing the main road of road by deceased himself without observing vehicles on road. So it is just and proper to fix contributory negligence of deceased some extent. Therefore the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending driver and contributory negligence of deceased. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that if the extent of negligence on the part of the deceased is fixed at 10% and the extent of negligence on the part of the driver of autorickshaw KABC020129502018 12 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 bearing No.KA05AF9480 is fixed at 90% certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.1 in partly affirmative.
13. Issue No.2: The petitioners have stated in the petition that the deceased M.Murthy during his life time was retired assistant engineer at KPCL and claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs. The petitioners have not produced any documents to prove the avocation and income of M.Murthy. During course of cross examination, PW1 clearly admitted during life time of M.Murthy, he getting pension from KPCL department and after the death, deceased wife i.e., petitioner No.1 filed application for seeking family pension of her husband. So the said application not yet decided by the competent authority. The petitioners have not produced any documents before this tribunal to ascertain his income during his life time. Admittedly petitioner No.2 and 3 are not dependents on the income of deceased M.Murthy. As per the version of petitioners case, petitioner No.1 was dependent on deceased income. The petitioners have not produced any documents pertaining to deceased M.Murthy pension details, after the death of M.Murthy, how much family pension petitioner No.1 getting details, nothing has been produced. It is known fact to all under old pension scheme, if any government servant died KABC020129502018 13 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 leaving behind, his wife, the wife of deceased getting family pension as per scheme prescribed. So in the instant case, deceased M.Murthy was retired engineer in KPCL, so as admitted by PW2, her mother filed family pension application to settle her pension, certainly the said application preferred by petitioner No.1 adjudged by competent authority within two to three months after the death of public servant i.e., M.Murthy. If petitioner No.1 had any financial problem due to death of her husband, she definitely pleaded her incapability in her petition and she can produce relevant documents before this tribunal for getting loss of dependency due to untimely death of her husband. No scrap of evidence produced by the petitioners. On perusal of petition and evidence affidavit of PW1, there is no whisper about deceased income during his life time. Further they have not produced any documents before this tribunal to substantiate their loss due to the death of her husband. Therefore in the absence of material document, it is unsafe to grant any compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
14. As per recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India decided on 18th September 2018 between Magma General Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, as the petitioner No.1 is the wife, KABC020129502018 14 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 petitioner No.2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased M.Murthy, due to the death of M.Murthy, they lost parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Hence, petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/ each under the head of loss of Filial Consortium.
15. Petitioners might have also spent some amount towards transportation of the dead body and funeral expenses. So, it is just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.15,000/ under this head. Since, the petitioners lost the earning member of the family, it is proper to award Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate.
16. In view of the above reasoning, petitioners are entitled for the compensation under the following Heads:
SL.NO HEAD COMPENSATION
AWARDED
1 Transportation of the deadbody Rs. 15,000/
and funeral expenses
2. Loss of filial consortium to Rs. 1,20,000/
petitioner No.1 to 3
3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/
TOTAL COMPENSATION AWARDED Rs. 1,50,000/
The petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/ only. KABC020129502018 15 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26
17. From the said total amount, negligence of the deceased in the accident is 10%, so 10% is deducted from the total awarded compensation i.e., Rs.1,50,000/ 10% = Rs.1,35,000/.
18. As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLPI Nos.2814142 of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realization" and also by following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on 6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016) at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "QuantumInterest Tribunal allowed interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by KABC020129502018 16 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 High Court to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application". In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
19. LIABILITY: The second respondent contended that driver of the auto was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The police have charged the driver U/s 3(1) R/w section 181 of IMV Act for committing an offence for driving the passenger auto without having valid and effective driving licence and charged owner of passenger auto U/s 5 R/w Sec.180 of IMV Act for allowing the driver to drive the vehicle who had no valid and effective driving licence. Admittedly the above said fact proved by ExR2 at the relevant time, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. The Investigation Officer, charge sheeted against offending vehicle owner and driver with proper provision of law and KABC020129502018 17 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 respondent No.2 called investigation officer and examined as RW1, he clearly deposed before this tribunal that the offending vehicle driver was one Deenadayalu and owner name is Menaka G,. So from ExP3charge sheet and evidence deposed by RW1 and 2, it is proved before this tribunal that at the time of accident, the driver of offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence and owner of offending vehicle allowing the said driver to drove offending passenger autorickshaw in public road without having valid and effective driving licence.
20. Section 3necessity for driving licence: No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle and no person shall; so drive a transport vehicle other than a (motor cab or motor cycle) hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section 2 clause 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.
21. It is relevant to relied and refer decision of Apex court in case between United India Insurance company Ltd., Vs Rakesh Kumar Arora and others 2008(7) Supreme 343. In this case held that driver not holding a KABC020129502018 18 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 valid licence; insurer not liable to pay compensation; in such a cases, it is not for the insurance company to prove breach of conditions of the contract of insurance.
22. Sardari and others Vs V.Susheel Kumar and others 2008 (4) SBR
206. 2008(2) Supreme 451, in this case, Apex court held that the owner is duty bound to ensure that the driver has a valid driving licence; the insurer can avoid liability on violation of this provision.
23. So in the instant case this tribunal come to conclusion on the basis of materials placed by the petitioner and police documents the alleged accident occurred due to composite negligence of offending auto bearing reg.No.KA05 AF9480 the driver of said offending vehicle did not possess valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No.3 being registered owner of offending vehicle the police charged against owner of vehicle U/s 5 R/w 180 of IMV Act for allowing driver to drove the vehicle who had no valid and effective driving licence. So it is clear violation of policy terms and conditions. The second respondent has issued policy of insurance in favour of 3 rd respondent liability limited to terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 they committed the breach of KABC020129502018 19 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 terms and conditions of the policy. Under these circumstances the owner of offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to petitioners.
24. It is worthful to refer decision of Hon'ble Apex court between National Insurance Company Vs Vidyadara Maheriwal and others 2008 ACC 714 SC wherein Supreme Court held that in case where the driver had no driving licence and award has been passed in respect of 3 rd party claimant, the insurance company has to pay amount to the claimants and recover same from the owner.
25. It is worthful to refer the decisions of Hon'ble Apex court in case between (2018) 9 Supreme court cases 650 Civil Appeal No.8144/2018 Shamanna and another Vs Divisional Manageroriental insurance co., Ltd., and others and "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and others 2004(13) SCC 224"
wherein Supreme Court held that -
U/s 149 and 147 of MV Act 1988 in case of third party victim of motor vehicles accident award passed against insured owner duty of insurer to satisfy the award in case of -principle of "pay and recovery"
summarized.
KABC020129502018 20 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26
26. So it is clear from the Apex court about liability of insured owner and insurer. Therefore, in the instant case, at the time of accident, 2 nd respondent was insurer, 3rd respondent was RC owner, and insurance policy holder of auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF9480. All the respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the petitioners. The policy issued by second respondent subsists at the time of accident, hence the second respondent/insurance company shall comply the award passed by this tribunal and same would be recover from respondent No.1 and 3. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
27. Issue No.3: For the foregoing reasons and the discussions as stated above, the petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
: O R D E R : The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioners is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/ with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondents No.1 to 3 KABC020129502018 21 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 jointly and severally.
The respondent No.2insurer of the autorickshaw bearing No.KA05AF9480 is directed to deposit the award amount and interest before this tribunal within 60 days from the date of this judgment. The respondent No.2 insurer is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1 - driver of offending autorickshaw and respondent No.3 owner and policy holder auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF 9480 by filing an execution petition. Since the compensation amount is meager, petitioner No.1 now aged about more than 64 years, therefore entire amount shall be released to all the petitioners through E payment on proper identification by obtaining bank a/c details.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly through online computer, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th February 2022) (R.MAHESHA.) XXIV ADDL. SCJ & XXII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
KABC020129502018 22 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 ::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: PW1 : Ramesh Maganti LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: Ex.P.1 : FIR with complaint Ex.P.2 : Copy of PM report Ex.P.3 : Copy of charge sheet LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW1 Suresh RW2 Venkatesh LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: NIL (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.
KABC020129502018 23 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 KABC020129502018 24 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C No.5376/2018 PETITIONER : 1. Puttamma W/o Late.M.Nallappa, Aged about 55 years,
2. Nagaraju N S/o Nallappa M, aged about 43 years
3. Muniraju M S/o Nallappa, Aged about 36 years All are R/at Hennagara village, Hennagare post, Ambedkar colony, Jigani hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru rural dist., (By Sri.B.K.K., Adv.,) V/s RESPONDENTS : 1. The Manager, Liberty Videocon General Insurance co., Ltd, Prestige Kada, 3rd floor, Unit No.302, No.202, Richmond road, Bangalore25.
(Insurer of offending vehicle motor bike bearing No.KA04JK9649) (By Sri.K.M.R. Adv.,) KABC020129502018 25 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26
2. Sree Kalleshwara Engineering, No.7, SLN Building, 3rd floor, Near Jalahalli cross, T.Dasarahalli, Bangalore57.
(RC owner of offending vehicle motor bike bearing No.KA04JK9649) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/s.166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Sharmila S., Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
KABC020129502018 26 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 ORDER The petition filed under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.6,90,000/ (Rupees Six Lakhs Ninety Thousand Only) from the date of petition till realization.
Out of the compensation petitioner No.1 is entitle to 60% and petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitle to 20% each.
Petitioners are also entitled for proportionate interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners and shall deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioners No.1 to 3, 50% of the same to be released in their favour through Epayment directly to the petitioners Account by obtaining the bank account details and remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in their names, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years. Liberty given to the petitioners to get periodical interest on FD amount. Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/. KABC020129502018 27 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 Given under my hand and seal of the court this day of 2021.
MEMBER MACT BANGALORE.
KABC020129502018 28 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 By the ________________________ Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee ___________________________ Total Rs. ___________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER M.A.C.T METROPOLITAN AREA KABC020129502018 29 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 Dt.5022022
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separate) ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioners is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/ with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally.
The respondent No.2insurer of the autorickshaw bearing No.KA05AF9480 is directed to deposit the award amount and interest before this tribunal within 60 days from the date of this judgment. The respondent No.2 insurer is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1 - driver of offending autorickshaw and respondent No.3 owner and policy holder auto bearing reg.No.KA05AF 9480 by filing an execution petition.
Since the compensation amount is meager, petitioner No.1 now aged about more than 64 years, therefore entire amount shall be released to all the petitioners through E payment on proper identification by obtaining bank a/c details.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw Award Accordingly.
KABC020129502018 1 MVC NO.3018 OF 2018 SCCH-26 (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.