Bangalore District Court
Smt.Tholasamma vs The Managing Director on 20 December, 2022
KABC020182832020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.4112/2020
PETITIONER/S: 1. Smt.Tholasamma,
W/o late Narasimahaiah,
Aged 49 years,
2. Sri.Devaraju G.N.,
S/o late Narasimahaiah,
Aged 27 years,
3. Sri.Purushotham,
S/o late Narasimahaiah,
Aged 25 years,
4. Smt.Lakshmidevi,
W/o Chikkanna,
Aged 22 years,
2 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24
5. Lakshmamma,
W/o late Chikkanarasimahaiah,
Aged 72 years,
All are residing at
Girijapura,
Motagondanahalli Post,
Solur Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagaram District.
(By Sri.Venkateshaiah,
advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S The Managing Director,
KSRTC,
Central Division,
K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore560027.
(Owner of the KSRTC Bus
bearing Reg.No.KA06F1230)
(By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation 3 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 of Rs.40,00,000/ for the death of Sri.Narasimhaiah in a road traffic accident dated 23.10.2020.
2. The case of the Petitioners in brief is that, on 23.10.2020 at about 6.00p.m., the deceased Narasimhaiah was waiting for crossing the road on the left side of the road on NH75, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F1230 came rashly, recklessly and negligently with high speed endangering human life and property and dashed against the deceased and caused accident, as a result the deceased sustained severe injury and died at the spot, immediately the deceased was shifted to Govt.,Hospital, Nelamangala, wherein Post Mortem was conducted and dead body handed over to them and they last rite ceremony and obsequies by spending a sum of Rs.80,000/.
3. It is further case of the Petitioners that, the deceased was hale and healthy, was working as a coolie, 4 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 milk vendor and also doing agricultural work and earning sum of Rs.30,000/ per month. Due to his untimely death they have put to untold misery and mental agony, hardship and financial loss. The Nelamangala Traffic Police has registered a case against the driver of the KSRTC bus in crime No.388/2020 u/Sec.279, 337 and 304(a) of IPC. Therefore, the Respondent being the RC owner cum insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to them.
4. In response summons issued by this court, the Respondent has appeared and filed written statement denying the case of the petitioners and submitted that on the date and time of the alleged accident, the bus in question was on its schedule trip from Bangalore to Kunigal, was being driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and while it was so proceeding on National highway No.75, which is a four lane road, 5 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 having a big road median, separating two lanes on each side, and herbs and shrubs on the median near Mahadevapura at that point of time the deceased darted the high way in order to cross the road covering his body with lungi, as there was raining, in flagrant violations of traffic rules though pedestrian crossing is strictly prohibited even without observing the vehicular movements on the high way and exposed himself for the alleged accident, as such, the deceased himself was wholly and solely responsible, but the driver of the bus in question was no way responsible and even then, the petitioners falsely implicated the bus in question and foisted a false case in active collusion and connivance with the police by creating a false crime records a make believe story. Further submitted that the entire country is under lock down on account of spread of COVIC 19 pandemic, the respondent Corporation is also in financial crisis due to nonoperation and it requires long term schemes to rejuvenate itself and under these 6 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 circumstances court to take the judicial note of the ongoing events while fixing the notional income, adding future prospects and also the rate of interest on the award amount. Further submitted that immediately after the alleged accident the respondents Corporation on humanitarian ground has paid interim compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000/ to the petitioners. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed;
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the only legal representatives of the deceased 'Narasimhaiah S/o late Chikkanarasaiah' and were depending on him?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.10.2020 at about 6.00 p.m., on NH75, NelamangalaKunigal road, Near Mahadevapura bus stop, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, due to the actionable negligence of the driver of the 7 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F 1230 ?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
4. What order or award ?
6. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.1 - Smt.Tholasamma wife of the deceased as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.13. On the other side the Respondent have examined Sri.Anjanappa T. - Conductor as RW.1 and not produce any documents on his behalf.
7. Heard arguments of both Counsel and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon decisions as follows :(1) Misc.,First Appeal No.8473/2015(MV): The Managing Director, KSRTC v/s Hari Prasad Reddy & Anr., (2) ILR 2003 KAR 1104: 8 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24 Koosappa Poojari Vs. K.Sadabba & Ors., (3) ILR 1998 KAR 1934:Sri.Narasimhaiah Vs. The General Manager & Anr.,
8. My findings to the above issues are as follows: Issue No.1: In the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.4: As per final order for the Following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sons, Petitioner No.4 is the daughter and Petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased Narasimahaiah. To prove this relationship, the Petitioners have examined the First Petitioner as PW.1. The PW.1 has specifically deposed about this relationship in her chief examination. Apart from that, they have also produced the Notarized copies of Aadhar Cards of the petitioners and deceased as per Exs.P.12 and 13. In the 9 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 Adhaar card of the Petitioner No.1 the name of her husband is shown as Narasimhaiah, in the Aadhar Card of the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 their father's name is mentioned as Narasimhaiah, in the Adhaar card of the Petitioner No.4 the name of her husband is shown as W/o Chikkanna, R/at Soladevanahalli, Bangalore Rural, Karnataka562130. The petitioner No.4 appears to have got married as per the details available in her adhaar card. In the in the Adhaar card of the Petitioner No.5 the name of her husband is shown as Chikkanarasimhaiah and in the Aadhar card of the deceased his father's name is mentioned as Chikkanarasimhaiah. These documents are public documents which have got presumptive value under law. These documents have not been disputed by the Respondent and also not produced any contrary documents on record. As such, there are no reasons to discard the documents produced by the Petitioners. Therefore, the above documents along with the evidence of PW.1 and in 10 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 absence of contrary evidence clearly support the case of the petitioners that they are the wife and children and mother of the deceased. Under such circumstances, relying upon the evidence of PW.1 and documents produced as referred above, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the children and the Petitioner No.5 is the mother of the deceased Narasimhaiah. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is held in the affirmative.
10. ISSUE No.2: The Petitioners to prove that the accident was occurred due the actionable negligence on the part of driver of KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F1230 have examined Petitioner No.1 as PW.1 and produced 11 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.11. The PW.1 has specifically deposed in her evidence that her husband was waiting for crossing the road on the left side of the road on NH75, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, at that time the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA 11 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 06F1230 came rashly, recklessly and negligently with high speed endangering human life and property and dashed against the deceased and caused the accident, as a result the deceased sustained severe injury and died at the spot. The Respondent denied that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and specifically contended that the accident was occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased himself. In the cross examination PW.1 it is elicited that on the date of accident it was raining, the said road is main road and double road, that time it was dark to some extent due to raining and the deceased was to cross the road on that day.
11. In support of the defence, the Respondent has examined its conductor as RW.1. The RW.1 has deposed in support of the defence of the respondent. In the cross examination of RW.1 it is elicited that on that day he was conductor of the said bus, he was collecting the tickets, 12 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 they did not stop the bus after the accident for the reason that the driver instructed to proceed towards police station and the deceased covered his face with Lungi.
12. The Ex.P.2 is the first information lodged on 23.10.2020 at 7.30 p.m., stating that between 600610 p.m., while the deceased was crossing the road the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F1230 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased and went away from the spot without stopping the bus. On that basis the Ex.P.1 came to be registered against the driver of the KSRTC. The Ex.P.4 is the Inquest mahazar in which there are statements of witnesses which also clearly supports the narration made in Ex.P2. In column number 7 of Ex.P4 there is mention about the clothes which were found on the dead body of the deceased and nowhere in the said column it is mentioned that there was a extra Lungi available on the dead body of the deceased but it is clearly mentioned that one white colour Lungi, 13 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 cement colour Nicker, blue colour checks shirts were only found on the dead body. If at all even if the defence of the respondent is considered for a moment then an extra Lungi ought to be found on the dead body of the deceased and if it was found then definitely it would have been mentioned in the Ex.P.4 but it is not the case on hand. From the police documents it can be clearly gathered that the bus fled away from the accident spot after causing the accident and it is also clear from the evidence of RW.1 but they left the spot after the accident. The Ex.P.7/spot sketch clearly shows the accident spot on the left side of road at little distance from the 'U' turn. From the Ex.P.7 it is clear that the deceased was not crossing the road in the 'U' turn but went further towards left side on the High way which ought not to have done by the deceased pedestrian and from this it is clear that there was negligence to some extent on the part of the deceased as he did not take required precaution while crossing the road that too in the 14 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 rainy day when it was dark. In this regard the counsel for the respondent has relied upon the above decisions which are referred above, in the first decision the Hon'ble HC has considered negligence of the deceased in the ratio of 50:50, in the second decision the Hon'ble HC observed negligence of the claimant at 25% and in the third decision the negligence on the part of the appellant pedestrian is considered by Hon'ble HC at 40%. I have perused the said decisions but with due respect to them I am of the view that the facts and circumstances of those cases and this case are different as in this case the deceased crossed the road near by the 'U' turn but appears to have went to the left side of the road without observing the movement of the vehicles on the highway and therefore the negligence on the part of the deceased of this case can be assessed at 20% only.
13. As per the discussion made above and on appreciation of the evidence placed on record and 15 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 considering that Ex.P.11Charge sheet is filed against the driver of KSRTC bus it is clear that due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA03F1230 along with the contributory negligence of the deceased the alleged accident occurred and in that the deceased died. Further the PM report produced as per Ex.P.3 clearly shows that the deceased died due to shock following head injury causing damage to the vital organ brain as a resulting road traffic accident and on account of such injuries he succumbed, also supports the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 is partly in the Affirmative.
14. Issue No. 3: The PW.1 has specifically deposed before this court that they being the wife and children and mother of the deceased were entirely depending upon the income of the deceased. They have lost their loving and affectionate 16 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 person and bread earner of the family and therefore they are suffered from mental agony and financial difficulties. This court while discussing the issue No.2 has already come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus along with the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and same has resulted in the death of the deceased - Narasimahaiah. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation for the death of the deceased.
Monthly income
15. According to the Petitioners, before accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a coolie, Milk vendor and also agriculturist and earning sum of Rs.30,000/ per month and contributing the entire income to the maintenance of the family. In this regard they have not examined any witness and no documents like Bank Account statement etc., are produced to prove 17 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 the income of the deceased. In the absence of specific documents for proof of income, the version of the Petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.30,000/ per month is not acceptable. Under such circumstances, this court has to consider the income of the deceased notionally for calculating the compensation. At the time of accident the deceased was aged about 58 years as could be make out from Ex.P.13/Aadhar card. He was hale and healthy before accident. The accident took place in the year 2020. Therefore, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda & Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) wherein the notified notional income chart of the Karntaka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the judicial notice of the KSLSA chart is taken into consideration and the monthly notional income of the deceased of this case is considered as Rs.14,500/ per month.
18 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24 Age of the deceased
16. In so far as age of the deceased is concerned, the Petitioners have produced notarized copy of Aadhar Card of the deceased as per Ex.P.13. This is a public document and has got presumptive value under law. As per said document, the deceased was born on 12.06.1962. The accident was occurred on 23.10.2020. This shows, that as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased was 58 years. Therefore, his age is considered as 58 years.
i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY AND FUTURE PROSPECTS:
As per principles of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 9. In the instant case, the deceased has a wife, major sons and daughter and mother. In the crossexamination of the PW.1 it is elicited that the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are and earning by doing 19 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 Coolie work, the petitioner No.4 is married and residing in her husband's house. Therefore, the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not considered as Dependants but only the Petitioner No.1 wife and Petitioner No.5 are considered as the dependents of the deceased. The deceased was aged 58 years and his income is taken as Rs.14,500/ p.m. As per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2017 SC 5157 Pranay Sethi's case the deceased being aged between the age group of 5060 years is entitled for future prospects of 10%. If the 10% is added to the total monthly income then it comes to Rs.15,950/(Rs.14,500/ + 1,450/). There is two dependents, hence 1/3rd of his income needs to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. If 1/3rd of the income is deducted then it comes to Rs.10,634/ (Rs.15,950 - Rs.5,316/). Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.11,48,472/ (Rs.10,634/ x 12 X 9 = Rs.11,48,472/).20 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24
ii) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM The Petitioner No.1 is the wife and as she has lost her husband and companion at 49 years of age and she has to live remaining part of her life without him. In Magma General Insurance company Limited the Hon'ble Apex court has considered the compensation under head of loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Apex court in three judge Bench in United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC online 410, had reaffirmed the view of the two judge Bench in Magma General Insurance company Ltd. In Paragraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads and discussed about "Consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Filial Consortium - A child's 21 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Therefore, the claimants 1 to 5 are entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. As such, the Petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ (Rs.40,000/ each) under this head.
iii) TRANSPORTATION, MEDICAL AND FUNERAL EXPENSES The Petitioners have stated that they have spent 80,000/ towards funeral and transportation expenses but the Petitioners have not produced any documents. In fact, it is very difficult to maintain documents in this regard. Therefore, in the interest of justice the Petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head.
iv) LOSS TO THE ESTATE:
As mentioned above, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.14,500/ per month. Out of this, he was spending 1/3rd of his income towards personal expenses. Such 22 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 being the case, out of this, certainly he would have saved some amount and created estate in favour of the Petitioner No.1. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under the heads of loss of estate. As such, in total the compensation comes to Rs.13,88,472/. As per the discussion made above 20% negligence on the part of the deceased needs to be deducted and if it done then the remaining 80% of the compensation comes to Rs.11,10,778/ (Rs.13,88,472/ Rs.2,77,694/) and if it is rounded off then it comes to Rs.11,10,800/. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,10,800/ alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. As per the admission and material on record the respondent did pay Rs.25,000/ as interim compensation to the petitioners, hence the said amount needs to be deducted in the said compensation awarded to the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for total 23 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 compensation of Rs.10,85,800/ (Rs.11,10,800/ - Rs.25,000/).
17. Liability:
In so far as liability is concerned, as discussed above the Respondent has failed to prove its defence of complete negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore the respondent being the RC owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Though the Petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.40,00,000, but Petitioners are entitled only for a sum of Rs.10,85,800/. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly I answer Issue No.3 is partly in the affirmative.
18. Issue No.4: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this court proceeds to pass the following: 24 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 ORDER The Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioners are entitled for Compensation of Rs.10,85,800/ (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent RC owner of the offending vehicle shall deposit the
compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within sixty days from the date of this award.
On deposit of the award amount and in terest 20% shall be deposited in the name of 25 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 the Petitioner No.1 in any N/S bank for a pe riod of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest and in the balance amount a sum of Rs.40,000/ each is to be released in the names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and 15% shall be released in the name of petitioner No.5 and the remaining entire bal ance to be released in favour of the peti tioner No.1 with proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/. Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 20th day of December, 2022.) (Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore 26 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner:
P.W.1 Smt.Tholasamma List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents: RW.1 Sri.Anjanappa T.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR Ex.P2 True copy of FIS Ex.P3 True copy of PM report Ex.P4 True copy of Inquest Mahazar Ex.P5 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P6 True copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P7 True copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P8 True copy of Police notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act Ex.P9 True copy of Reply to police notice u/Sec.133 of MV Act Ex.P10 True copy of MVA report Ex.P.11 True copy of Chargesheet Ex.P.12 Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners
(compared with originals and originals are returned) 27 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased (compared with originals and originals are returned) List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Nil (Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.28 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24 20.12.2022 PV RMSB For Judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioners are entitled for
Compensation of Rs.10,85,800/ (Rupees
Ten Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Eight Hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
29 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24
The Respondent RC owner of the
offending vehicle shall deposit the
compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within sixty days from the date of this award.
On deposit of the award amount and in terest 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.1 in any N/S bank for a pe riod of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest and in the balance amount a sum of Rs.40,000/ each is to be released in the names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and 15% shall be released in the name of petitioner No.5 and the remaining entire bal ance to be released in favour of the peti tioner No.1 with proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules. 30 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24 The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/. Draw Award accordingly.
(Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC No.4112/2020 PETITIONER/S: 1. Smt.Tholasamma, W/o late Narasimahaiah, Aged 49 years,
2. Sri.Devaraju G.N., S/o late Narasimahaiah, Aged 27 years,
3. Sri.Purushotham, S/o late Narasimahaiah, Aged 25 years,
4. Smt.Lakshmidevi, W/o Chikkanna, Aged 22 years,
5. Lakshmamma, W/o late Chikkanarasimahaiah, Aged 72 years, All are residing at Girijapura, Motagondanahalli Post, Solur Hobli, 32 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 Magadi Taluk, Ramanagaram District.
(By Sri.Venkateshaiah, advocate.) V/S RESPONDENT/S The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Division, K.H.Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore560027.
(Owner of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA06F1230) (By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate.) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Petitioner/s above named U/sec.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. 33 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER The Petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioners are entitled for Compensation of Rs.10,85,800/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand and Eight Hun dred only) along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
34 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24
The Respondent RC owner of the
offending vehicle shall deposit the
compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within sixty days from the date of this award.
On deposit of the award amount and in terest 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.1 in any N/S bank for a pe riod of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest and in the balance amount a sum of Rs.40,000/ each is to be released in the names of the Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and 15% shall be released in the name of peti tioner No.5 and the remaining entire balance to be released in favour of the petitioner No.1 with proper identification and due acknowl edgment as per Rules.
35 MVC No.4112/2020
SCCH-24 The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 20 day of December 2022.
th MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _________________________________ Total Rs.
_________________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T.METROPOLITAN:
BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR 36 MVC No.4112/2020 SCCH-24