Bangalore District Court
Smt.Vinita Kumar vs Suresh J on 24 September, 2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & V ADDL.
JUDGE SCCH20, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 24th day of September, 2021
Present: Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC. No.4660/2019
PETITIONER: 1. Smt.Vinita Kumar
W/o Ramesh Kumar
Aged about 44 years,
2. Vidushi Kumar
D/o Ramesh Kumar
Aged about 14 years,
3.riti Kumar
D/o Ramesh Kumar
Aged about 13 years,
4. Shiva Nandan Mahto,
S/o Sube Lal mahto
Aged about 80 years
5. Bachi Devi mahto
W/o Shiva nandan Mahto
Aged about 75 years,
All are R/at No.33,
MIMS Ardendale,
Near Safal Market
Kannamangala, Bangalore
SCCH-20 2 MVC No.4660/2019
(Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are
minors, represented by natural
guardian and mother petitioner
No.1 i.e., Vinita Kumar )
(By Pleader Sri.Muniyappa D.Naveen)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1. Suresh J
S/o Jayachandra,
No.87/3, 1st block,
4th street, Prakr Township
Horamavu, BS Palya,
Bangalore - 560049
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Centenary Building,
5th floor, MG Road,
Bangalore - 560001
(R1Exparte)
(R2By Pleader Sri.H.C.Betsur. Adv)
JUDGMENT
This present petition is filed Under section 166 of the Indian Motar Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the death of one Sri.Ramesh Kumar in the Road Traffic Accident on 17.07.2019.
2. Petition averments in brief are as follows; SCCH-20 3 MVC No.4660/2019 That on 17.07.2019 at about 07.30 pm, the deceased was peddling the bicycle on ITPL main road, near Container yard junction, Bangalore, while a lorry bearing No.KA53A 1836 came in rash and negligent manner endangering to human life from same direction and came to the right side of the deceased and suddenly took left turn and dashed against the deceased bicycle. Due to the forced impact the deceased fell down and left wheel of the lorry ran over the deceased and deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. That the deceased was aged about 44 years and was earning Rs.2,23,209/ per month, The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. Thus, prays to grant compensation of Rs.5,00,00,000/.
3. The 2nd respondent filed written statement and submits that the lorry is implicated as offending vehicle and that the owner of the lorry violated the terms and conditions of the policy and there is no nexus between the injuries and the death and for other reasons prays to dismiss the petition. The respondent no.1 failed to appear and was placed exparte. SCCH-20 4 MVC No.4660/2019
4. On basis of the Pleadings and materials on record, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 17/07/2019 at 21.30 PM, near Container Yard Junction, ITPL Main Road, Bangalore, while the deceased (Ramesh Kumar) was peddling the bicycle, at that time, one Lorry bearing Reg No: KA53A 1836 came at high speed in a rash & negligent manner, endangering to human life and dashed against the deceased bicycle, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous hurt & died on the spot?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. Whether order or award?
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Exhs.P.1 to P.24 and oe witness got examined as PW2 and got marked documents as Ex.P.25 to P.27. The Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW1 and got marked documents as Exh.R.1 & 2.
SCCH-20 5 MVC No.4660/2019
6. Heard the arguments and perused the materials placed before me.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1: It is the case of the petitioners that on on on 17.07.2019 at about 07.30 pm, the deceased was peddling the bicycle on ITPL main road, near Container yard junction, Bangalore, while a lorry bearing No.KA53A1836 came in rash and negligent manner endangering to human life from same direction and came to the right side of the deceased and suddenly took left turn and dashed against the deceased bicycle. Due to the forced impact the deceased fell down and left wheel of the lorry ran over the deceased and deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. That the deceased was hale, healthy and was aged about 44 years and was earning Rs.2,23,209/ per month, by working as ERP specialist advisor. The petitioners are the wife, children and SCCH-20 6 MVC No.4660/2019 parents of the deceased and have sought for award and compensation.
9. In order to prove the negligence act of the respondent vehicle, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and has deopsed the above said facts . She has also produced 24 documents on her behalf, out of which the FIR marked as Ex.P.1 shows that the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA53A 1836 was accused in Cr.No.113/2019 alleging offences punishable Under section 279, 304(a) of IPC, dated 18.07.2019. The Ex.P.2 is the FIS based upon which FIR is lodged by one Sri.Muniraju. The statement of PW1 before the police is marked as Ex.P.3, which corroborates with Ex.P.2. The Mahazar along with sketch are marked as Ex.P.4 and P.5. A Careful perusal of Ex.P.5 sketch shows that the container lorry bearing No.KA53A1836 moved from right side to left side and the cycle rider moved from left to right side causing accident at the middle of the road where there is a divider. The said road was about 9.3 meters excluding the SCCH-20 7 MVC No.4660/2019 footpath. The Inquest report of the deceased Sri.Ramesh Kumar is marked as Ex.P.6 and conducted on 17.06.2019 at about 09.30 pm., The PM report marked as Ex.P.8 shows that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained.
10. There is no much dispute by the respondent No.2 regarding the nature of the accident who cross examined PW1 regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased. Also questions the PW1 regarding the existence of the traffic in the said place, who is not an eye witness to the accident. The PW1 has formally denied the sketch, marked as Ex.P1. But has not challenged it. The vehicle was seized and examined by the investigating officer in criminal case and the report by thhe inspector of Motor vehicles the Ex.P7 shows no damage to the vehicles and the bycycle apears to be examined on the road. The FIR is lodged against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, which shows that there is involvement of the container lorry in the said accident. SCCH-20 8 MVC No.4660/2019
11. The respondent no. 2 also has lead the evidence of the legal manager of the insurance company, who admits the pendency of the policy bearing no. 14052182349000679 for the offending vehicle, in the name of the 1 st respondent from 15.11.2018 till 14.11.2018, which includes the date of the accident. Further submits that the accident is caused due to the negligence riding of the cycle on the part of the deceased and there is no rash or negligent act on the part of the driver of the lorry. Also submits that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, who could have avoided the accident. Further submits that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy by the driver and has sought for dismissal of the petition.
12. But by taking up the said defence, the respondent is clearly admitting the involvement of the canter lorry bearing no. KA53A1836. Though submits that the driver has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, has not made SCCH-20 9 MVC No.4660/2019 any efforts to bring the same to this court. Thus in the said situation, the objections as raised by the respondent in this regard does not hold any water.
13. As per the sketch as discussed above, the cycle rider has moved from left to the right and appears that he has not noticed the movement of the container lorry moving towards the left and has caused the accident in the middle of the road. There is no reason for this court to disbelieve the said sketch. From this, the court can easily infer the contributory negligence of the deceased, which can be attributed to 30% . Therefore holding that there is negligence on the part of the deceased and also the driver of the lorry, I answer the point no. 1 in partly affirmative.
14. Issue No.2: Now in respect of the liability and the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is to note that the Adhaar card of the deceased is marked as Ex.P.13, which depicts that the deceased was born on 15.11.1974 and SCCH-20 10 MVC No.4660/2019 therefore, as on the date of accident he was near to 45 and appropriate multiplier is 14.
15. As per the petitioner, the deceased was an MBA graduate and earned Rs.2,23,209/ per month by working at NTT Data information Proceeding Pvt Ltd.,, Bangalore. To further prove the same the marks cards, graduation certificate etc., as Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.22, which also shows that he had completed the ORACLE course and was talented in providing customer service. The appointment letter of the deceased is marked as Ex.P.26 which shows that the deceased was appointed under the said company as enterprise resource planning specialist adviser from December 10th 2018. It further shows that the fixed annual compensation would be Rs.26,78,515/ along with other benefits, the salary for the month of March to June 2019 are also produced which shows that the deceased earned Rs.1,44,254/ for the months of April 2019 and May 2019, for the month of June 2019 the deceased has received a net SCCH-20 11 MVC No.4660/2019 pay of Rs.2,75,042/, a net pay of Rs.102,019.00 for the months of July 2019. Thus, it is seen that there is variation in the salary of the deceased Ramesh kumar. These documents are produced by the PW2, who is the business partner senior specialist at NTT data information processing services Ltd., where the deceased was working. She submits in her affidavit that the deceased was working at her company and was paid a gross salary of Rs.3,32,476.59 and also submits that he would have promoted to higher positions and his salary would have raised according to the percentage slabs of the company.
16. PW2 was subjected to cross examination where she submits the deceased joined the company in the year December 2018 and died within 7 months. She was throughly cross examined regarding the variation in the salary of the deceased where she submits that included the special allowances like food slips, education expenses, rent, etc., She further admits that the income of the deceased for SCCH-20 12 MVC No.4660/2019 the month of June 2019 was Rs.3,32,476.59, which included the bonus from the company. She also admits that the bonus depends upon the financial capacity of the company. The main admission adduced by the PW2, the witness on behalf of the petitioner is that the deceased without bonus, would have derived the salary of Rs.1,50,000/ per month. This salary is permanent with no variations as can be seen from the salary of the deceased in pay slips pertaining to March and April. Therefore, the real income of the deceased can be considered as Rs.1,50,000/.
17. The annual income of the deceased would be Rs.18,00,000/ in the year 2019. Thus taxable income of the deceased as follows;
Total Annual income 18,00,00000
Less tax exemption 2,50,00000
15,50,00000
Tax payable @
5% on 2,50,000 = 12,500
20% on 5,00,000=1,00,000
30% on 8,00,000=2,40,000 3,52,50000
11,97,50000
Thus, Rs.11,97,500/ is considered as actual income. SCCH-20 13 MVC No.4660/2019
18. The deceased contributed his income to the family. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. The relationship is not disputed. But the counsel for the respondent seriously objects the dependency of the petitioner no. 4 and 5, whose address is noted at Vadodara of Gujarat as per Ex. P17 and P18. When Pw1 was cross examined in this regard submits that the deceased has two brothers, where one is residing at Ahmadabad and one at America. But denies that the petitioner no. 4 and 5 were not dependent on the income of the deceased. There is no other proof in this regard.
19. The question of dependency is based on the individuals. Mere entry in the adhar card does not prove the residential status of the person, since there are question of transfers , movement in finding job etc. Even if it is believed that the petitioner no.4 and 5 are living with their son who is in Ahmadabad, where the address shown, question of SCCH-20 14 MVC No.4660/2019 dependency of the petitioner no. 4 and 5 on the deceased cannot be ruled out. There is no serious dispute regarding the same by the respondent, who submits formally that the petitioner no. 4 and 5 are not dependent on the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner no. 4 and 5 are to be considered to be the dependents of the deceased. Thus 30% of established income must be added towards future prospects and he had 5 dependents and ¼ of actual income must be deducted towards personal expenses.
Thus Loss of dependency calculation is thus as follows:
1. Calculating 30% future prospects:
30% X 11,97,500 = 3,59,250/ Adding 30% future prospects: 3,59,250+11,97,500=15,56,750/
2. calculation 1/4 income of Rs.15,56,750/ 15,56,750 X 1/4 =3,89,188/
3. Deducting 1/4 personal expenses:
Rs.15,56,7503,89,188=11,67,562/ SCCH-20 15 MVC No.4660/2019
4. Calculating loss of dependency 11,67,562 X '14' =1,63,45,868/
20. Further, On conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, funeral expenses, I deem it fit to grant compensation at Rs. 15,000/on each head.
21. The petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased and have lost their future support, love and affection. Therefore the petitioner No.1 is entitled to loss of consortium of Rs.40,000/, petitioner no. 2 and 3 are entitled to love and affection to the tune of Rs.20,000/ each and the petitioner no.4 and 5 for parental consortium Rs.40,000/ each. Therefore, in all the petitioners are entitled to a compensation as calculated below;
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 1,63,45,868/ 2 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/ 3 Towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/ Total Rs.1,65,35,868/ SCCH-20 16 MVC No.4660/2019 In all the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,65,35,868/.
22. The respondent submits that the petitioners have already received a sum of Rs.50 lakhs as compensation from the death and urges to deduct the same in case this court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for the compensation. In this regard the counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following authorities of the Hon'ble Appellate courts.
1. Reported in 2020 ACJ 1855 (Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs HC Nagabhushan and others and held thus: Quantum - deductions - Group insurance scheme contention that tribunal erred in not deducting Rs.14,99,999/ received by the claimants from the employer of the deceased under the group insurance scheme while computing compensationwhether any deduction towards amount received under group insurance scheme is admissible while computing compensation - Held: no.
2. Reported in 2020 ACJ 103 (Kanti Devi Singh and SCCH-20 17 MVC No.4660/2019 others Vs Kunt Raj Khalkho and others) : Quantum -
Fatal accident deceased aged 45, working in sec drawing Rs.18,000/ pm., claimants; widow four children and mother tribunal awarded Rs.14,49,072/. Appellate court relying on salary slip took income at Rs.13,363/ pm., added 30% of income towards future prospectus, deducted 1/4th towards personal expenses, adopted multiplier of 14 and allowed Rs.22,42,926/ plus Rs.70,000/ for loss of estate, loss of spousal consortium and funeral Expenses and Rs.50,000/ for loss of parental and filial consortium award of Rs.14,49,072/ enhanced to Rs.23,62,926/.
3. 2020 ACJ 581 (Suresh Devi Vs Girender singh and another): Quantum; Deduction pensionwhether family pension payable to motor of the deceased would be deductiable while determining compensation Held, no; pecuniary advantage received by legal heirs either on account of insurance or pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased cannot be deducted from the account of compensation; these amounts are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relationship entered into by him with others and it cannot be said that these amounts accrued to Dependants or legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in the vahicular accident. SCCH-20 18 MVC No.4660/2019
4. reported in 2020 ACJ 1206 (Nandini Deepak patil and others Vs Subba Rao R and another): where in it is observed that Quantum; deductions whether deduction towards house rent allowance, conveyance special allowances, ESI and PF employer contribution is admissible while computing compensation - Held; No,
23. The sum and substance of all these judgments would go to show that the deductions cannot be made if the petitioners received any other compensation due to the death of the Dependant, which are not arising out of the contractual obligations. Of course the present one is claimed based on the contract entered in between the insured and the insurer, who has accepted to indemnify the victim in case of any road traffic accidents. Thus the urge of the counsel for the respondent to deduct a sum of Rs.50,00,000/, which is paid to the petitioners by the company as a matter of compensation, does not hold any water.
Liability
24. As already observed above, this tribunal has held SCCH-20 19 MVC No.4660/2019 that, the deceased contributed to the accident to an extent of 30%. and the negligent acts on the side of the drivers of the offending vehicles i.e., respondent No.2 is liable to pay 70%. So, out of the awarded amount of Rs.1,65,35,868/, an amount of 30% has to be deducted. This 30% of Rs.1,65,35,868/ comes to Rs.49,60,760/. Thus the compensation for the petitioners is Rs.1,15,75,108/.
25. The petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased. The petitioner no.4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. Thus the petitioners No.1 to 4 are each entitled for compensation at the ratio of 4:1.5:1.5:1.5:1.5.
26. With regard to the interest, I deem it fit to grant interest at 9% pa., from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. Thus in view of the discussions made above, I answer the issue No.2 in the affirmative, by burdening the respondent No.2 to pay the amount.
SCCH-20 20 MVC No.4660/2019
27. Issue No.3: After having answered issue No.1 and 2 as supra, I hold that the petition filed by the petitioners is fit to be allowed in Part, in the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,15,75,108/ with interest @ 9% pa., from the date of petition till its realization, in the ratio of 4:1.5:1.5:1.5:1.5.
The respondent No.2 shall deposit aforesaid compensation equally with 9% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.45,66,044/ plus 40,000/ with cost and interest.
SCCH-20 21 MVC No.4660/2019The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.17,12,266/ plus 20,000/ each with cost and interest.
The petitioner No.4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.17,12,266/ plus 40,000/with cost and interest.
The 60% share of petitioner No.1, 4and 5 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in their respective names with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be kept as FD in their respective names with any nationalized or scheduled bank till they attains majority. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/. Draw the Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 24th day of September 2021) (Sharmila C.S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
SCCH-20 22 MVC No.4660/2019A N N E X U R E:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Vinita Kumar P.W.2 : Jyothi.JN
Documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P1 : True Copy of the FIR, Ex.P2 : True Copy of the FIS, Ex.P3 : True copy of statement Ex.P4 : True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P5 : True copy of Sketch Ex.P6 : True copy of Inquest report Ex.P7 : True copy of IMV report Ex.P8 : True copy of PM report Ex.P9 : Notice Ex.P10 : Reply to notice Ex.P11 : Indemnity bond Ex.P12 : Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.1318: Notarized copy of addhar card 6 in nos Ex.P.19 : Notarized copy of Marks card Ex.P.20 : Certificate issued by Manipal University Ex.P.21 : Certificate issued by ORCLE company Ex.P.22 : Award issued by Master card Ex.P.23 : pay slips in 3 nos Ex.P.24 : Account statement SCCH-20 23 MVC No.4660/2019 Ex.P.25 : ID card Ex.P.26 : Appointment letter Ex.P.27 : Pay slips Witnesses examined for respondents:
RW1 Jyothi Documents marked for respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorization letter Ex.R2 insurance policy (Sharmila CS,) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-20 24 MVC No.4660/2019
24.09.2021 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide, separate Order :
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,15,75,108/ with interest @ 9% pa., from the date of petition till its realization, in the ratio of 4:1.5:1.5:1.5:1.5.
The respondent No.2 shall deposit aforesaid compensation equally with 9% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.45,66,044/ plus 40,000/ with cost and interest.
The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.17,12,266/ plus 20,000/ each with cost and interest.
The petitioner No.4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.17,12,266/ plus 40,000/with cost SCCH-20 25 MVC No.4660/2019 and interest.
The 60% share of petitioner No.1, 4and 5 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in their respective names with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be kept as FD in their respective names with any nationalized or scheduled bank till they attains majority. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/.
Draw the Award accordingly.
V Addl. Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20 26 MVC No.4660/2019 AWARD SCCH NO.20 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC. No.4660/2019 PETITIONER: 1. Smt.Vinita Kumar W/o Ramesh Kumar Aged about 44 years,
2. Vidushi Kumar D/o Ramesh Kumar Aged about 14 years,
3.riti Kumar D/o Ramesh Kumar Aged about 13 years,
4. Shiva Nandan Mahto, S/o Sube Lal mahto Aged about 80 years
5. Bachi Devi mahto W/o Shiva nandan Mahto Aged about 75 years, All are R/at No.33, MIMS Ardendale, Near Safal Market Kannamangala, Bangalore (Since petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors, represented by natural guardian and mother petitioner No.1 i.e., Vinita Kumar ) (By Pleader Sri.Muniyappa D.Naveen) SCCH-20 27 MVC No.4660/2019 V/s RESPONDENTS: 1. Suresh J S/o Jayachandra, No.87/3, 1st block, 4th street, Prakr Township Horamavu, BS Palya, Bangalore - 560049
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., Centenary Building, 5th floor, MG Road, Bangalore - 560001 (R1Exparte) (R2By Pleader Sri.H.C.Betsur. Adv) 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. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Sharmila CS, V Addl., Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M, Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,15,75,108/ with interest @ 9% pa., from the date of petition SCCH-20 28 MVC No.4660/2019 till its realization, in the ratio of 4:1.5:1.5:1.5:1.5.
The respondent No.2 shall deposit aforesaid compensation equally with 9% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rs.45,66,044/ plus 40,000/ with cost and interest.
The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for Rs.17,12,266/ plus 20,000/ each with cost and interest.
The petitioner No.4 and 5 are entitled for Rs.17,12,266/ plus 40,000/with cost and interest.
The 60% share of petitioner No.1, 4and 5 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in their respective names with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be kept as FD in their respective names with any nationalized or scheduled bank till they attains majority. SCCH-20 29 MVC No.4660/2019
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2021.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 ¬ _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-20 30 MVC No.4660/2019