Bangalore District Court
Sri.Megharaja A @ Megharaj vs Icici Lombard General on 23 November, 2020
BEFORE THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & A.C.M.M. (SCCH-26) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23rd NOVEMBER 2020
PRESENT: Sri. R.Mahesha, B.A.L, LL.B,
XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.812/2019
PETITIONERS : 1. Sri.MEGHARAJA a @ Megharaj
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged 44 years
2. Smt.Pramila
W/o Megharaja A @ Megharaj,
Aged 41 years
3. Master.Praveen Kumar M
S/o Megharaja A @ Megharaj,
Aged 16 years,
All are r/at : No.1/32, VST road,
Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru north,
St.Thomas town,
Bengaluru-560 084.
As petitioner No.3 is a minor,
he is represented by his father,
Megharaj, as a natural guardian.
(By Sri.Chandrashekar R., Adv.,)
V/s
2 SCCH-26
MVC NO.812 OF 2019
RESPONDENTS : 1. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance co., Ltd.,
No.89, SVR complex,
II floor, Madivala, Hosur road,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(Policy No.3001/MI-
06004576/00/000 valid from 26-6-
2018 to 25-06-2019)
(By Sri.R.S.-Advocate)
2. Sri.Bharath Kumar R
S/o Ramachandra, No.1/57,
VST road, Lingarajapura,
St.Thomas town, Bengaluru north,
Bengaluru-560 084
(By Sri.SGK-Advocate)
3. HDFC ERGO General
Insurance company Ltd.,
No.25/1, 2nd floor, Building No.2,
Shankaranarayan building, MG
road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(Policy No.2315201804233101000
valid from 10-06-2018 to 09-06-
2019)
(By Sri.N.P.-Advocate)
4. Manoj Cargo Carriers,
Ramamurthy Masion, No.51,
1st main, 3rd cross,
New Timber yard layout,
Bengaluru-560 026.
(Exparte)
3 SCCH-26
MVC NO.812 OF 2019
::JUDGMENT::
The petitioners have filed the present claim petition Under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation in view of death of Manoj Kumar M. S/o Megharaja A @ Megharaja in a road traffic accident that took place on 01-01-2019.
2. It is the case of the Petitioners that:
On 01-01-2019 at about 7.05 p.m. when Manoj Kumar M was the occupant of the car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472, it was driven by one Bharath Kumar, the second respondent and accompanied by others namely Sagar and Kiran were moving from Bagur towards Bengaluru on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH 48 road, near Tridev Daba, driver of the car while in attempt of overtaking a vehicle in front of it, hit to a container lorry bearing reg.No.KA-01-AF-8142 which was negligently parked on the left side of the road without leaving space for the movement of other vehicles, as a result of which Manoj Kumar 4 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 succumbed to the injuries on the spot and others sustained injuries all over their body.
2. Immediately after the accident, the body was shifted to Nelamangala govt., hospital, the doctors at the hospital declared brought dead and the deadbody was subjected to PM examination was handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners took the body to their village in a hired vehicle and performed last rite ceremony and obsequies by spending a sum of Rs.80,000/-. Due to sudden death of Manoj Kumar, petitioners have suffered mental shock and agony, pain and sufferings, disappointment, anguish, frustration, loss of love etc., On the date of accident, deceased was aged 20 years and was hale and healthy, was an employee in the production department at Bhoomika Facility Management Service, Hosur main road, Bengaluru-560 099 and was earning Rs.20,000/-
p.m. The petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 is the younger brother of the deceased. The Nelamangala traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the car under their crime No.1/2019, U/s 279, 337, 304A of IPC. The petitioners prays 5 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 to award a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- against the respondents.
3. After service of summons, Respondents No.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel before the tribunal and filed their respective written statements. The respondent No.4 has not appeared before the court and placed exparte.
4. The respondent No.1 has filed written statement wherein contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is vexatious and frivolous, so also it is contrary to law and facts of the case. The policy issued in respect of car bearing No.KA- 03-NC-9472 issued in No.3001/MI-06004576/00/000 valid from 26-06-2018 to 25-06-2019. As per the police records, it is clear that the said road is of NH-48, which runs from Tumkur to Bangalore, the driver of the car drove the same in a high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry which was parked on the left side of foot path, at that time, the driver of the car drove the same tried to take his left side the lorry was parked on the road without giving ay signal regarding parking the driver of the car without 6 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 observing the same it went and dashed against the lorry, if the said lorry would not have been parked the said accident would not have been aroused, hence the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the lorry. The 1st respondent/owner have not informed about the said accident and has not furnished the particulars of policy and had been violated the mandatory provisions of Section 134C and 158(6) of the MV Act. Hence this respondent pray for dismissal of claim petition.
5. The 2nd respondent filed his written statement wherein denied the entire petition averments. Further 2nd respondent denied age and income of the deceased and accident was purely on account of rash and negligent act of driver of container lorry bearingNo.KA-01-AF-8142 as he had parked his lorry in middle of the road without any precautionary measures. The 2nd respondent being driver of the car was driving his car cautiously in a moderate speed, due to impractical parking of lorry which leads to alleged accident, so there is no rash and negligent act attributed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent is having valid DL on the date 7 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 of accident and was duly insured with respondent No.1 insurance company as on the date of accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, excessive and arbitrary. Hence prays to dismiss the petition against respondent No.2.
6. The respondent No.3 filed its written statement wherein submits that the petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The petition is bad for misjoinder of parties and this respondent has been unnecessarily made a party to the proceedings as there is neither negligence nor cause of action against this respondent. This respondent had issued a certificate of insurance policy bearing No.2315201804233101000 against the Tata LPT truck bearing No.KA-01-AF-8142 and the same was valid as on the date of accident. As per section 158(6) of MV Act, 1988, it is a mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of information, but the jurisdictional police 8 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 have failed to forwards the documents and not obeyed/complied with the statutory responsibility and obligations. The respondent No.4 has not acted as per Section 134© of MVA, the respondent No.4 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. The accident had occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the car who has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side parked lorry contrary to the road rules and regulations without even possessing the driving licence. The jurisdictional police have charge sheeted the accused of the swift car bearing No.KA-03-NC-9472. The petitioners are not entitled to the amounts claimed in the petition and claim is highly exaggerated and made baseless. Hence prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent.
7. Upon considering the rival contentions, raised by the parties, the following issues have been framed:
::ISSUES::
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased Sri.Manoj Kumar M S/o Megharaja A, aged 9 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 about 20 years, was died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 1-1-2019 at about 7.45 a.m. while deceased was the occupant of the car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472, when he reached Tumkuru-Bangalore NH 48 road, Tippagondanahalli in front of Tridev Daba, Bengaluru, at that time, driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-01-AF-8142 was parked negligently on the left side fo the road without leaving space for the movement of other vehicles, as a result deceased Manoj Kuamr M succumbed to the injuries and died, as mentioned in claim petition?
2. Whether Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so from which respondent?
3. What Order or award?
8. To substantiate her contentions, the petitioner No.2 has examined as PW-1 and got exhibited 20 documents as Ex-P1 to P20. One Naveen S.H. working at Bhoomika facility Management service as field officer as PW-2 and got marked Ex-P21 to 26. The respondent No.2 got himself examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex-R1. The Respondent No.3 got examined its Manager as RW-2.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners and Respondent No.1 to 3.
10 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019
10. My findings on the above Issues are 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::
11. Issue No.1: I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the rival contentions raised by the parties here also. Since I have already narrated the same at the inception of this judgment.
12. However, it is allegations of petitioners that on 01- 01-2019 at about 7.05 p.m. when Manoj Kumar M was the occupant of the car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472, it was driven by one Bharath Kumar, the second respondent and accompanied by others namely Sagar and Kiran were moving from Bagur towards Bengaluru on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH 48 road, near Tridev Daba, driver of the car while in attempt of overtaking a vehicle in front of it, hit to a container lorry bearing reg.No.KA-01-AF-8142 which was negligently parked on the left side of the road without leaving space for the 11 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 movement of other vehicles, as a result of which Manoj Kumar succumbed to the injuries on the spot and others sustained injuries all over their body.
13. The 1st respondent filed its written statement by denying the entire averments of the petition and admits the issuance of policy in favour of the second respondent pertaining to the car and the same is valid from 26-6-2018 to 25-6-2019. However, the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy conformation of 64VB. This respondent submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed due to non compliance of Section 158 (6) of the MV Act.
14. 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 deceased Manoj Kumar M S/o Megharaja A, died because of the accident which took place, as a result of rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01-AF-8142.
12 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019
15. Keeping in view of the rival contentions raised by the parties, now I proceed to discuss the evidence available on record. The record shows that, to substantiate petitioners contentions, the petitioner No.2-Pramila-mother of the deceased has examined herself as PW-1. The PW-1 has filed her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit wherein she has reiterated the entire petition averments.
16. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 3 have conducted cross examination of PW-1. During the cross examination PW-1, she clearly admitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of car and lorry.
17. Further in the cross examination she clearly admits that she did not see the manner of the accident, but this admission could not consider that PW-1 was not eye witness to the incident. From Ex-P1 to 7 i.e., FIR, sketch, mahazar, IMV report, inquest, PM report and charge sheet, it reveals that the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and 13 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 negligent manner and at that time he was not holding valid DL. Subsequently the respondent No.2-owner-cum driver of the offending car has been examined before this tribunal as RW-1 and produced Ex-R1. From seeing Ex-R1 the respondent No.2 having valid DL at the time of accident. But he did not gave statement before police during investigation and not produced relevant documents before I.O.
18. As already discussed respondents have not produced any believable evidence before this tribunal. On careful perusal of exhibits of petitioners, it shows that, the present complaint was registered on the information given by one Sunil H. S/o Hanumappa who was the informant/inmates of the offending car-injured of the incident and moreover he was friend of deceased Manoj. He gave statement before the medical officer of M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, Nelamangala, the said medical officer was signed on the Ex-P1 at the first instance of the incident. Then the jurisdictional police complied legal requirement. On careful perusal of Ex- R1-DL, the respondent No.2 having valid DL which was 14 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 issued on 04-4-2017 with specification of vehicle LMV and motor cycle with gear. Ex-P1 to 7 shows that the IO has recorded statement of eye witnesses to the incident. During the course of investigation he came to conclusion that rash and negligent driving of driver of the Maruthi swift car the present accident occurred, the final report shows that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruthi swift car the present accident occurred. IO has submitted charge sheet for the offence punishable U/s 181,279, 338, 304A of IPC against driver of Maruthi swift car. The IMV report clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving but not any mechanical defects. The PM report shows that the deceased sustained injuries all over the body.
19. Besides, it is well settled that, in motor vehicles claim compensation cases, the strict proof of negligence is not required. For the foregoing reasons, I have no doubt in mind to conclude that, the accident in question had taken place because of the actionable negligence of the driver of Maruthi swift car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472. From the documents 15 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 produced by the petitioners easily concluded that, there was a road accident and deceased Manoj Kumar M. sustained grievous injuries, consequent to this accident, he lost his breath, the said road accident taken place because of exclusive negligence of the driver of Maruthi swift car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472. With this I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: In order to prove that, petitioners are the legal representatives of the deceased, Petitioners have produced Ex.P8 to Ex.P16, i.e., SSLC marks card, Adhar cards, ID card, Pan card, ration card, which clearly discloses that petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 is the younger brother of the deceased. PW-1 in her evidence deposed that her son Manoj Kumar was studied 10th standard and working at Amar Tools, Bommanahalli and earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
21. The petitioners have examined one Naveen S.H.-Field officer at Bhoomika facility Management service, 16 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 Bommasandra, Hosur main road, Bengaluru-99 as PW-2 who has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief-examination. PW-2 has stated in his affidavit that deceased Manoj Kumar was an employee in production dept., at Amodo Tools Pvt., Ltd., and earning Rs.15,601/-+O.T. per month depending on variable working hours at the company and used to deposit his monthly salary into his bank account. PW-2 further stated that deceased was entitled for pay hike and promotions as per company rules. PW-2 has produced Ex-P21 to 26 documents. From Ex-P26 -salary bank credit details it shows that Manjoj Kumar M. was getting net salary in the month of November 2018 was Rs.13,781/-. PW-2 has also produced Ex-P26- salary details ledger. Hence Manoj Kumar was earning Rs.13,781/-p.m.
22. The next question would be what is the age of deceased is ? it must be noted that, in this case, the petitioners have stated and produced Ex-P9, it shows that deceased Manoj Kumar was aged about 20 years at the time of accident i.e., in the year 2019.
17 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019
23. It is relevant to note that in the decision reported in 2009 part 6 SCC page 12 in the case of Sarala Varma V/s Delhi corporate corporation, Hon`ble Apex court after considering the decisions in Susamma Thomas and Triloka Chandra and Charlis case, has concluded that, the multiplier applicable to persons between age group of 15 to 25, multiplier is 18.
24. As per the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014 in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Apex Court has made it clear that, an addition of 50% to be added to the monthly income if the deceased was aged below 40 years, in case of permanent employed person or person having fixed salary, as future prospects.
25. 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 and 2 are being the 18 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 parents, and petitioner No.3 being the younger brother of the deceased, they lost parental aid, protection, affection, society discipline, guidance and training. Hence, petitioner No.1, 2 are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of Filial Consortium.
26. Hence, the following calculation is made for loss of dependency.
Sl. Particulars Calculation Total
No.
(i) Monthly Income Rs. 13,781/-
(ii) 50% of (i) above if Rs. 13,781=00
added to the +)
monthly income as Rs. 6,890=50 =
future prospects Rs. 20,671=50
(iii) ½ of (ii) of the same Rs.20,671=00 (-) to be deducted Rs.10,335=75 = towards personal and living expenses Monthly income Rs.10,335=25p.m.
which is rounded off to Rs.10,400/-
(iv) Compensation after Rs.10,400/- x12 Rs.22,46,400/-
multiplier of 18 is x 18 applied 19 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019
27. Out of compensation awarded under the head loss of dependency i.e., Rs.22,46,400/-, Petitioners No.1 and 2 are being the parents and petitioner No.3 being the younger brother of the deceased are entitled for compensation in the ratio of 50:30:20.
28. The details of compensation awarded is as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 22,46,400=00
2. Loss of Filial consortium 1,20,000=00 (Petitioner No.1 to 3)
4. Loss of Estate 16,500=00
5. Funeral Expenses 16,500=00 Total 23,99,400=00
29. In all, Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of 23,99,400=00 with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
20 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019
30. The total amount of compensation are apportioned as follows;
Heads Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner
No.1 No.2 No.3
Loss of 11,23,200/- 6,73,920/- 4,49,280/-
dependency
Loss of Filial 40,000/- 40,000/- 40,000/-
consortium
Loss of estate 16,500/- -
Funeral 16,500/- -
expenses
Total 11,96,200/- 7,13,920/- 4,89,280/-
31. 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 SLP(C) Nos.28141-42 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 21 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 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: "Quantum-Interest-Tribunal allowed interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court to 7 per cent-Apex 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 Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
32. The respondent No.3 is the insurer of lorry bearing reg.No.KA-01-AF-8142 which belongs to respondent No.4. Further the respondent No.2-owner of the car himself 22 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 examined as RW-1 and he stated in his cross examination that -
¥ÉÇðøÀgÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Àj¬Ä®è JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ±Éß ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
33. The respondent No.3 got examined its Manager as RW-2 who has stated in his affidavit that jurisdictional police have charge sheeted the driver of the swift car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472 and as such the owner/insurer of the third party car alone are liable to pay compensation. RW-2 in his cross examination has stated that as per Ex-P2 lorry was parked on the left side of the footpath. From Ex-P4-IMV report it reveals that cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the said motor vehicles. From Ex-P7- charge sheet, it reveals that police have charge sheeted against the driver of the car bearing reg.No.KA-03-NC-9472. No where challenged the investigation carried-out by the I.O before competent authority by the respondent No.2. Even respondent No.2 did not gave any complaint against I.O. before his higher officers. Moreover the respondent No.2 gave statement before I.O and he did not produced DL before I.O.
23 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 All of a sudden he produced his DL before the tribunal. Therefore I.O has properly inserted Section 181 of IPC in the charge sheet against respondent No.2 i.e., Bharath Kumar R.. from this tribunal opinion, respondent No.3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the petition. Hence respondent No.3 and 4 are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
34. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to pay the compensation to the Petitioners, while answering issue No.1, this tribunal held that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing reg.No.KA-03- NC-9472 by its driver. Hence the respondent No.2 being the owner and the respondent No.1 being the insurer of the car and the policy being valid from 26-06-2018 to 25-06-2019. As on the date of accident i.e., 01-01-2019 both respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However the primary liability is fixed on the respondent No.1. The 1st respondent has to indemnify the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in Partly Affirmative.
24 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019
35. Issue No.3: On the basis of discussions made on Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
::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. 23,99,400=00 (Rupees Twenty three lakhs ninety nine thousand four hundred Only) from the date of petition till realization.
Out of which Petitioners are entitled for Petitioner No.1 Rs.11,96,200/-
Petitioner No.2 Rs.7,13,920/-
Petitioner No.3 Rs.4,89,280/-
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. The petition against respondent No.3 and 4 are hereby dismissed.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% shall be invested in the 25 SCCH-26 MVC NO.812 OF 2019 form of FD for a period of three years in any nationalized bank of petitioners choice.
Since the petitioner No.3 is minor, his entire compensation amount shall be deposited in the form of FD in any nationalized bank of petitioners choice till he attains the age of majority.
On deposit of compensation amount, 50% amount to be released in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2 through E-payment directly to the petitioners Account by obtaining the bank account details. Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 23rd November 2020) (Mahesha R.) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
PW-1 : Pramila
26 SCCH-26
MVC NO.812 OF 2019
PW-2 : Naveen S.H.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
Ex.P.1 : FIR with complaint Ex.P.2 : Copyof sketch Ex.P.3 : Copy of Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Copy of IMV report Ex.P.5 : Copy of inquest Ex.P.6 : Copy of PM report Ex.P.7 : Copy of charge sheet Ex.P.8 : Copy of SSLC marks card Ex.P.9 : Copy of Adhar card Ex.P.10 : Copy of ID card of deceased
Ex.P.11 : Copy of Adhar card of petitioner No.1 Ex.P.12 : Copy of pan card Ex.P.13 : Copy of ration card Ex.P.14 : Copy of Adhar card of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.15 : Copy of pan card Ex.P.16 : Copy of Adhar card of petitioner NO.3 Ex.P.17 : Copy of ID card of petitioner No.3 Ex.P.18 : Experience letter issued by the company Ex.P.19 : Pay slips (10 in Nos) Ex.P.20 : Bank statement of deceased) Ex.P.21 : Authorisation letter Ex.P.22 : Notarised copy of employment ID card Ex.P.23 : Registration certificate of establishment Ex.P.24 : Appointment letter Ex.P.25 : Salary bank credit details (11 in Nos) Ex.P.26 : Salary details ledger (11 in Nos) LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
RW-1 : Bharath Kumar R.
RW-2 : Suresh G.
27 SCCH-26
MVC NO.812 OF 2019
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
Ex.R1 : Notarised copy of DL along with policy (R.MAHESHA) XXIV ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE A.C.M.M. BENGALURU.
& A.C.M.M.