Bangalore District Court
Sri Shiva Shankar vs Sri Dineshnathan on 18 April, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 18th day of April 2015
M.V.C.No.6177/2013
Petitioners 1. Sri Shiva Shankar,
S/o Late Thangavelu,
2. Kum. Valarmathi,
D/o Late Thangavelu,
Aged about 14 years,
Minor: Hence Rep. by her
Guardian brother Shiva Shankar,
Both are residing at:
No.9/8, 2nd main road,
Domaluru Layout East,
A.K. Colony,
Bangalore - 71.
(Sri C. Venugopal, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1. Sri Dineshnathan,
S/o K. Kumaran,
Aged about 23 years,
R/at No.2, 1st Main road,
Near Dathathreya Temple,
Jai Bhimanagarm,
Bangalore.
Also at:
No.42, Vardharajan Street,
Jothi Nagar, Attur Post,
Salem Dist.,
Tamil Nadu - 636 102.
(Owner of the motor cycle
Bearing No.TN-77-A-9546)
(Sri Pradeep C. Yadav, Advocate)
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013
2. The General Manager,
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.144,
Shubaram Complex,
M.G. Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
(I.P. No.650405/31/12/6200001139
Valid from 30-04-2012 to 29-04-2013)
(Smt. Manjula N. Tejasvi, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of T. Thangammal @ Thangamma, wife of Late Thangavelu in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of petition are as under;
The petitioners said to be the legal heirs and financial dependents of the deceased Thangammal @ Thangamma in their claim petition, were alleged that, on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., their mother Thangammal @ Thangamma while crossing the road near hero Honda showroom, Domalur Layout, slowly and cautiously from east to west side, the rider of the Yamaha Frazer motor cycle bearing No.TN-77-A-9546 was came from Indiranagar towards Koramangala inner ring road, with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their mother, as a result their mother was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately she was taken to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, 3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 2 days, later on she was shifted to NIMHNAS, Bangalore on 12-09- 2012 for further treatment, on 13-09-2012 their mother was succumbed due to the accidental injuries.
3. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy aged about 48 years working as a house keeping staff at VAR Facility Management Solution Pvt. Ltd. and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and she was contributing entire earning to the maintenance of the family and they were depending on her income. Due to the sudden and tragic death of their mother, they were undergoing deep mental shock and untold hardship. The first petitioner is none other than the son and the second petitioner is none other than the daughter of the deceased, so they lost the love and affection companionship. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. Thereby, Halasur Traffic Police have registered the case against the rider of the motor cycle in their police station crime No.62/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent No.1 and 2 being owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents were appeared through their respective counsel and filed their independent 4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 written statement. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement has stated that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and he has denied that on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., the deceased while crossing the road, the rider of the motor cycle has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result she was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment, but in spite of the best treatment she was succumbed due to the accidental injuries and he has alleged that the false case has been registered for compensation and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in his written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and he has denied that on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., the deceased while crossing the road, the rider of the motor cycle has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result she was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed due to the accidental injuries in the hospital and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and he has alleged that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the deceased, as the deceased has contributed for the cause of accident and as on the date of the 5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 alleged accident the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving license to ride the same. So, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and prays for reject the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased T. Thangammal died in a road traffic accident on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., near Roshan Auto Mobile, Koramangala inner ring road, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Yamaha Frazer motor cycle bearing registration No.TN-77-A-9546?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The petitioners in order to prove their claim petition, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and they have examined one witness on their behalf as PW2 and got marked the document as Ex.P20. The respondent No.2 in order to prove his defence has examined one witness on his behalf as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
8. Heard arguments on both sides 6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013
9. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:
The petitioners being said to be the legal heirs and financial dependents of the deceased were approached the court on the ground that on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., their mother while crossing the road near hero Honda showroom, Domalur Layout, the rider of the motor cycle has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their mother, as a result their mother was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and she was shifted to hospital while treatment, was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. Thereby, the petitioners said to be the legal heirs and financial dependants of the deceased were filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
11. The petitioners in order to prove their claim petition, the petitioner No.1 has filed his affidavit as his chief-examination as PW1, in which has stated that on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., his mother Thangammal @ Thangamma while crossing the road near hero Honda showroom, Domalur Layout, slowly and cautiously from east to west side, the rider of the Yamaha Frazer 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 motor cycle bearing No.TN-77-A-9546 was came from Indiranagar towards Koramangala inner ring road, with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his mother, as a result his mother was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately she was taken to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she took the treatment, later on she was shifted to NIMHNAS, Bangalore, while treatment she was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. Thereby, Halasur Traffic Police have registered the case against the rider of the motor cycle in their police station crime No.62/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the police have recorded his statement and he was not the witness to the accident and denied that his mother was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross and without seeing the vehicle movements, so on her own negligence the accident was occurred and the accident was not occurred on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle and denied that some one Thangamma has been succumbed by taking undue advantage of name of the deceased, he has falsely deposed as his mother was succumbed in the accident and he has admitted that he has not 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 produced any document to show that Thangammal and Thangamma's name are refers to his mother name.
12. The petitioners in support of the oral evidence have produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Ex.P1 is the information filed by one M.R. Sambargi, son of Late Rajappa who is the head constable of Halasur Traffic Police Station in which has stated that, since three and half years is working as a head constable, on 10-09-2012 he was deputed near Koramangala inner ring road, when he was on duty at about 19.45 hours, the rider of the motor cycle has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one pedestrian who was crossing the road i.e., Thangamma, as a result she was sustained injuries and he has shifted her to the Hosmat Hospital. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. So based on the information Halasur Traffic Police have registered the case against the rider of the motor cycle in their police station crime No.62/2012 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Though, he has suggested the PW1 that his mother was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross and without seeing the vehicle movement for which he has denied the same. But the reasons best known to the 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 respondents nor the offending vehicle rider have not challenged the complaint nor the final report filed against the offending vehicle rider. In the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the Ex.P1 and Ex.2 are remained unchallenged. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the panchanama and sketch drawn by the I.O., clearly reflects that the rider of the motor cycle was proceeding on the inner ring road on his motor cycle, though there is a sufficient space towards left side of the road, but the reasons best known to him has took the two wheeler towards right side where the pedestrian was crossing the road, so on his negligence the accident was occurred. If the rider taken minimum care, he would have avoided the accident, but he did not taken minimum care to avoid the accident. So, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. Ex.P7 is the motor vehicles accident report clearly reflects that the accident was occurred on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. Ex.P5 is the postmortem report clearly reflects that the deceased Thangammal @ Thangamma in spite of the best treatment, she was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. Ex.P10 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the deceased soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital for treatment, but in spire of the treatment, she was succumbed in the NIMHANS hospital. Ex.P13 10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 and Ex.P14 are clearly reflects that the deceased prior to her death was took the treatment by spending an amount of Rs.6,500/-. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 are coupled with the oral evidence of the PW1.The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while canvassing his arguments has submitted that the accident was not taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle, but the reasons best known to him has not examined the rider of the motor cycle, who is the best witness to say about the accident was occurred on his negligence or negligence of the deceased? On the other hand the petitioners have proved their case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. Hence, I am of the opinion that the issue No.1 is answered as affirmative.
13. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being said to be the son of the deceased in his evidence has stated that on 10-09-2012 at about 7.45 p.m., his mother while crossing the road near hero Honda showroom, Domalur Layout, slowly and cautiously from east to west side, the rider of the motor cycle has ridden the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his mother, as a result his mother was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately she was taken to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 wherein she took the treatment, later on she was shifted to NIMHNAS, Bangalore, while treatment she was succumbed due to the accidental injuries. Prior to the accident his mother was working as a house keeping staff at VAR Facility Management Solution Pvt. Ltd. and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month, due to the untimely death of his mother, they were put to untold misery and mental agony as they were depending on her income.
The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that his mother age has been shown in the election identity card approximately, but he has denied that as per Ex.P16 his age was 35 years as on 10-09-2012 and he has denied that the Thangammal as shown in the Ex.P15 and the Thangamma are different and Thangamma as shown in the Ex.P18 is not his mother and he has created the Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 placed before the court in order to get the compensation and as on the date of the alleged accident his mother age was 60 years.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while canvassing her arguments has much argued that the Thangammal and Thangamma are different persons. The petitioners have taken the advantage of the name of their mother have filed the claim petition in order to get the wrongful gain, but if the way of cross examination of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is taken into consideration, it is clear that the learned counsel for the 12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 respondent No.2 has suggested the PW1 that his mother age was 60 years as on the date of the alleged accident and his mother was not doing any work due to age factor at the time of accident. So, the suggestions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 infares that the petitioners mother was met with an accident and succumbed due to the accident injuries. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that his parents having two children, but he has denied that his parents having three children and eldest daughter marriage was already taken place, but he has admitted that police have taken his statement in which he has stated that he is doing coolie work and he has denied that he was not depending of his mother income and he has admitted that his father is no more, as his father was died when he was minor.
15. The RW1 who is the then inspector of Halasuru Traffic Police Station in his evidence has stated that he has charge sheeted against the offending vehicle rider after conducting the investigation and there was no zebra cross nor the signal light nearby the spot. The RW1 in his cross examination has admitted in the accident spot there was no zebra cross and he has also admitted that one of the staff has lodged the complaint and there was no fault on the part of the pedestrian while crossing the road.
16. It is an admitted fact that the RW1 being the then police inspector of the Ulsoor Traffic Police Station in her evidence has 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 stated that the deceased had crossed the road where there was no zebra cross and the learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested the RW1 that there was no zebra cross nearby accident spot. So one thing is clear that the deceased had crossed the road where there was no zebra cross
17. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in her arguments has submitted that the petitioners have falsely shown the deceased age as on the date of the alleged accident as 48; years, if the age of the first petitioner is taken into consideration, it is clear that the petitioners have falsely shown the age of the deceased as 48 years. So, if the age of the first petitioner as per Ex.P16 and the age of the deceased as per Ex.P15 are taken into consideration as on the date of the alleged accident, the first petitioner age was 33 years. If the deceased age is taken into consideration as per Ex.P15 as on the date of the alleged accident as 48 years. So, if the age of the first petitioner and the age of the deceased are taken into consideration, the deceased marriage was taken place, when she was minor. Ex.P5 is the post mortem report in which the deceased age has been shown as 48 years and the deceased age has been shown in the Ex.P11 as 44 years. So considering the inconsisting age as shown in the medical records and other documents, the deceased age is taken into consideration 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 as 55 years as on the date of the alleged accident by considering the age of the first petitioner.
18. The PW1 in his evidence has stated that his mother was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, as she was working as a house keeping staff at VAR Facility Management Solution Pvt. Ltd. The PW2 being the Senior H.R. Executive of the VAR Facility Management Solution Pvt. Ltd., in his evidence has stated that the deceased was their employee working as a house keeper staff by receiving salary of Rs.5,201/- per month and she was met with an accident and succumbed due to the accidental injuries. The PW2 in his cross examination has denied that she was not working as a house keeper staff nor getting the salary of Rs.5,201/-. Though, the petitioners in their claim petition were alleged that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, but whereas the PW2 in his evidence has stated that the deceased was drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,201/- only per month. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased and the evidence of the PW2 as well as present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider the monthly notional income of the deceased as stated by the PW2 of Rs.5,201/-, as the salary as stated by the PW2 is meager amount. Thereby, the deceased monthly income is taken into consideration as Rs.5,201/- per month.
15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013
19. The PW1 being said to be the son of the deceased in his cross examination has admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident his age was 26 years. So, he is major and he has also admitted that before the police he has given the statement in which he has stated that he was doing coolie work. Therefore, the first petitioner being the major is not the financial dependent of the deceased. Therefore, this court drawn its attention on the decision reported in ILR 2012 KAR 2859 in between New India Assurance Co., Ltd., represented by Senior Divisional Manager Vs. Sri David T., and another reads like thus;
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 173(1) - Insurer's appeal - Quantum of compensation - Aggrieved against - Assessment monthly income of the deceased/coolie -
Deduction of 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased - HELD, Whenever there is a sole claimant deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is proper. Since, the husband of the deceased was aged about 70 years, the proper multiplies applicable is '5' as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (2009 ACJ 1298) as against '10' adopted by Tribunal. - ON FACTS, HELD, The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.45,000/- towards conventional heads, such as loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love and affection and transportation and funeral expenses. Thus, the total compensation would 16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 come to Rs.1,35,000/- as against Rs.2,85,000/- awarded by Tribunal, with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization. There would be reduction compensation by Rs.1,50,000/-.
20. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the above said decision the LR's of the deceased were filed the claim petition and the Tribunal was awarded the compensation by deducting 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. So, the insurance company has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was held, whenever there is a sole claimant deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is proper. Since, the husband of the deceased was aged about 70 years, the proper multiplier applicable is '5'.
21. In the instant case the petitioner No.2 is alone financial dependant of the deceased and the petitioner No.1 is not the financial dependants of the deceased. So by virtue of above said decision the Tribunal has to deduct the personal and living expenses of the deceased to an extent of 50% as the decision as stated above is directly applicable to the case on hand.
22. So by virtue of decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in between Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., the multiplier applicable to the deceased is 11. So annual income of 17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 the deceased comes to Rs.62,412/- (5,201x12). As per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2012 KAR 2859, as stated above, 50% has to be deducted out of the yearly income of the deceased, as her personal and living expenses. So if 50% is deducted out of the annual income, it comes to Rs.31,206/-. So Rs.31,206 x 11=Rs.3,43,266/- towards loss of financial dependency. So the petitioner No.2 is entitled for the said amount towards loss of financial dependency.
23. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are none other than the son and daughter of the deceased. So, Rs.20,000/- is granted towards loss of love and affection and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.20,000/- is granted towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses.
24. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are ambulance bill and NIMHANS receipt clearly reflects that prior to the death of the deceased has taken the treatment by spending an amount of Rs.6,500/-. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioners, but nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioners are created nor fabricated documents in order to get the compensation. In the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the deceased Thangammal @ Thangamma has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment by spending an amount of 18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 Rs.6,500/- prior to her death due to the accidental injuries. So, Rs.6,500/- is granted to the petitioner No.2.
25. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Loss of dependency Rs. 3,43,266-00
2.Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000-00
3.Loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00
4.Transportation of dead body and Rs. 20,000-00 funeral expenses
5.Medical expenses Rs. 6,500-00 Total Rs. 3,99,766-00
26. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in its written statement has taken up the contention that the accident was occurred on the negligence of the deceased, as the deceased has contributed her negligence for the cause of accident, as she was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross. The RW1 being the then police inspector in her cross examination has admitted that there was no zebra cross in the place of accident, that itself goes to show that there was no zebra cross in the place of accident and the deceased was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has drawn the court attention on the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1104 in between Koosappa Poojari vs. K. Sadabba and others reads like thus;
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 (59/88) -
SECTION 173 (1) - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE -
19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 Claimant had crossed the road where he was not supposed to cross - HELD - Certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him - If a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident - Pedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver.
27. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision his lordship held that if a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident and the pedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver. So it cannot be said that it was only the driver of the vehicle in question who was solely responsible for the accident and there is no evidence forthcoming to show that it was the pedestrian crossing or whether there were any zebra crossing. So, the claimant had crossed the road where he was not supposed to cross certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him.
28. In the instant case the admission of the RW1 and the suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the RW1 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 clearly reflects that there was no zebra cross on the place of accident. So, the deceased was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross, but one thing is clear by virtue of Ex.P4 that there is a sufficient space to avoid the accident, but the rider did not taken minimum care to avoid the accident. So, there is a less contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the principles laid in the above said decision is applicable to the case on hand. So, it is just and necessary to consider 10% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for the cause of accident, it will meet the ends of justice.
29. The respondent No.2 has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the same. But the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not placed any materials on record to show that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence and Ex.P8 is the charge sheet filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all the rider of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle rider for the offence 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle rider was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident.
30. Ex.R1 is the policy copy clearly reflects that the policy was valid from 30-04-2012 to 29-04-2013. The accident was occurred on 10-09-2012. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle rider was holding valid and effective driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to an extent of 90%. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners to an extent of 90% with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
31. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,99,766/- together with interest at the 22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The deceased has contributed the negligence to an extent of 10% for the cause of accident and the offending vehicle rider has contributed the negligence to an extent of 90% for the cause of accident. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners to an extent of 90%. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner to an extent of 90% with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner No.1 is entitled Rs.10,000/- out of the compensation amount with apportionment interest and remaining compensation amount together with interest is allotted to the share of petitioner No.2 by way of apportionment of compensation amount.
With regard to quantum of petitioner No.1, the entire amount shall be released to him by means of a/c payee cheque on proper identification.
Out of the share amount of petitioner No.2 being the minor entire her share amount shall be deposited in any nationalised or 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013 scheduled bank till attaining her age of majority. However, the petitioner No.1 being the natural guardian of the petitioner Nos.2 is at liberty to withdraw periodical interest accrued on her deposit. After attaining her age of majority the entire amount shall be released to her without any further proceedings. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of April 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 Sri Shiva Shankar PW2 Sri Mohan Y.R.
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of FIR
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of PM Report
Ex.P6 Death certificate
Ex.P7 True copy of IMV report
24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.6177/2013
Ex.P8 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P9 ID card
Ex.P10 Discharge summary
Ex.P11 CT Scan report
Ex.P12 NIMHANS Card
Ex.P13 Ambulance bill
Ex.P14 NIMHANS receipt
Ex.P15 Notarised attested true copy of Election ID card of
Thangammal
Ex.P16 Notarised attested true copy of Election ID card of
Shiva Shankar
Ex.P17 Study certificate
Ex.P18 Document relating to VAR FMS Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.P19 Pay slip
Ex.P20 Authorization letter
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Smt. C.R. Geetha List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 Policy copy
Ex.R2 Certified copy of Judgment in CC No.2094/2012
(P.J. Somashekar),
XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT,
Bangalore.