Bangalore District Court
Sumathi vs The Manager on 23 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T.,
BENGALURU (SCCH-24).
PRESENT: Smt. HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl.)
XXII Additional Small Causes Judge &
XX A.C.M.M & Member MACT, Bengaluru.
Dated This the 23rd Day of January, 2016.
MVC.Nos.1560/2015 and 1561/2015
MVC No.1560/2015 :
Petitioners : 1. Sumathi,
W/o Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari.H,
Aged about 30 years
2. Amulya.R,
D/o Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari.H,
Aged about 1-1/2 years
3. Gopala Poojari @ Gopal,
S/o late Nandu,
Aged about 63 years
4. Akkayya,
W/o Gopal Poojari @ Gopal
Aged about 53 years
All are R/at No.48, 25th 'A' Cross,
Karesandra, Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bidarahalli, BSK 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-70.
2 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
The petitioner No.2
is minor hence represented by its natural
guardian mother namely Sumathi.
(Rep. By: Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate
Bengaluru)
-versus-
Respondents: 1. The Manager
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co, Ltd,
No.31, Ground floor,
TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road,
Near Bangalore Stock Exchange,
Bangalore-27.
(Rep. by : Sri V.Shrihari Naidu, Advocate
Bengaluru).
2. Mr.Sunil Kumar.S,
S/o Subramaniyan.C,
No.1/190-A, 14th Cross,
Near Chowdeshwari Temple,
2nd Main, Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-70.
(RC owner cum driver of offended vehicle
Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867
(Represented By : Sri.Karigowda
Henchinamane.S, Advocate
Bengaluru).
3 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
MVC No.1561/2015 :
Petitioner : Pushpa.R,
W/o late Balakrishna,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.134, 40 feet Road, Balajinagar,
Subramanyapura Post,
Uttarahalli,
Bangalore-61.
(Represented By: Sri.B.K.Kumara,
Advocate - Bengaluru)
-versus-
Respondent: 1. The Manager,
Balaji Allianz General Insurance
Co., Ltd, No.31, Ground floor,
TBR Tower, 1st Cross,
New Mission Road,
Near - Bangalore Stock Exchange,
Bangalore-27.
(Insurer of offended vehicle
Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867)
(Respondent By: Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu,
Advocate- Bengaluru).
2. Mr.Sunil Kumar.S,
S/o Subramaniyan.C,
No.1/190-A, 14th Cross,
Near Chowdeshwari Temple,
22nd Main, Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-70.
(RC owner cum driver of offended
Vehicle Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867)
4 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
(Rep.by : Sri Karigowda
Henchinamane, Advocate,
Bengaluru).
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER,
MACT-Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions filed by the petitioners under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the
compensation on account of death of Ramesh @ Ramesh
Poojari and Balakrishna in the Road Traffic Accident.
These two petitions are arising out of the same accident.
Hence, they are clubbed and common evidence is recorded
in MVC.No.1560/15 and taken together for common
disposal.
2. The brief facts projected by the petitioner in MVC
No.1560/15 is as under :
5 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
That on 05.04.2015 at about 5.15 p.m, the petitioner
was traveling in a car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867, along
with his friends, on NH-209 Road, Near Jakkasandra,
towards Bangalore. At that time, the driver was driving the
said car from the starting point of the journey at a very
high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endanger human life. Inspite of repeated request made by
the deceased and his friends to go slow, but the driver did
not listen to them. Due to over speed the driver lost
control over the said vehicle and dashed against the road
side tree. Due to impact the said car badly damaged. As a
result, the deceased and other inmates of the car are
sustained injuries. The deceased sustained severe head
injury, injuries over left hand and other injuries all over the
body and died on the spot. Thereafter, the deceased body
was sent to D.J. Hospital to conduct the post mortem, post
mortem the body was handed over to petitioners family
members. They have performed his funeral and last rites
6 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
and incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also incurred a
sum of Rs.30,000/- for transportation of dead body and
other expenses.
It is stated that prior to the death deceased he was
very hale and healthy and was running a Akshya
condiments and earning sum of Rs.20,000/- per month
and he was contributing same for the family maintenance.
Due to this accidental injuries deceased died leaving
behind his legal heirs as his wife, minor daughter and
parents. Due to sudden and tragic death of deceased the
petitioners are lost beloved husband, father and son
respectively and sole earning member of the family. Hence,
the petitioner is put to great hardship and mental agony. It
is very difficult to come out from this shock through out
their life. At the time of his death he was aged about 30
years.
7 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
3. It is stated that, the accident in question was
purely due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of
the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 and in this
connection the jurisdictional Harohalli Traffic Police have
registered a case against the driver of the car in their crime
No.101/2015 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337
and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of
accident the 1st respondent was the insurer and 2nd
respondent was the RC owner of the said car. Therefore,
both respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner. For all these reasons, prays to award the
compensation with interest from the date of petition, till
realization.
4. The brief facts projected by the petitioner in
MVC No.1561/2015 is as under:
That on 05.04.2015 at about 5.15 p.m, the deceased
was traveling in a car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867, along
with his friends, on NH-209 Road, Near Jakkasandra,
8 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
towards Bangalore. At that time, the driver was driving the
said car from the starting point of the journey at a very
high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to
endangering human life. Inspite of repeated request made
by the deceased and his friends to go slow, but the driver
did not listen to them. Due to over speed the driver lost
control over the said vehicle and dashed against the road
side tree, the car back left side hit against the road side
tree. Due to impact the said car badly damaged. As a
result, the deceased and other inmates of the car are
sustained injuries. Immediately the deceased was shifted
to D.G. Hospital. Wherein he was treated. The deceased
died during the course of treatment. Therefore, the
deceased body was sent to D.J. Hospital to conduct the
post mortem, post mortem the body was handed over to
petitioner's family members. They have performed his
funeral and last rites and incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/-
9 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
and also incurred a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for his
treatment, transportation of dead body and other expenses.
It is stated that prior to death of deceased, he was
very hale and healthy and was running a Provision store
and earning sum of Rs.25,000/- per month and he was
contributing same for the family maintenance. Due to this
accidental injuries and deceased died leaving behind his
legal heir as his wife. Due to sudden and tragic death of
deceased the petitioner has lost beloved husband, Hence,
the petitioner is put to great hardship and mental agony. It
is very difficult to come out from this shock through their
life. At the time of his death he was aged about 45 years.
5. It is stated that, the accident in question was
purely due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of
the driver of car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 and in this
connection the jurisdictional Harohalli Traffic Police have
registered a case against the driver of the car in their crime
10 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
No.101/2015 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337
and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of
accident the 1st respondent was the insurer and 2nd
respondent was the RC owner of the said car. Therefore,
both respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner. For all these reasons, prays to award the
compensation with interest from the date of petition, till
realization.
6. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1
and respondent 2 in both cases appeared before this
Tribunal through their counsel respectively and filed
written statement respectively.
The respondent No.1 in both cases has contended
that the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or
facts. The Respondent No.1 has denied the alleged accident
and same was caused due to the rash and negligent driving
11 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
of the car/taxi bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867 by it's driver. The
driver of the car was driving the same carefully, cautiously
on the correct side of the road. This respondent specifically
contended that the fitness certificate, in respect of
car/Taxi bearing Registration No.KA-01-MJ-867 was not
valid as on the date of accident. As such, Respondent No.1
is guilty of breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
The compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant. It is
contended that the deceased has contributed the cause of
the accident and decreed of negligence on the part of the
deceased was on the either side. The claimants are put to
strict proof of their entitlement to paying compensation for
the death of deceased Sri Ramesh and Balakrishna as their
the legal representatives. For all these reasons, prayed to
dismiss the claim petition with costs.
7. The respondent No.2 has contended that the
there is no cause of action for filing the petition. The claim
12 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The
respondent No.2 contended that he has the registered
owner of the Ford Figo Car bearing registration No.KA-01-
MJ-867 was duly insured with the 1st respondent
insurance company.
8. It is contended that as on the date of the alleged
accident, the said car was driven by the 2nd respondent
and he was driving the said car in safe and diligent manner
for following the traffic rules and regulations. He was at no
point of time was driving the car in a rash and negligent
manner. The 2nd respondent contended that on
05.04.2015, the second Respondent and others were had
been to Kabbalamma Temple at Kanakapura taluk and
after performing Pooja, they were coming back to Banalore.
The second Respondent was on his way back to Bangalore
from Sri Kabbalamma Temple on Kanakapura-Bangalore
main Road in moderate speed by observing all the Traffic
Rules and Norms. At about 5.15 pm near Jain
13 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
Vidyanikethan School at Jakkasandra Village of
Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, a Lorry came from
Banalore side in a high speed, rash and negligent manner
and said lorry came in it's extreme right side of the Road
and at that point of time the Respondent No.2 had no
option but to take his Ford Figo Car to the extreme edge of
Tar Road in order to avoid major accident and casualties.
The Respondent No.2 contended that the front portion of
his Ford Figo Car was able to pass through, but
unfortunately the rear portion of the said car was touched
the Tamarind Tree which is at very close to the extreme
end of Tar Road. However, the driver of above said Lorry
has not stopped the lorry at the place and thereby the
second Respondent was unable to secure any information
about the said Lorry. As a result of the said incident, the
inmates of the Ford Figo Car namely Ramesh Poojari
sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to death at the
spot and the injured B.Ramakrishna was also succumbed
14 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
to death on his way to Hospital. This respondent No.2
contended that it was only an accident due to the lorry
came from Bangalore side in a high speed, rash and
negligent manner in its extreme side of the road.
9. It is admitted that the Harohalli police have
registered a case against the driver of the said car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-MJ-867 in Crime No.101/2015. It
is contended that the 2nd Respondent was not responsible
for the accident. The petitioner is put to strict proof of the
same. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition
against this respondent No.2.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings and the rival
contentions of both the parties, the following issues are
framed :
ISSUES in MVC No.1560/2015
1. Whether the petitioners proves that they
are the legal representatives of the
deceased Sri.Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari.H?
15 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the
deceased Ramesh had died due to the
injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 05.04.2015 at
about 5.15 p.m., while he was traveling in
a car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 along
with his friends, near Jakkasandra, NH-
209 road, Maralavadi Hobli, Kanakapura
Taluk, Ramanagar, due to the rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 by its driver as
alleged?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the
compensation as claimed? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
ISSUES in MVC No.1561/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, she
is the legal representative of the
deceased Sri. Balakrishna?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that, the
deceased Balakrishana had died due to
the injuries sustained in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 05.04.2015 at
about 5.15 p.m., while he was traveling
in a car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867
along with his friends, near
Jakkasandra, NH-209 road, Maralavadi
Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagar,
16 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
due to the rash and negligent driving of
the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 by
its driver as alleged?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation as claimed? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
4. What order or Award?
In order to establish their case the Petitioner No.1 in
MVC No. 1560/2015 has been examined as P.W1 and
Petitioner No.2 in MVC No. 1561/2015 has been examined
as P.W2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Thereafter,
Petitioners side evidence closed.
11. In order to rebut the evidence so place the record
by the petitioners, the respondent No.2 himself got
examined as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R6. Inspite of
opportunities, respondent No.1 has chosen to adduce the
evidence before the Tribunal. Thereafter, the respondents
closed their side evidence.
17 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
12. Heard the arguments. Perused the entire case
record and the materials placed on record.
13. My findings on all the above issues in both the
cases are as under:
MVC No.1560/15
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative.
The petitioners are entitled
for a total compensation of
Rs.18,96,000/-.
From respondent No.1 and 2.
Issue No.4: As per final order.
MVC No.1561/15
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative,
The petitioner is entitled for a total
compensation of
Rs.10,18,346/-.
From respondent No.1 and 2
Issue No.4: As per final order,
for the following:-
18 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
REASONS
ISSUE No.1 IN MVC-1560/15
14. The Petitioners stated that they are the wife and
daughter and parents of the deceased Ramesh @ Raesh
Poojari.H. In order to establish the said fact, the Petitioner
No.1 herself entered into the witness box and got herself
examined as PW-1. She reiterates the averments and
allegations made in the claim petition. PW-1 has deposed
that the 2nd Petitioner is her minor daughter, 3rd and 4th
Petitioners are her parents in loss. During the course of
cross examination the relationship of the Petitioners with
deceased is not disputed. In support of her evidence, the
Petitioners are produced Ex.P-9, copy of the Ration card,
Ex.P-10 Copy of the Ration card of Petitioner No.3 and
produced Ex.P-11 that is he copy of the election card of
Petitioner No.1 and Ex.P12, copy of the election card of the
deceased Ramesh Poojari. In Ex.P-9 the deceased Ramesh
19 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
Poojari shown as the holder of the card and the Petitioner
No.1 is shown as wife and Petitioner No.2 is shown as
daughter. In Ex.P-10 the name of the deceased is shown as
son of Petitioner No.3 Gopala Poojari Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-12 are
marked without any objections. Looking to the oral and
documentary evidence, it appears that the Petitioners are
the legal representatives of the deceased Ramesh @
Ramesh Poojari. Therefore, the considered view of the
tribunal the Petitioners are able to establish that they are
the legal representatives of the deceased with cogent
evidence. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the
Affirmative.
ISSUE No.1 MVC-1561/15:
15. The case of the petitioner is that, she is the wife
of the deceased Balakrishna. In order to establish the said
fact that the petitioner herself entered into the witness box
and got examined as PW-2. She reiterates averments and
20 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
allegations made in the claim petition. During the course of
the cross examination, relationship of the petitioner of the
deceased is not disputed. In support of her case, the
petitioner has produced the copy of the election identity
card of the petitioner and copy of the Aadhaar card of the
petitioner and copy of the election identity card of the
deceased Balakrishna at Ex.P18 to Ex.P20. The police
documents are also discloses that petitioners is the wife of
the deceased Balakrishna. The relationship of the
Petitioner with the deceased is not seriously disputed.
Therefore, in considered of the view of the tribunal, the
petitioner is able to establish that she is the wife of the
deceased Balakrishna and relationship of the petitioner
with the deceased is duly proved by the petitioner with
cogent evidence. Accordingly, Issue No.1 in MVC
No.1561/2015 is answered in the Affirmative.
21 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
16. Issue No.2 in MVC No.1560/2015 & MVC
No.1561/2015 :
It is the case of the petitioners that on 05.04.2015 at
about 5.15 p.m. deceased in both cases were traveling in
car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867 along with their friends, the
deceased in MVC No.1560/2015 and the deceased in MVC
No.1561/2015, were traveling along with their friends on
NH-209 Road, Near Jakkasandra, in order to going towards
Bangalore. At that time, the driver of the car driving the
said car at very high speed, rash and negligent manner, so
as the endangering human life and inspite of repeated
requests made by the deceased and his friends to go slow.
But the driver did not listen to them, due to over speed,
driver lost control over the said vehicle and hit against the
road side tree. Due to impact, the both deceased and other
inmates of the car sustained injuries. The deceased in
MVC No.1560/2015 died on the spot. The injured in
deceased in MVC No.1561/2015 was shifted to D.G.
22 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
Hospital, wherein, he was treated inspite of the best efforts
made by the doctors deceased died on 05.04.2015. During
the course of treatment. According to the petitioners the
accident happened due to the sole rash and negligent
manner of the driving of the said car by it's driver.
17. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has
denied the allegations made in the claim petition in toto.
The Respondent No.1 has taken the specific defence that
the deceased has contributed to the cause of the accident
and the decree of the negligence on the part of the
deceased was on the either side. The respondent No.2 has
taken the specific defence that he was driving his ford car
in safely and diligent manner for following the rules and
regulations. At no point of time, he was driving the car,
rash and negligent manner.
In order to prove the actionable negligence the
petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1560/2015 has entered into the
23 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
witness box and got herself examined as PW1 and
petitioner in MVC No.1561/2015 has entered into the
witness box and got herself examined as PW-2. PW1 and
PW-2 have reiterated the averments and allegations made
in the claim petitions respectively. PW1 and PW2 have
deposed that the accident has caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of the car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867 by
it's driver. During the course of cross-examination, PW1
and PW2 have denied the suggestion that on the date of
accident, Ramesh Poojari himself was driving car and the
said deceased Poojari did not know to drive the car and he
himself dashed to the tree. PW1 & PW2 have deposed that
on the date of accident, one Sunil was traveling the car.
The petitioners have relied upon the various police
documents produced at Ex.P1 to Ex.P8, out of these
document, Ex.P1 is the copy of the FIR, Ex.P2 is the copy
of the Complaint, Ex.P3 is the copy of the Spot Mahazar,
24 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
Ex.P4 is copy of the Sketch, Ex.P5 copy of the IMV Report,
Ex.P6 is copy of the Inquest Panchanama, Ex.P7 is copy of
the Post Mortem Report, Ex.P8 is copy of the Charge
Sheeted. Ex.P16 is the Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P17 is
the Post Mortem Report. Ex.P1 i.e., First Information
Report which discloses that the criminal case has been
registered against the driver of the car bearing Registration
No.KA-MJ-867, for the offences punishable under Section
279,337 and 304(A) of IPC. After investigation, the police
have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the car for
the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and
304(A) of IPC. The police documents prima facie establish
the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-01-MJ-867.
18. The Respondent No.2 has taken specific defence
that, he is the registered owner of the Ford Figo car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-MJ-867 and the said car was being
25 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
driving by the 2nd Respondent in safe and diligent manner
by following the traffic rules and regulations. At no point of
time, he was driving the car rash and negligent manner. It
is the specific defence of the Respondent No.2 that the
Respondent No.2 was proceeding on Kanakapura-
Bangalore main road in moderate street for observing all
the traffic regules and regulations and norms at about 5.15
p.m. near Jaivikas school at Jalahalli village of Maralavadi
Hobli, Kanakapura taluk, a lorry came from Bangalore side
in a very high speed, rash and negligent manner and said
lorry came in its extreme right side of the road and at that
point of time, the Respondent No.2 had no option and took
his car to the extreme edge of the tar road, in order to avoid
the major accident and causalities. The front portion of the
car was able to pass through, but unfortunately the right
portion of the said car was touched to the tamrind tree
which was at front close to the extreme end of the tar road.
However, the driver of the said lorry has not stopped the
26 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
lorry at the place and escaped. The 2nd Respondent unable
to secured any information about the lorry. As a result, the
said inmates of the car sustained grievous injuries and
succumbed to the death on the spot.
19. In order to substantial, the said facts, the
Respondent No.2 himself entered into the witness and got
himself as examined as RW1. He corroborates the contents
of the written statement. During the course of cross
examination, he has admitted that at the time of accident,
he was driving the car. He has deposed that he has not
given any complaint before the police stating that the
accident has not caused due to his negligence. He admits
that the police have filed the charge sheet against him. He
further deposed that he was able to see all the vehicles
coming from opposite direction. He has deposed that
27 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
"¯Áj ªÉÃUÀªÁV §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, CzÀjAzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ºÉÆÃV PÁgÀÄ ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ
DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è" .......
He further deposed that
"£Á£ÀÄ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀPÉÌ rQÌ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ªÀÄgÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÁtô¸ÀÄwÛgÀ°®è".
The evidence of RW1 discloses that he was the driver of the
car as on the date of accident and he was driving car and
they were 05 inmates in the said car and the said car has
dashed to the road side tree. After the accident, the
Respondent No.2 i.e., driver/owner of the car has not given
any complaint before the police stating that the lorry was
coming in high speed in order to avoid the accident, he
took the car to the extreme left side and dashed to the tree.
Except the self serving testimony of PW1 we are not having
any other evidence before this Tribunal to show that there
was no negligence on the part of the driver of the car.
Under these circumstances, the evidence of PW1 and PW2
coupled with the documentary evidence goes to establish
28 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
that the accident has taken place because of the rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-MJ-867. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.17 Post
Mortem Report of the Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari and
Balakrishna discloses that they have died in the said
accident. Accordingly, Issue No.2 in MVC No.1560/2015
and 1561/2015 is answered in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No.3 - In MVC No.1560/2015
The petitioners are claiming the compensation on
account of the death of Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari in the
said Road Traffic Accident. It is stated that in the claim
pettion as well as the in the evidence of PW1 that at time of
accident, the deceased was running Akshaya Condiments
and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- p.m. The petitioners
have not produced any documents to show that the
deceased was running Akshaya Condiments and earning
Rs.20,000/- p.m. Therefore, in the absence material
29 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
evident and taking into consideration of the present day
condition if the income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.8,000/- p.m. that would meet the ends of justice.
21. It is pertinent to note that as per the cause title
the age of the deceased is shown as 29 years. The
petitioners have produced Ex.P15, the copy of the school
transfer certificate. Wherein, the date of birth of the
deceased is shown as 12/04/1986. So as on date of
accident the age of the deceased is considered as 29 years.
In the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 Between Rajesh
and others V/s. Rajbir Singh and others, the 50% of actual
income (after deduction of tax) for the persons, below 40
years and 30% of the age group of 40 to 50 years, 15% for
the age group of 50 to 60 years is to be added as future
prospects. In the present case, the age of the deceased is
considered as 29 years, at the time of accident. The
income of the deceased is considered as Rs.8000/- per
30 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
month. Then it comes to Rs.96,000/- per annum. The
income of the Petitioner is below the taxable income.
Hence, 50% of the income of the deceased is added to his
income. Then it comes to (Rs.96,000/- + Rs. 48,000/-)
Rs.1,44,000/-. Thus the total income of the deceased
comes to Rs,1,44,000/- per annum. Admittedly, the
deceased was married person. There are four dependents.
As per the decision reported in Sarala varma and Others
V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others that is if the
dependents are more than 02, then ¼ income of the
deceased is to be deducted towards his personal and living
expenses. Hence, in this case ¼ of the income of the
deceased is deducted towards his personal and living
expenses. Thereby the income of the deceased is
considered as (Rs.1,44,000-36,000 = 1,08,000/- per
annum. As per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
Between Sarala Varma and others V/s. Delhi Transport
Corporation and others. The appropriate multiplier is 17.
31 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
So the loss of dependency works out to (Rs.1,08,000 x 17)
Rs.18,36,000/-. Thus a sum of Rs.18,36,000/- is awarded
under the head the loss of dependency.
22. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the wife of
the deceased who has lost her husband. Taking into
consideration of the said fact this Tribunal is of the
considered view that it would be just and appropriate to
award an compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of
Consortium. Hence, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is awarded
under the head loss of consortium.
The petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter, Petitioner
No.3 is the father and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the
deceased. They have lost love and affection of the deceased.
Taking into consideration of the said fact, this Tribunal is
of the considered view that it would be just and proper to
32 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
award an compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head of
loss of love and affection.
23. It is stated that, in the petition as well as in the
evidence of PW1 that they have spend a sum of
Rs.50,000/- towards funeral and last rituals and
Rs.30,000/- for transportation of dead body. No
documents forthcoming for having spent money towards
transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies
ceremony expenses. Hence, in the absence of proof a sum
of Rs.5000/- is awarded towards transport of dead body
and sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head
funeral and obsequies ceremony. Thus petitioners are
entitled for the compensation under the following heads :
1. Loss of dependency Rs.18,36,000-00
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of love and affection Rs. 20,000-00
4. Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000-00
33 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
5. Funeral and obsequies Rs. 10,000-00
ceremony
Total Rs.18,96,000-00
So, the petitioners are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.18,96,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs
Ninty Six Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum from the date of petition, till the date of
realization.
24. It is held supra by this Tribunal that, the
accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent
driving of Ford Figo car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 by
its driver. Respondent No.2 is the R.C.owner and
Respondent No.1 is the insurer of the car bearing
Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867. Hence, the Respondent No.1 and
Respondent No.2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 is liable
34 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
to indemnify the insured. Accordingly, issue No.3 is
answered partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 in MVC NO. 1561/2015
25. The Petitioner is claiming the compensation on
the account of the death of Balakrishna in the said Road
Traffic Accident. It is stated in the claim petition as well as
in the evidence of PW2 that, at the time of accident the
deceased was running provision store and earning a sum of
Rs.25,000/- p.m. The petitioner has not produced any
documents to show that the deceased was running the
provision store and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m.
Therefore, in the absence of the material evidence before
this Tribunal and taking into consideration of the present
day condition, if the income of the deceased is inferred at
Rs.8,000/- p.m. for that would meet the ends of justice.
26. It is pertinent to note that as per the petition
averments the deceased was aged about 45 years as on
the date of the accident. The petitioner has produced the
35 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
Ex.P.9 Copy of the Election Identity card of the deceased
Balakrishna. Wherein, the date of birth of the deceased is
shown as 1.06.1969. Ex.P.17 is the Post Mortem Report of
deceased Balakrishna. Wherein age of the deceased is
shown as 48 years. Hence, the age of the deceased is
considered as 48 years as on the date of accident and
death. In the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 between
Rajesh and others V/s. Rajbir sing and others, the 30% of
the income of the deceased is to be added to his monthly
income. The income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.8000/- p.m. which comes to Rs.96,000/- p.a. The
income of the deceased is below taxable income. Then, if
the 30% of the income is added to his monthly income,
then it comes to (Rs.8000+2400/-) = Rs.10,400/- p.m. and
Rs.1,24,800/- p.a. Admittedly, deceased was married
person, the petitioner is only dependant to the deceased.
Hence, ½ of the income is to be deducted towards his
personal and living expanses. Thus, the monthly income of
36 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
the deceased comes to (Rs.10,400/- - 5200/-) Rs. 5,200/-
per month and Rs. 62,400/- per annum. As per the
decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 between Sarala Varma
and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and others.
The appropriate multiplier is '13'. Thus the loss of
dependency works out to Rs.5200/- x 12 x 13 =
Rs.8,11,200/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.8,11,200/- is awarded
under the head loss of dependency.
27. In the case on hand, the petitioner is the wife of
the deceased who has loss of husband. Taking into
consideration said fact, this Tribunal is in the considered
view that it is just and proper to awarded an compensation
of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of Consortium. Hence a sum
of Rs. 25,000/- awarded under the head loss of
consortium.
37 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
28. It is stated in the petition as well as in the
evidence of PW2 that she has performed the funeral last of
rituals and incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/- and also
incurred a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for his treatment and
transportation of dead body. In this regard, the petitioner
has produced 11 medical bills at Ex.P11 amounting to
Rs.1,67,146/-. The nature of the injury and treatment, it
appears that the petitioner must have spent substantial
money towards the treatment of the deceased in the
Hospital. Taking into consideration of the above said facts.
The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,67,146/-
towards medical expanses. In the absence of the proof of
the amount spent towards transportation of dead body and
funeral obsequies of the deceased, a sum of Rs.5000/- is
awarded towards transportation of dead body and a sum of
Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head funeral and
obsequies ceremony. Thus petitioner is entitled for the
compensation under the following heads :
38 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
1. Loss of dependency Rs.8,11,200-00
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Medical bills Rs. 1,67,146-00
4. Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000-00
5. Funeral and obsequies Rs. 10,000-00
ceremony
Total Rs.10,18,346-00
So, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation
of Rs.10,18,346/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighteen Thousand
Three Hundred Forty Six only) with interest at the rate of
6% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of
realization.
It is held supra by this Tribunal that, the accident
has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of
Ford Figo car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867 by its driver.
Respondent No.2 is the R.C.owner and Respondent No.1 is
the insurer of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MJ-867.
Hence, the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 are
39 SCCH-24
MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners. Respondent No.1 is liable to indemnify the
insured. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered partly in the
Affirmative.
29. Issue No.4-In MVC No.1560/2015 &
1561/2015
For the foregoing reasons and the discussions as
stated above, the petition filed by the petitioners in both
cases deserve to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Claim Petition filed in M.V.C.1560/2015 by the petitioner U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,96,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninty Six Thousand only) together with interest 40 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount into the tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation awarded an amount the 1st petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,46,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Six Thousand only), the petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The petitioner No.4 entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest. Out of the compensation awarded 50% of amount of the petitioner No.1 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. Remaining compensation amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner No.1 compensation and proportionate interest.
41 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest with awarded interest to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.2 in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank till she attains the age of majority.
The petitioner No.3 and 4 are at liberty to draw the entire compensation amount with proportionate interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-
Draw Award Accordingly.
The Claim petition filed in MVC No.1561/2015 by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,18,346/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred & Fifty Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
42 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded 50% of the award amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with the liberty to draw the accrued periodically interest. The remaining compensation amount with interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 23drd day of January, 2016).
(HIREMATH SHOBHARANI BABAYYA) XXII ASCJ & XX ACMM & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
43 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 ANNEXURE Witness examined on behalf of the Petitioners:
P.W1 - Sumathi P.W2 - Pushpa.R
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.RW1 - Sunil Kumar.S Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioners:
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR Ex.P2 - Copy of complaint Ex.P3 - Copy of Panchaname Ex.P4 - Copy of sketch Ex.P5 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P6 - Copy of Inquest report Ex.P7 - Copy of PM report Ex.P8 - Copy of charge sheet Ex.P9 - Copy of Ration card & Ex.P10
Ex.P11 - Copy of Election card of Sumathi Ex.P12 - Copy of Election card of Ramesh Poojari Ex.P13 - Copy of Birth Certificate Ex.P14 - Copy of death report Ex.P15 - Copy of Transfer Certificate Ex.P16 - Copy of Inquest report Ex.P17 - Copy of PM report Ex.P18 - Copy of Election card of Pushpa R Ex.P19 - Copy of Election card of Balakrishnan.B Ex.P20 - Copy of Aadhaar card
44 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 Ex.P21 - Copy of Death Certificate Ex.P22 - Copy of Inpatient bills Ex.P23 - Prescriptions Ex.P24 - Arterial Blood Gas Analysis Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 - Copy of DL Ex.R2 - Copy of DL issued by RTO Ex.R3 - Copy of Insurance
(HIREMATH SHOBARANI BABAYYA ).
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
45 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXII A.S.C.J BENGALURU CITY MVC.Nos.1560/2015 and 1561/2015 MVC No.1560/2015 :
Petitioners : 1. Sumathi, W/o Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari.H, Aged about 30 years
2. Amulya.R, D/o Ramesh @ Ramesh Poojari.H, Aged about 1-1/2 years
3. Gopala Poojari @ Gopal, S/o late Nandu, Aged about 63 years
4. Akkayya, W/o Gopal Poojari @ Gopal Aged about 53 years All are R/at No.48, 25th 'A' Cross, Karesandra, Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bidarahalli, BSK 2nd Stage, Bangalore-70.
The petitioner No.2 is minor hence represented by its natural guardian mother namely Sumathi.
(Rep. By: Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate - Bengaluru)
-versus-
46 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 Respondents: 1. The Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co, Ltd, No.31, Ground floor, TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Near Bangalore Stock Exchange, Bangalore-27.
(Rep. by Sri V.Shrihari naidu, Advo.,
2. Mr.Sunil Kumar.S, S/o Subramaniyan.C, No.1/190-A, 14th Cross, Near Chowdeshwari Temple, 2nd Main, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore-70.
(RC owner cum driver of offended vehicle Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867 (Respondent By : Sri.Karigowda Henchinamane.S, Advocate- Bengaluru).
MVC No.1561/2015 :
Petitioner : Pushpa.R, W/o late Balakrishna, Aged about 34 years, R/at No.134, 40 feet Road, Balajinagar, Subramanyapura Post, Uttarahalli, Bangalore-61.
(Represented By: Sri.B.K.Kumara, 47 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 Advocate - Bengaluru)
-versus-
Respondent: 1. The Manager, Balaji Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd, No.31, Ground floor, TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Near - Bangalore Stock Exchange, Bangalore-27.
(Insurer of offended vehicle Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867) (Respondent By Sri.V.Shrihari naidu, Advocate- Bengaluru).
2. Mr.Sunil Kumar.S, S/o Subramaniyan.C, No.1/190-A, 14th Cross, Near Chowdeshwari Temple, 22nd Main, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore-70.
(RC owner cum driver of offended Vehicle Car bearing No.KA-01-MJ-867) (Rep.by Sri Karigowda Henchinamane, Adv.,) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Claimant/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees Only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant/Death of In a Motor Accident by Vehicle NO.
48 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt. HIREMATH SHOBARANI BABAYYA, XXII A.S.C.J, Member, MACT, Bengaluru in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Claimant/s and of Sri.Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The Claim Petition filed in M.V.C.1560/2015 by the petitioner U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,96,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninty Six Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount into the tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation awarded an amount the 1st petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,46,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Six Thousand only), the petitioner No.2 is entitled for 49 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The petitioner No.4 entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest. Out of the compensation awarded 50% of amount of the petitioner No.1 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. Remaining compensation amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner No.1 compensation and proportionate interest.
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest with awarded interest to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.2 in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank till she attains the age of majority.
The petitioner No.3 and 4 are at liberty to draw the entire compensation amount with proportionate interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-
Draw Award Accordingly.
50 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 The Claim petition filed in MVC No.1561/2015 by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,18,346/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred & Fifty Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded 50% of the award amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with the liberty to draw the accrued periodically interest. The remaining compensation amount with 51 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.
By the
Claimant /s Respondent
Court fee paid on 10.00
petition
Court fee paid on
process
Pleaders Fee
Total RS.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER
MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA BENGALURU.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR 52 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 53 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate Judgment) ORDER The Claim Petition filed in M.V.C.1560/2015 by the petitioner U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,96,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninty Six Thousand only) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount into the tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation awarded an amount the 1st petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.12,46,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty Six Thousand only), the petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). The petitioner No.3 is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). The petitioner No.4 entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate interest.
54 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 Out of the compensation awarded 50% of amount of the petitioner No.1 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. Remaining compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner No.1.
The entire compensation award amount with proportionate interest of the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.2 in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank till she attains the age of majority.
The petitioner No.3 and 4 are at liberty to withdraw the entire compensation amount with proportionate interest.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-
Draw Award Accordingly.
The Claim petition filed in MVC No.1561/2015 by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs. The petitioner is awarded a total compensation of Rs.10,18,346/-
55 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighteen Thousand Three Hundred & Fifty Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded 50% of the award amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioner in any of the National Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with the liberty to draw the accrued periodically interest. The remaining compensation amount with interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Draw Award Accordingly.
XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
56 SCCH-24 MVC Nos.1560/15 and 1561/2015