Bangalore District Court
Sri.Naganna vs The Manager on 22 August, 2022
KABC020296372018
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF AUGUST 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.7038 & 7039/2018
PETITIONER/S: 1. Sri.Naganna,
In MVC:7038/2018 S/o Ajjappa,
Aged about 60 years,
2. Smt.Nagamma
W/o Naganna,
Aged about 53 years,
Both are R/at
Mariheggaiyanapalya
Village, Hulikunte Post,
Doddabelavadi Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate.)
2 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24
PETITIONER/S: 1. Sri.Rajanna
In MVC:7039/2018 S/o Gangananjappa,
Aged about 56 year,
2. Smt.Hanumakka,
W/o Rajanna,
Aged about 50 years,
Both are R/at No.05,
Hatthukuntepalya,
Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S 1. The Manager,
In both the cases: New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office No.22B,
Unity Building Annex,
Mission road/Lalbagh road,
Bangalore27.
(Insurer of offending vehicle Tata
Indica car bearing No.KA53C8976)
(By Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi,
Advocate.)
2. Mr.Raghavendra M.K
S/o Kumarappa,
No.138/2, Gramathana
Singasandra, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(RC owner of offending vehicle Tata
Indica car bearing No.KA53C8976)
(Exparte)
3 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24
3. The Managing Director,
KSRTC Division, K.H road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore27.
(RC owner of offending vehicle
KSRTC bus bearing No.KA06F
1021)
(By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
These two Petitions are filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation for the Death of Sri.Dayananda and Sri.Rudresha H.R. who died in a road traffic accident dated 24.11.2018. Both the petitions are arisen out of a common accident and therefore, both the petitions are clubbed together as per order dated 06.11.2019 and common evidence is lead and common judgment is passed.
2. The case of the Petitioners in brief is that, on 24.11.2018 at about 6.15 to 6.20 p.m., the two persons (deceased) by name Sri.Dayananda and Sri.Rudresha were 4 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 proceeding in motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KA01EJ9107 on BangaloreTumkur NH48, Express road, infront of Nalemangala Bypass Bhavani Shankar Hotel, Kunigal circle flyover bridge i.e., from Bangalore side towards Tumkur very carefully, cautiously and observing all the traffic rules, at that time the driver of TATA Indica car bearing Reg.No.KA 53C8976 came at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering to human life came from behind side and dashed against the deceased's motor bike, due to impact both deceased fell down along with their bike and sustained injuries, at that same time one KSRTC bus bearing No.KA06F1021 came from Bangalore side towards Tumkur i.e., from behind side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against them and said bus wheel ran over the both deceased and deceased Dayananda (in MVC No.7038/2018) died on the spot. Thereafter Postmortem was conducted at Nelamangala Govt., Hospital, and the dead body handed over to the family members, who transported it to their native place and the petitioners have 5 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 spent Rs.50,000/ towards shifting of dead body and Rs.80,000/ towards funeral & obsequies ceremonies. Prior to the accident the deceased Dayananda was hale and healthy and was doing driver work and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month and was contributing the entire amount for the maintenance of his family. The Petitioners being the parents have lost their sole bread earning member in their family and lost his love and affection and put to great hardship.
3. It is further case of the Petitioners (in MVC No.7039/2018) that immediately after the accident, the deceased Rudresha H.R. was taken to Nelamangala Govt., Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and for further treatment referred to M.S. Ramaiah Harsha Hospital wherein treated and necessary examination was done. But inspite of best efforts made by the doctor the deceased died on 25.11.2018 at about 01.40 a.m.. Thereafter Postmortem was conducted at Nelamangala Govt., Hospital and the dead 6 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 body handed over to the family members, who transported it to their native place and the petitioners have spent Rs.80,000/ towards shifting of dead body and Rs.80,000/ towards funeral & obsequies ceremonies. Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was doing coolie work and also doing agricultural work and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month and was contributing the entire amount for the maintenance of his family. The Petitioners being the parents have lost their sole bread earning member and have lost his love and affection and put to great hardship.
4. The Nelamangala Traffic Police have registered a case against the driver of TATA Indica car bearing No.KA 53C8976 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA06F1021 offences u/Sec 279, 304(A) of IPC, after investigation the said police have filed a chargesheet against drivers of both the vehicles. Therefore, the Respondent No.1 and 2 being the insurer and RC owner of TATA Indica Car and the 7 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 Respondent No.3 being the Internal insurer of the KSRTC bus, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to them.
5. In response to notice issued by this court, the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 appeared through their respective counsels and filed separate written statements. The Respondent No.2 did not appear, remained absent and hence placed exparte.
6. The Respondent No.1 in the written statement have denied the case of the petitioners as false, submitted that the claim petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and sought protection under section 147 and 149 of MV Act 1988 and submitted that there is non compliance of Sections 158(6) and 134(c) of M.V. Act and admitted the policy in respect of car bearing No.KA53C8976 in favour of second respondent but their liability if any is subject to its terms and conditions. Further submitted that the driver of car was not holding valid and effective DL as on the date 8 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 of accident and the said car in question did not held valid permit and route permit and FC as on the date of accident and hence there is breach of policy conditions and therefore, they are not liable to indemnify the insured. Further they have denied the very occurrence of the accident and involvement of car. Further submitted that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle and the both deceased were not wearing ISI mark headgear at the time of accident, has violated the provisions and rules of the MV Act, hence the petition required to be dismissed and the death of the deceased did take place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus which ran over the deceased.
7. The Respondent No 3 in the written statement have denied the allegations made in the petition and submitted that there is no nexus between the death of Dayananda and the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA06F1021, the deceased died due to the accident taken place between 9 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the motorcycle bearing No.KA01EJ9107 and car bearing No.KA53C8976 but not due to involvement of their bus in any manner, but unfortunately taking advantage of the situation, the bus in question has been falsely implicated by the petitioners for oblique reasons. Further submitted that on the date and time of alleged accident, the bus in question was on its scheduled trip from Bangalore to Tumkur and the bus was being driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, while it was so proceedings on national high way No.4 which is in six lane on each side, at Kunigal circle fly over, on a upgradiant road, by the side to the road median i.e., on the third lane at that point of time the car and motorcycle came from behind, both being driven/ridden in a rash and negligent manner by the driver/rider respectively and started proved on the middle lane and further in gross violation of the traffic tried to over take one another and in thus process there was a collusion between the car and motorcycle and due to the terrific 10 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 impact, the motorcyclist thrown out from the motorcycle and fell down on the third lane, on which the KSRTC bus in question was proceeding observing the same the driver of the bus stopped the bus. As such, for the alleged accident the driver of the car and rider of the motorcycle were wholly and solely responsible, but the driver of the KSRTC bus was no way responsible. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petitions against them.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues (common in both petitions) are framed:
ISSUES 1 Whether the petitioners prove that 24.11.2018 at about 06.15 to 06.20 p.m., on BangaloreTumkur NH48 road, infront of Bhavani Shankar Hotel, Kunigal circle flyover Bridge, Bengaluru District, the driver of the TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA53C8976 driven it rash and negligently and dashed against the motorcycle bearing No.KA01EJ 9107 and caused the death of this vehicle rider and pillion rider by name Sri.Rudresha H.R. and Sri.Dayananda? 11 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or award ?
9. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined Petitioner No.2 (In MVC No.7038/2018) - Smt.Nagamma - Mother of the deceased Dayananda as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.14. The Petitioner No.1 (in MVC No.7039/2018) - Sri.Rajanna - Father of the deceased Rudresha H.R. is examined as PW.2 and got marked 6 documents as per Exs.P.15 to P.20. They have also got examined Mr.Sunil @ Sunil Kumar T.N. eye witness as PW.3 and closed their side. On the other hand the Respondent No.3 have examined its driver as RW.1 and got marked 4 documents as per Exs.R1 to R4.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the Respondent No.3 has filed written arguments and has also relied upon the following decisions, 12 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 (1) M.F.A No.6330/2013 (MV) c/w MFA No.10547 of 2013 (MV) : M/s Royal Sundram Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Mrs.Marilyan Philip & Ors., (2) MFA No.6061/2008 (MV) :
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs H.N Govindaraju & Anr., (3) 2014 AIR SCW 1081: Lachoo Ram & Ors., Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn., (4) MFA No.2829/2009 (MV) : Manju Vs. Mathue K.P & Anr., (5) MFA No.962/2012 c/w MFA No.989/2012 (MV) : H.S Panchakshariah V.s The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & Anr., (6) MFA No.2921/2012 (MV) : Smt.Vijayalakshmi R.N & Ors., Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport. I have also perused the said decisions and written arguments.
11. On perusal of evidence and hearing both sides this court answers above issues as under;
CASE NO. ISSUE NO.1 ISSUE NO.2 ISSUE NO.3 MVC No. Partly in the Partly in the As per final order, 7038/2018 affirmative, affirmative, for the following; MVC No. Partly in the Partly in the As per final order, 7039/2018 affirmative, affirmative, for the following; 13 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 REASONS
12. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES: The issue regarding the relationship of the petitioners in both the cases with the deceased are not framed but however the said issue needs to be considered prior to going the issue of rash or negligence on the part of the offending vehicles.
13. It is the case of the Petitioners in MVC.7038/18 that, the Petitioner No.2 is the mother and Petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased - Sri.Dayananda. To prove this relationship the petitioners have examined the second Petitioner as PW.1. PW.1 has specifically deposed this relationship in her chiefexamination. Apart from that, to prove the relationship the Petitioners have also produced notarized copies of Ration card and Aadhar Cards of the Petitioners and deceased and DL of the deceased as per Exs.P.10 to P.14 which are the public documents and have got presumptive value under law. In Ex.P.10, family ration 14 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 card name of the Petitioners and deceased are mentioned with their relationship. The Exs.P.11 & P.12 in the Aadhaar card of the Petitioner No.1 his father's name is mentioned as Ajjappa and in the Aadhaar card of the Petitioner No.2 her address is shown as that of her husband. Further, the Exs.P.13 and P14 in the Aadhaar card and driving licence of the deceased his father's name is mentioned as Sri.Naganna who is the petitioner No.1. These documents have not been seriously disputed by the Respondents. The Respondents have not produced any contrary documents on record. As such, there are no reasons to discard the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners. Under such circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P.10 to P14 this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 is the Father and Petitioner No.2 is the Mother of the deceased Dayananda.
14. It is the case of the Petitioners in MVC.7039/18 that, the Petitioner No.1 is the mother and Petitioner No.2 is 15 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the father of the deceased - Sri.Rudresha H.R.. The Petitioners to prove this relationship have examined first Petitioner as PW.2. The PW.2 has specifically deposed this relationship in his chiefexamination. Apart from that, to prove the relationship the Petitioners have also produced notarized copies of Ration card, Aadhaar Cards of the Petitioners and deceased as per Exs.P.17 to P20 which are the public documents and have got presumptive value under law. In Ex.P.17/the family ration card, the name of Petitioners and deceased are mentioned with their relationship. The Exs.P18 and 19 in the Aadhaar card of the Petitioner No.1 his father's name is mentioned as Sri.Gangananjappa and in the Aadhar card of the Petitioner No.2 her husband's name is mentioned as Sri.Rajanna who is the petitioner No.1 and Ex.P.20 in the Aadhaar card of the deceased his father's name is mentioned as Sri.Rajanna who is the petitioner No.1. These documents have not been seriously disputed by the Respondents. The Respondents have not produced any contrary documents on record. As 16 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 such, there are no reasons to discard the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners. Under such circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.2 and Exs.P.17 to 20 this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 is the Father and Petitioner No.2 is the Mother of the deceased Rudresha H.R..
15. The Petitioners in both the cases in order to substantiate that the accident was occurred due to the driver of the Indica car who driven it in a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bike in which both deceased were going who fell down and the KSRTC bus which was also coming in rash or negligently ran over the deceased and caused accident, have examined Petitioner No.2 in MVC No.7038/2018 as PW.1 and Petitioner No.1 in MVC 7039/2018 has examined as PW.2 and produced 11 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.9, P.15 and P.16. The PWs.1 and 2 have specifically deposed in their chief examination about the manner of occurrence of 17 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 accident as averred in the petitions. The Respondents on the other side have denied that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and have contended that due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motorcycle the alleged accident took place. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is elicited that as the car hit to the bike both deceased fell on the road and at that time the KSRTC bus ran over them. In the cross examination of PW.2 it is elicited that as the bike hit to car both the deceased fell from the bike and at that time the KSRTC bus ran over them.
16. The PW.3/Sri.Sunil @ Sunil Kumar, has deposed in support of the case of the petitioners about witnessing the alleged manner of accident. In his crossexamination it is elicited that on that day he saw the deceased at about 6.156.20 p.m., at that time it was not dark, he did not lodge any complaint on that day.
18 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24
17. The respondent No.3 has examined its driver as RW.1. Who deposed that there was no negligence on his part as he was driving his bus slowly, cautiously on the left side of the road on NH4, at that time the car bearing NO:KA53C8976 and motorcycle bearing No:KA01EJ 9107 came from behind, both being driven/ridden in a rash and negligent manner with terrific speed and started moving in the middle lane in gross violation of the traffic tried to over take one another and in that process there was terrific collusion between the car and bike, due to which the bikers thrown on the third lane on which their bus was proceeding and by observing it he stopped the bus and hence he was no way responsible for the alleged accident and their bus has been falsely implicated in the case. The RW.1 has produced three photographs with CD. In the cross examination it is brought out that there were no humps on the said flyover, due to impact of the accident the bikers fell down and left side wheels of their bus ran over them, the FIR was registered against him and the driver of the car, in 19 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the DE initiated by their Corporation he was not found guilty, the car was proceeding at the front which was followed by the motorcycle then their KSRTC bus, the rider of the motorcycle ridden his vehicle in zigzag manner and dashed against the car on its rear side, on the right side of their bus there was a divider, the rider of the bike was riding the bike at a distance of 5 feet from the divider, the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle, in the accident the front side of motorcycle and the rear side of the car was damaged, on the said day both the deceased were not wearing helmets.
18. As per the case of the petitioners the car came from behind in a high speed, rash or negligent manner and dashed to the bike of the deceased, as a result both deceased fell down, at that time the KSRTC bus ran over them. The PWs.1 to 3 have given their evidence in the same line. As narrated above in the crossexamination of PWs.1 and 2 one states car hit to the bike and another stated bike 20 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 hit to the car. The PW.3 is alleged to be eyewitness to the accident but he did not lodge any first information immediately from this it can be said that he did not witness the accident at all. Further, in Ex.P.9/charge sheet this PW.3 is not shown as an eyewitness, if at all the PW.3 did witness the accident definitely his name was shown as eyewitness in the Ex.P.9 but it is not so because the PW.3 is shown as only mahzar witness in Ex.P.9 and from this also it is crystal clear that PW.3 did not witness the accident at all but only to help the petitioners he deposed falsely stating that he witnessed the accident even though he is a mahzar witness and hence the PW.3's evidence cannot be considered in support of the case of the petitioners and accordingly it is brushed aside. As per the first information lodged by the brother of deceased Dayananda he came to know from the friends of the deceased over phone that car which came in rash or negligent manner and in high speed dashed against the bike of the deceased. Further, the Ex.P.2/first information also clearly shows that the KSRTC 21 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 bus did not cause accident by dashing to the bike of the deceased but it ran over on the deceased and motorbike when they fell down on the road.
19. The Ex.P.3/spot mahazar clearly shows that the bike got badly damaged to its front side. The Ex.P.4/seizure mahazar also clearly shows that the car got damages to is right side and rear side and the bus got damages to the left side bumper and down side. The Ex.P.5/spot sketch shows that the alleged accident road is six lane road three roads each divided with divider, the bus was coming by the side of divider and the accident spot shown on the said lane. From this it can be clearly said that after the accident the deceased fell on the lane in which the KSRTC bus was proceeding and which ran over the deceased. As per the evidence of RW.1 the car and bike were going in the middle lane, if it is considered definitely the accident occurred in the middle lane and the deceased fell to their right side in which the KSRTC bus was moving.
22 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24
20. The very important document is MVA report produced at Ex.P.6. On perusal of it, the damages shown to the car are, (1) Rear bumper right side damaged, (2) Rear dickey door damaged, (3) Rear wind screen glass broken, (4) right side rear portion body damaged, (5) Rear right side tail lamp damaged, (6) Rear number plate damaged. The damages shown to the bike are, (1) Head light assembly damaged, (2) Front fork damaged, (3) Handle steering bar damaged, (4) Fuel tank both side pressed inwards, (5) Gear peddle damaged. On perusal of these damages it is crystal clear that the bike hit the car from the back side and the said damages occurred to the rear side and right side of the car and entire front portion and body of the bike as narrated above. Though the police documents show that the car hit the bike but if it was the case then the front side of the car and back side of the bike would have damaged but it is not the case here. From this it appears that both car and bike were going in middle lane over taking each other and when the biker could not over take the car 23 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 properly and not maintained the safe distance due to his high speed and rash or negligent act and there was also high speed and rash or negligent act of the driver of the car who also moving in the zig zag manner and due to this the biker hit the back rear portion of the car and lost control and scratched to the right side body of the car along with his bike and fell down on the road towards the third lane in which the KSRTC bus was coming and which was not anticipated by the driver of the KSRTC bus as he was on his correct lane and hence when the bikers fell on the road unexpectedly after they hit to the car and the KSRTC bus ran over them. On perusal of Exs.R.1 to 3/photos it also shows that the KSRTC bus was going by the side of divider in its lane and the bikers came and fell on the wheels of said bus. Therefore, from the facts and circumstances and on appreciation of evidence as above it is clear that there was gross negligence on the part of deceased/rider of the bike and there was also negligence on the part of the car which was also going in a rash and negligent manner in a 24 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 zig zag way and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the KSRTC bus. In the first decision relied upon by the counsel for the R3 the Hon'ble HC at para 11 observed in a similar case that the decision of Tribunal holding that there was no negligence on the part of driver of the KSRTC bus though the deceased was ran over by the bus is held proper. The second decision relied upon by the counsel for the R3 is not applicable as it was the decision rendered in a petition filed u/Sec.163A of MV Act. The other decisions referred above wherein the Hon'ble HC and Hon'ble Apex court clearly held that the FIR and charge sheet are not conclusive proof but they are corroborative piece of evidence along with the evidence lead before the Tribunal, the said decisions are also aptly applicable to the present case. Mere filing of FIR and Charge sheet is not conclusive proof as the evidence on record that too cross examination of Pws.1 and 2 which are contrary to each other as to the manner of accident and the Pw.3 and first informant are not being the eye witnesses and mainly 25 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 relying upon the Ex.P.6 the case of the petitioners is not proved completely as claimed by them with regard to alleged manner of accident. As discussed above there was negligence on the part of the deceased also which can be assessed 50% and the another 50% of negligence is on the offending car and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of KSRTC bus.
21. Further, the FIR, FIS, Spot panchanama, Spot Sketch, Vehicle Seizure Mahazar, IMV report, PM reports, Inquest reports and Charge sheet produced by the Petitioners as per Exs.P.1 to P.9, P.15 and 16 are the public documents which have got presumptive value under law and from them only as discussed above the negligence on the part of the deceased rider of bike also can be make out. Under these circumstances, considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the evidence of RW.1 coupled with documents produced, this court is of the opinion that, the driver of the offending Car bearing No.KA53C8976 had driven the 26 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 same in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life in a zig zag manner and the deceased/rider of bike was also negligent in not maintaining safe distance and not correctly judging the movement of ongoing vehicle, as a result the deceased dashed his motorcycle to the rear portion of said car which lead to the accident and fell on the road side and the KSRTC bus ran over on the deceased, due to which Dayanand and Rudresh had sustained severe head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in both the cases are partly in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7038/2018: The PW.1 has specifically deposed before this court that due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost the bread earner of their family and their loving son. They have pleaded that due to the accidental injuries their son deceased Dayananda died at spot and PM was done at Nelamangala Govt. Hospital and later the cremation of their 27 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 deceased son was conducted. This court while discussing the issue No.1 has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending Car along with contributory negligence on the part of the deceased/rider of bike. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation.
Monthly income
23. According to the Petitioners the deceased was working as a driver and earning sum of Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard the petitioners have not produced any documents nor examined any witness to prove 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.20,000/ 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 a young aged person about 25 years old as 28 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 could be make out from Ex.P.13 and 14 Aadhar card and DL of the deceased. As per these document he was born on 20.03.1993. The deceased was hale and healthy before accident. The accident took place in the year 2018. As such, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 25 years. Therefore, having regard to the age of the deceased and also 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 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the monthly notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.12,500/ per month.
Age of the deceased
24. In so far as age of the deceased is concerned, the Petitioners have produced notarized copy of Aadhaar card and Driving License of the deceased as per Ex.P.13 & 14. As per this document, his date of birth is 20.03.1993. The 29 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 accident was occurred on 24.11.2018. As such, his age was 25 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the age of the deceased is considered 25 years.
i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY As per principles of law laid down in the case of Sarala Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 18. In the instant case, the deceased has father and mother. In the cross examination it is elicited that both the petitioners are entirely depending on the income of the deceased but no specific evidence lead to prove that the petitioner No.1 being father was also depending on the income of the deceased and hence the mother is only considered as dependent on the deceased. It is relevant to note that as per the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in special leave petition No. 25590/2014 between National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi and others and other connected petitions, even in case of the death of self 30 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 employed and fixed salary also, the Dependants are entitled for future prospects. Therefore, in the present case since the Petitioner is less than 40 years age, 40% future prospects have to be added to his monthly income. However, as the deceased is a bachelor, as per the Sarala Verma case, ½ of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. If 40% income is added to his monthly income, it comes around Rs.17,500/ (Rs.12,500/ + Rs.5,000/) and 50% is deducted towards his living and personal expenses, balance comes to Rs.8,750/ (Rs.17,500/ Rs.8,750/). Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.18,90,000/ (Rs.8,750/ X 12 X 18 = Rs.18,90,000/).
ii) TRANSPORTATION AND FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS TO ESTATE In so far as the funeral and transportation expenses are concerned, the Petitioners have pleaded and deposed that they have spent Rs.80,000/ towards cremation and 31 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 Rs.50,000/ towards transportation of the dead body of their deceased son. There is no document produced regarding transportation of dead body and funeral expenses but under said circumstances it is also difficult to maintain documents. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs.17,000/ towards funeral and transportation expenses. If the deceased was alive he would have certainly saved some amount out of his living and personal expenses and created an estate in favour of the Petitioner No.2. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for Rs.17,000/ under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:
The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. They have lost their loving son. If he was alive he would taken care of them and given full love and affection to the Petitioners. In Magma General Insurance company Limited the Hon'ble Apex court has considered the 32 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 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 society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Therefore, the claimants are also entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.80,000/ (Rs.40,000/ each) under this head. The total compensation comes to Rs.20,04,000/. As discussed 33 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 above if the 50% negligence on the part of the deceased is deducted then the compensation comes to Rs.10,02,000/ (Rs.20,04,000/ Rs.10,02,000/). As such, in total, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.10,02,000/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
25. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7039/2018: The PW.2 has specifically deposed before this court that due to the untimely death of the deceased, they have lost the bread earner of their family and their loving son.
They have pleaded that due to the accidental injuries their son deceased Rudresha died on 25.11.2018 at about 01.40 a.m., during the treatment at M.S Ramaiah Harsha Hospital and PM was done at Nelamangala Govt. Hospital, and later the cremation of their deceased son was conducted. This court while discussing the issue No.2 has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending Car along with the contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the bike 34 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 and deceased was a pillion rider of the bike. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation.
Monthly income
26. According to the Petitioners the deceased was doing coolie work and also doing agricultural work and earning Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard the petitioners have not produced any documents nor examined any witness to prove 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.20,000/ 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 a young aged person aged 27 years as could be make out from Ex.P.20 Aadhar card of the deceased. As per this document his date of birth is 18.01.1991. The deceased was hale and healthy before 35 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 accident. The accident took place in the year 2018. As such, he was 27 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, having regard to the age of the deceased and also relying 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 Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the monthly notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.12,500/ per month.
Age of the deceased
27. In so far as age of the deceased is concerned, the Petitioners have produced notarized copy of Aadhaar card of the deceased as per Ex.P.20. As per this document, his date of birth is 18.01.1991. The accident was occurred on 24.11.2018. As such his age was 27 years as on the date of his death. Therefore, the age of the deceased is considered 27 years.
36 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24
i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY
As per principles of law laid down in the case of Sarala Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 17. In the instant case, the deceased has father and mother. In the cross examination it is elicited that both the petitioners are entirely depending on the income of the deceased but no specific evidence lead to prove that the petitioner No.1 being father was also depending on the income of the deceased and hence the mother is only considered as dependent on the deceased. It is relevant to note that as per the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in special leave petition No. 25590/2014 between National Insurance Company Vs Pranay Sethi and others and other connected petitions, even in case of the death of self employed and fixed salary also, the Dependants are entitled for future prospects. Therefore, in the present case since 37 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the Petitioner is less than 40 years age, 40% future prospects have to be added to his monthly income. However, as the deceased is a bachelor, as per the Sarala Verma case, ½ of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. If 40% income is added to his monthly income, it comes around Rs.17,500/ (Rs.12,500/ + Rs.5,000/) and 50% is deducted towards his living and personal expenses, balance comes to Rs.8,750/ (Rs.17,500/ Rs.8,750/). Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.17,85,000/ (Rs.8,750/ X 12 X 17 = Rs.17,85,000/).
ii) TRANSPORTATION AND FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS TO ESTATE In so far as the funeral and transportation expenses are concerned, the Petitioners have pleaded and deposed that they have spent Rs.80,000/ towards cremation and Rs.80,000/ towards transportation of their deceased son. There is no document produced regarding transportation of 38 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 dead body and funeral expenses but under said circumstances it is also difficult to maintain documents. However, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs.17,000/ towards funeral and transportation expenses. If the deceased was alive he would have certainly saved some amount out of his living and personal expenses and created an estate in favour of the Petitioner No.1. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled for Rs.17,000/ under the head of loss to estate.
(iii) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM:
The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. They have lost their loving son. If he was alive he would taken care of them and given full love and affection to the Petitioners. 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 39 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 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 society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Therefore, the claimants are also entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. Therefore, the Petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.80,000/ (Rs.40,000/ each) under this head. The total compensation comes to Rs.18,99,000/. As discussed above if the 50% negligence on the part of the deceased is deducted then the compensation comes to Rs.9,49,500/ 40 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 (Rs.18,99,000/ Rs.9,49,500/). As such, in total, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.9,49,500/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
Liability:
28. As per the discussion made above and on appreciation of the evidence there was negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the bike which assessed at 50% and rest of the negligence was on the driver of the Car and there was no negligence on the driver of R3. The R1 has not lead any evidence to prove that there was any breach of policy conditions. As per the evidence the policy existed and the same is admitted by the R1. Therefore, the R1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The petition against R3 is to be dismissed. The Petitioners in MVC No.7038/2018 have claimed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/, but they are entitled only for a sum of Rs.10,02,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 41 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 The Petitioners in MVC No.7039/2018 have claimed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/, but they are entitled only for a sum of Rs.9,49,500/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Therefore the Petitions are to be allowed in part. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 in the both cases are partly in the Affirmative.
29. Issue No.3 in both cases : In view of above answers to the above issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Both the Petitions filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitions against R3/KSRTC are dismissed.
42 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 The Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in both cases. As the policy is existed, hence the respondent No.1 in both the cases is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement.
The Petitioners in MVC No.7038/2018 are entitled for Compensation of Rs.10,02,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Two Thousand 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.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.2 in any N/S bank for a 43 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 period of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ shall be released in the name of the Petitioner No.1 and the remaining entire balance shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment.
The Petitioners in MVC No.7039/2018 are entitled for Compensation of Rs.9,49,500/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five 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.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 20% shall be deposited in the name 44 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 of the Petitioner No.2 in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ shall be released in the name of the Petitioner No.1 and the remaining entire balance shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ each. Office to draw award separate accordingly. The original of this judgment is to be kept in MVC 7038/2018 and the signed copy of judgment be kept in MVC 7039/2018.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 22nd day of August 2022.) (Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM., Bangalore.
45 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 ANNEXTURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioner:
P.W.1 Smt.Nagamma PW.2 Sri.Rajanna PW.3 Sri.Sunil @ Sunil Kumar T.N List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents: RW.1 Sri.Jagadish Nayak D
List of documents marked on behalf of the Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 True copy of Vehicle Seizer Mahazar Ex.P.5 True copy of Sketch Ex.P.6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.7 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P.8 True copy of PM report Ex.P.9 True copy of Chargesheet Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Ration card
(Original compared and returned) 46 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Naganna (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Nagamma (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of the Dayananda N (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of the driving licence of Dayananda N (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.15 True copy of Inquest report Ex.P.16 True copy of PM report Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of Ration card (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Rajanna (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.19 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of Hanumakka (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of the deceased Rudresha H.R (Original compared and returned) List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R.1 to 4 Photographs (3 in no's) along with 1 CD (Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM., Bangalore.47 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 05.08.2022 PBKK R1RSS R2Exparte R3MSB 11.08.2022 PBKK R1RSS R2Exparte R3MSB 22.08.2022 PBKK R1RSS R2Exparte R3MSB For Judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER Both the Petitions filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of Motor 48 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 Vehicles Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitions against R3/KSRTC are dismissed.
The Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in both cases. As the policy is existed, hence the respondent No.1 in both the cases is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement.
The Petitioners in MVC No.7038/2018 are entitled for Compensation of Rs.10,02,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Two Thousand only) along with interest at the 49 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 rate of 6% p.a., from the date of Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.2 in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ shall be released in the name of the Petitioner No.1 and the remaining entire balance shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment.
The Petitioners in MVC No.7039/2018 are entitled for Compensation of Rs.9,49,500/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five Hundred only) along with 50 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.2 in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ shall be released in the name of the Petitioner No.1 and the remaining entire balance shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ each. Office to draw award separate accordingly. 51 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 The original of this judgment is to be kept in MVC 7038/2018 and the signed copy of judgment be kept in MVC 7039/2018.
(Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM., Bangalore.
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC No.7038/2018 PETITIONER/S: 1. Sri.Naganna, S/o Ajjappa, Aged about 60 years,
2. Smt.Nagamma W/o Naganna, Aged about 53 years, Both are R/at Mariheggaiyanapalya Village, Hulikunte Post, Doddabelavadi Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate.) V/S RESPONDENT/S 1. The Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Regional Office No.22B, Unity Building Annex, Mission road/Lalbagh road, Bangalore27.
(Insurer of offending vehicle Tata Indica car bearing No.KA53C8976) (By Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, Advocate.) 53 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24
2. Mr.Raghavendra M.K S/o Kumarappa, No.138/2, Gramathana Singasandra, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
(RC owner of offending vehicle Tata Indica car bearing No.KA53C8976) (Exparte)
3. The Managing Director, KSRTC Division, K.H road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore27.
(RC owner of offending vehicle KSRTC bus bearing No.KA06F 1021) (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. 54 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 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 petitions against R3/KSRTC are dismissed.
The Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in both cases. As the policy is 55 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 existed, hence the respondent No.1 in both the cases is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement.
The Petitioners in MVC No.7038/2018 are entitled for Compensation of Rs.10,02,000/ (Rupees Ten Lakhs Two Thousand 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.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.2 in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ shall be released in the name of 56 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the Petitioner No.1 and the remaining entire balance shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 22 day of August 2022.
nd MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
57 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 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 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC No. 7039/2018 PETITIONER/S: 1. Sri.Rajanna S/o Gangananjappa, Aged about 56 year,
2. Smt.Hanumakka, W/o Rajanna, Aged about 50 years, Both are R/at No.05, Hatthukuntepalya, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri.B.K.Kumara, Advocate.) V/S RESPONDENT/S 1. The Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Regional Office No.22B, Unity Building Annex, Mission road/Lalbagh road, Bangalore27.
(Insurer of offending vehicle Tata Indica car bearing No.KA53C8976) (By Sri.Ravi S. Samprathi, Advocate.) 59 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24
2. Mr.Raghavendra M.K S/o Kumarappa, No.138/2, Gramathana Singasandra, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
(RC owner of offending vehicle Tata Indica car bearing No.KA53C8976) (Exparte)
3. The Managing Director, KSRTC Division, K.H road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore27.
(RC owner of offending vehicle KSRTC bus bearing No.KA06F 1021) (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. 60 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 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 petitions against R3/KSRTC are dismissed.
The Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners in both cases. As the policy is existed, hence the respondent No.1 in both 61 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the cases is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement.
The Petitioners in MVC No.7039/2018 are entitled for Compensation of Rs.9,49,500/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Five 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.
On deposit of the award amount and interest, 20% shall be deposited in the name of the Petitioner No.2 in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years with a liberty to withdraw the interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ shall be released in the name of 62 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018 SCCH24 the Petitioner No.1 and the remaining entire balance shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 by way of epayment with proper identification and due acknowledgment.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 22 day of August 2022.
nd MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
63 MVC No.7038 & 7039/2018
SCCH24 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