Bangalore District Court
Smt.Smitha vs Sri.Venkatachalam V on 26 August, 2015
SCCH.13 1 MVC.No.3058/14
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2015.
PRESENT :
SMT.B.PUSHPANJALI, B.A., LL.M.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.3058/2014
PETITIONERS: 1.Smt.Smitha, 36 years
W/o Late Prathap,
2. Master Dhanush, 11 years,
S/o Late Prathap,
3. Kumari Meghana, 8 years
D/o Late Prathap,
4. Smt.Shanthakumari,
W/o Late Srinivas @
Srinivasamurthy,
Aged about 62 years
Since petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are
minors, rep. by natural guardian
and mother-Smt.Smitha, Petitioner
No.1.
All are R/at Jail Road,
Raghavendra Krupa,
Shimoga-577 203.
Vs.
SCCH.13 2 MVC.No.3058/14
RESPONDENTS: 1.Sri.Venkatachalam V.,
S/o P.Venkatachalam,
R/at No.52-A,
Kattayanoor,
Ksthuripatti villa,
Sankari Taluk, Salem Dist.,
Tamil Nadu.
(Owner of Milk Tanker bearing
Reg.No.TN-52-D-9524)
2. The Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
5th floor, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(Policy NO.1207532334001906 valid
from 28.09.2013 to 27.09.2014)
-o0o-
JUDGMENT
The legal representatives of the deceased- Pratap, S/o Srinivas @ Srinivasa murthy filed the present petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act., claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case are that:-
On 19.05.2014, at about 11.30 a.m., deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-21-AK-8403 on SCCH.13 3 MVC.No.3058/14 Outer Ring road, towards Hennur junction, on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near Nagawara flyover, at that time, a Milk Tanker bearing Reg.No.TN-52- D-9524 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life and property, dashed against his motor cycle from behind. Due to which, deceased fell down and the milk tanker ran over him. As a result of which, deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body and he succumbed to the accidental injuries on the spot. It is contended that the petitioners have lost the dependency, loss of love and affection, loss of consortium and loss of estate. Hence, the instant petition.
3. In response to the notices, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed exparte and respondent No.2 placed its appearance through its counsel and filed written statement with the following contentions:-
4. The 2nd Respondent is disputing the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and also disputing that the accident was on account of rash and negligence of SCCH.13 4 MVC.No.3058/14 the driver of the Milk Tanker bearing Reg.No.TN-52-D- 9524 and contended that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligently riding his motor cycle by the deceased and due to over speed, lost the control over the motor cycle and fell down and died on the spot. It has disputed the death of deceased on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident. It has also disputed the age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that the compensation claimed in the petition is exorbitant, Therefore, respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition filed against this respondent.
5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether petitioners prove that they are the Legal Representatives of the deceased Sri. Pratap?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in RTA on 19.05.2014 at about 11.30 a.m. involving Milk Tanker?
3. Whether respondents prove that the accident had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the deceased?SCCH.13 5 MVC.No.3058/14
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?
5. What order or Award?
6. In order to prove the petition claim, the petitioner No.1 examined as PW.1 and got examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P-1 to P27. Respondent No.2 has not led evidence.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. My answers to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In affirmative. Issue No.2 : Partly in affirmative. Issue No.3 : In Negative Issue No.4 : In affirmative Issue No.5 : As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
9. Issue No.1: Claimants No.1 to 4 are before this tribunal seeking compensation in the capacity of LRs of the deceased. 1st petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and filed her affidavit stating that she is the wife and the SCCH.13 6 MVC.No.3058/14 petitioners 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. The respondent No.2 has not seriously disputed their relationship or status as LRs of the deceased. The names and above relationship of the petitioners with the deceased are reflected in ExsP.8 to P10 and P17- Notarised copies of Ration Card, Aadhaar Cards of the deceased and petitioners and Voters ID of the deceased and 1st petitioner and Birth Extracts of minor petitioners No.2 and
2. Since, there is no evidence to the contrary led by the respondent No.2 and there are no rival claimants, the above material is suffice to hold that they are the LRs of the deceased. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
10. Issue Nos.2 and 3 :. It is the case of the petitioners that on 19.05.2014, at about 11.30 a.m., deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.AP-
21-AK-8403 on Outer Ring road, towards Hennur junction, on the extreme left side of the road and when he reached near Nagawara flyover, at that time, a Milk SCCH.13 7 MVC.No.3058/14 Tanker bearing Reg.No.TN-52-D-9524 driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life and property, dashed against his motor cycle from behind. Due to which, deceased fell down and the milk tanker ran over him. As a result of which, deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body and he succumbed to the accidental injuries on the spot.
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, petitioners examined 1st petitioner as PW1, who has filed her affidavit in lieu of oral evidence, reasserting the petition averments. Apart from oral evidence, petitioners have also produced documents marked at Exs.P1 to P27.
11. A careful perusal of the records, it reveals that despite of service of summons, 1st respondent who is the owner of the offending vehicle, did not appeared before the court, hence, he placed exparte. The 2nd respondent who is the insurer of the offending vehicle has filed written statement, contending that the petition is not SCCH.13 8 MVC.No.3058/14 maintainable either in law or on facts. Though, the accident is on the negligence of the deceased, only with an oblique motive to get compensation, a false case is registered against the offending vehicle. Since, the accident is on the negligence of the deceased, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. These amongst the others grounds, the 2nd respondent requested to dismiss the claim petition.
12. In order to prove its specific assertion, the 2nd respondent has not led evidence. A careful perusal of the records, it reveals that there is no delay in filing the complaint. Immediately, after the accident, complaint was filed by referring the vehicle number and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. If according to the 2nd respondent, the accident was on the negligence of the deceased, what prevented the driver of its insured to file complaint. However, the driver of its insured vehicle has not filed any complaint against the deceased. The Sketch and Mahazar marked at Exs.P5 and P3 reveal that when the deceased SCCH.13 9 MVC.No.3058/14 was riding two wheeler on the left side of the road, the offending vehicle came from behind and dashed against right side of the deceased vehicle. As a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. In order to brush aside these material evidence, except a denial suggestion to PW1, nothing is placed on record. In the absence of any cogent evidence, this Tribunal cannot believe the assertion of the 2nd respondent that the accident is on the negligence of the deceased, but not by the driver of its insured vehicle.
On the other hand, looking to the oral evidence of PW.1 and police papers like FIR, Mahazar, Sketch and Charge sheet, this tribunal is of opinion that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending BMTC Bus and in the said accident, the husband of the petitioner No.1 sustained grievous injury and succumbed to the injuries. Therefore, there is nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and death of the deceased. Consequently, issue No.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative.
SCCH.13 10 MVC.No.3058/14
13. Issue No.4 :- Basically, only 3 facts need to be established by the claimants for determining compensation in case of death. (A) Age of the deceased, (B) income of the deceased and (C) Number of dependency. So, at the cost of repetition, these are important facts to determine the quantum of compensation.
14. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY :-
In the petition, it is stated that the deceased was aged about 37 years. To prove the accurate age of the deceased, the petitioners have produced SSLC Marks Card at Ex.P12, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 02.05.1976. So, as on the date of accident, the date of the deceased was 38 years. Therefore, this tribunal feels to take the age of the deceased as 38 years as on the date of the accident.
15. In the petition, it is contended that the deceased was a Civil Engineer at M/s.D.S.Max Properties, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. In order to prove the avocation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have produced Notarised copy of SCCH.13 11 MVC.No.3058/14 Diploma Engineering certificate, SSLC Marks card, Pay slips from November and December 2013 and January to April 2014, Appointment Order, Form No.16, Bank pass book of deceased and Confirmation letter marked at Exs.P11 to 16 and Confirmation letter. A careful perusal of these documents, it reveal that the deceased was working as a Senior Site Engineer at M/s.D.S.Max Properties, Outer Ring Road and his gross salary for the month of April 2014 is Rs.25,000/-. Petitioners have also examined HR Manager of M/s.D.S.Max Properties, Outer Ring Road as PW2 who also endorsed about avocation and salary paid to the deceased. He also produced copy of Appointment letter, Pay slips for Nov. and Dec.2013 and Jan. to April 2014, Form No.16, Letter dt.06.01.2015 and Confirmation letter marked at Exs.P19 to P24. All these documents clinchingly evidenced that the deceased was a Senior Site Engineer at M/s.D.S.Max Properties, Outer Ring Road and his gross salary is Rs.25,000/- p.m. Though, the 2nd respondent has denied avocation and salary of the deceased, in order to brush aside these documents, nothing is placed on record. The Bank pass SCCH.13 12 MVC.No.3058/14 book produced by the petitioners marked at Ex.P16 reflects the salary credited to the account of the deceased. In the absence of any cogent evidence, this Tribunal cannot believe the assertion of the 2nd respondent. The Form No.16 produced at Ex.P15 for the assessment year 2014-2015 reveals that the gross salary of the deceased is Rs.3,05,000/-. He was given deduction of Rs.40,600/- under Sec.10 and Rs.45,250/- under Secs.80C, 80CCC and 80CCD and Rs.2,400/- towards PT. So, the taxable income of the deceased works out to Rs.2,16,750/-. After deduction of Rs.1,725/- towards income tax, the net income of the deceased works out to Rs.2,15,025/-. Hence, this Tribunal feels to take yearly income of the deceased at Rs.2,15,025/-.
16. In the recent decision reported in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh - 2013 ACJ 1403 Hon'ble Apex court had added 50% of actual income for persons for age group below 40 years .
Relevant para of the said decision reads thus:
Quantum-fatal accident - principles of assessment-future prospects-Whether formula for SCCH.13 13 MVC.No.3058/14 increase of income for future prospects adopted for persons with permanent jobs in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), may also be applied to persons who were self employed or were engaged on fixed wages - Held: yes; 50 per cent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30 per cent for age group of 40 to 50 years; 15 percent for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no addition thereafter.
17. In the instant case deceased was aged about 38 years and as per the aforesaid decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the persons who are self employed or employed on fixed wages age group of below 40 years are entitle an addition 50% to the income of the deceased. In the case on hand, deceased was 38 years age. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for additional 50% of total income towards future prospects. Annual income works out at Rs.2,15,025/- +1.07,512.50/- = Rs.3,22,537.50/-.
18. Admittedly, the deceased has left behind petitioners No.1 to 4 as his legal heirs. 1st petitioner is the wife, who is the sole dependent on the deceased and the petitioners No. 2 and 3 are the minor son and SCCH.13 14 MVC.No.3058/14 daughter and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased. So, as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma's decision, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), 1/4 of the income of the deceased is to be deducted towards personal expenses. While discussing in foregoing paras, this Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the income of the deceased is at Rs.3,22,537.50/-.p.a. and the 1/4th of the income of the deceased is works out to Rs.80,634.37/-. So, Rs.2,41.903.13/- rounded up to Rs.2,41,903/- would be the loss of yearly dependency to the petitioners. According to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), the multiplier applicable between the age group of 36 to 40 years is "15". Therefore, on taking the multiplicand and the yearly loss of earning, Rs.2,41,903/- x 15 = Rs.36,28,545/- would be the loss of dependency to the petitioners, which is just and fair compensation.
19. LOSS OF ESTATE:- Having regard to the age and prospectus of the life of the deceased, this tribunal SCCH.13 15 MVC.No.3058/14 feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.20,000/- towards the loss of estate, which is the just and fair compensation.
20. LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION:-
Admittedly, the petitioners are the wife and minor son, daughter and mother of the deceased. Therefore, they have lost the love and affection of the deceased. Therefore this tribunal has no hesitation to award Rs.12,000/-
towards the loss of love and affection, which is just and fair compensation
21. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:- Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, who had lost her husband at the age of 36 years, therefore, this Tribunal would like to award Rs.25,000/- which is just and fair compensation.
22. LOSS OF CARE & GUIDANCE FOR MINOR CHILDREN: In the instant case 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioner nos.2 and 3 are minor children of deceased. SCCH.13 16 MVC.No.3058/14 So the 1st petitioner has lost companionship, love, care and affection etc., which the spouse and minor children's are entitle to get. Hence, this tribunal feels toward Rs.25,000/- under this head.
23. FUNERAL EXPENSES:- No doubt, there is no definite evidence on the record regarding transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, therefore, this tribunal feel that it is just and proper to award Rs.25,000/- towards the transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, which is just and fair compensation.
Thus petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:-
1. Loss of dependency: Rs.36,28,545/-
2. Loss of estate: 20,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection: 12,000/-
4. Loss of consortium: 25,000/-
5. Loss of care & guidance for minor 25,000/- children
6. Funeral expenses: 25,000/-
TOTAL Rs.37,35,545/-SCCH.13 17 MVC.No.3058/14
Hence, this court feel it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.37,35,545/- to the petitioners, which is the just and fair compensation.
24. So far as interest is concerned, as per Sec.171 of Motor Vehicle Act tribunal in power act for grant of interest from date of claim at simple interest at such rate as deems reasonable. The Division Bench ruling of the Karnataka High Court in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. Geeta and the Division Bench ruling in P.Rama Devi Vs. C.B. Sai Krishna and others are of the view that the rate of interest to be awarded should be at the rate of 6%. In AIR 1994 Karn.8, it was observed that "Compensation is an amount paid in advance for any loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of earnings. It is not a debt. Therefore, the interest to be awarded under Section 110-CCC of the Motor Vehicles Act could only be at 6% per annum." Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the petition till deposit of the entire compensation amount. SCCH.13 18 MVC.No.3058/14
25. The petitioners have proved that the accident occurred on account of negligence of driver of the offending vehicle-Milk Tanker bearing Reg.No.TN-52-D- 9524, resulting the death of deceased. So, far as the liability is concerned, the fact that the policy of offending vehicle was in force on the date of accident is not in dispute and the driver of the offending vehicles had possessed valid DL. Since, the policy was in force, on the date of the accident, 1st and 2nd respondents being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicles, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, in view of subsisting insurance policies, respondent No.2- Insurance Company, shall deposit the compensation amount with interest at 6% in the court. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 accordingly.
26. Issue No.5:- In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, is partly allowed.SCCH.13 19 MVC.No.3058/14
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.37,35,545/- to the petitioners together with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The 2nd respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount in the court within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, the 4th petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-, the 2nd and 3rd petitioner are entitled for Rs.7,00,000/- each and the 1st petitioner is entitled for the remaining amount with accrued interest on the entire amount.
Out of the said shares of 1st and 4th petitioners, 40% each shall be invested in their names in FD for a period of 5 years and in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest. The remaining shares of petitioner nos. 1 and 4 shall be paid to them through separate account payee cheque on proper identification.
The entire shares of minor petitioners No.2 and 3, shall be invested in FD in their names till they attains majority in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank with a SCCH.13 20 MVC.No.3058/14 liberty to draw periodical interest by her mother- guardian/1st petitioner.
Advocate fee of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.500/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of August 2015).
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : Smt.Smitha PW.2 : Sri.Praveen
List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P.1 : CC of FIR & Complaint
Ex.P.2 : PM report
Ex.P.3 : Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Inquest report
Ex.P.5 : Sketch
Ex.P.6 : IMV report
Ex.P.7 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.8 : NC of Ration Card (compared with original
and returned back to the witness)
Ex.P.9 : NC of Adhaar card of deceased and
petitioners (3 in Nos)
Ex.P.10 : NC of voter ID of deceased and 1st petitioner
Ex.P.11 : NC of Diploma Engineering certificate
SCCH.13 21 MVC.No.3058/14
Ex.P.12 : NC of SSLC Marks card
Ex.P.13 : Pay slip from Nov.Dec.2013, January to April 2014 (6 in Nos) Ex.P.14 : Appointment Order Ex.P.15 : Form No.16 Ex.P.16 : Bank Pass book of deceased Ex.P.17 : Date of birth extract ( 2 in Nos) Ex.P.18 : Confirmation letter Ex.P.19 : Authorisation letter Ex.P.20 : Copy of appointment letter Ex.P.21 : Pay slip from Nov.Dec.2013, January to April 2014 Ex.P.22 : Form No.16 Ex.P.23 : Letter dt.06.01.2015 Ex.P.24 : Confirmation letter Ex.P.25 : Health policy Ex.P.26 : Accident policy Ex.P.27 : 8 Vouchers List of witnesses & documents for respondents :
-NIL-
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl.Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH.13 22 MVC.No.3058/14
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.3058/2014 PETITIONERS: 1.Smt.Smitha, 36 years W/o Late Prathap,
2. Master Dhanush, 11 years, S/o Late Prathap,
3. Kumari Meghana, 8 years D/o Late Prathap,
4. Smt.Shanthakumari, W/o Late Srinivas @ Srinivasamurthy, Aged about 62 years Since petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are minors, rep. by natural guardian and mother-Smt.Smitha, Petitioner No.1.
All are R/at Jail Road, Raghavendra Krupa, Shimoga-577 203.
Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1.Sri.Venkatachalam V., S/o P.Venkatachalam, R/at No.52-A, Kattayanoor, Ksthuripatti villa, Sankari Taluk, Salem Dist., Tamil Nadu.
(Owner of Milk Tanker bearing SCCH.13 23 MVC.No.3058/14 Reg.No.TN-52-D-9524)
2. The Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., 5th floor, Centenary Building, M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(Policy NO.1207532334001906 valid from 28.09.2013 to 27.09.2014)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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.B.Pushpanjali, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, is partly allowed.SCCH.13 24 MVC.No.3058/14
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.37,35,545/- to the petitioners together with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The 2nd respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount in the court within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, the 4th petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-, the 2nd and 3rd petitioner are entitled for Rs.7,00,000/- each and the 1st petitioner is entitled for the remaining amount with accrued interest on the entire amount.
Out of the said shares of 1st and 4th petitioners, 40% each shall be invested in their names in FD for a period of 5 years and in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest. The remaining shares of petitioner nos. 1 and 4 shall be paid to them through separate account payee cheque on proper identification.
The entire shares of minor petitioners No.2 and 3, shall be invested in FD in their names till they attains majority in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank with a liberty to draw periodical interest by her mother- guardian/1st petitioner.SCCH.13 25 MVC.No.3058/14
Advocate fee of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_ the .......... day of ................2015) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
COST OF PETITION
By the
Petitioner/s Respondents
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 26 MVC.No.3058/14
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, is partly allowed.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.37,35,545/- to the petitioners together with interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The 2nd respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the compensation amount in the court within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, the 4th petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/-, the 2nd and 3rd petitioner are entitled for Rs.7,00,000/- each and the 1st petitioner is entitled for the remaining amount with accrued interest on the entire amount.
Out of the said shares of 1st and 4th petitioners, 40% each shall be invested in their names in FD for a period of 5 years and in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of their choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest. The remaining shares of petitioner nos. 1 and 4 shall be paid to them through separate account payee cheque on proper identification.
The entire shares of minor petitioners No.2 and 3, shall be invested in FD in their names till they attains majority in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank with a SCCH.13 27 MVC.No.3058/14 liberty to draw periodical interest by her mother- guardian/1st petitioner.
Advocate fee of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.500/-. Draw award accordingly.
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.