Bangalore District Court
Dilip Kumar Singh vs Sreenath on 20 March, 2018
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& XV ADDL. JUDGE SCCH-19, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 20th day of March 2018
Present: Sri. DYAVAPPA. S.B.,
B.A., LL.B.,
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXIII A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC No.2037 / 2016
Petitioners : 1. Dilip Kumar Singh
S/o Hariday Narayan Singh,
Aged about 51 Years.
2. Premlatha Singh,
W/o Dilip Kumar Singh,
Aged about 46 Years.
3. Piyanka Kumari
D/o Dilip Kumar Singh,
Aged about 23 Years.
All are residing at:
Kharsand, Hayaghat,
Bilashpur, Samastipu,
Kalyanpur, Bihar-847 301.
(Pleader by Sri.M.Subramani)
-V/s-
Respondents: 1. Sreenath
S/o Radhakrishna,
2 SCH-19
MVC. 2037 / 2016
No.57, Devasandra Main Road,
K.R. Puram, Bangalore-36.
(Owner of TATA Ace bearing
Reg. No.KA-01-TC-164)
(Exparte)
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co. ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th floor, Dickson road,
Bangalore - 01.
(Policy No.3003/TM-00361813/00/000
Valid from 11-02-2016 to 10-02-2016)
(Pleader by Sri.M.E. Madhusudhan)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have filed this petition U/sec.166 of M.V. Act, 1989 claiming compensation amount of Rs.75,00,000/- in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:
According to the Petitioners that on 25-02-2016 at about 10-30 a.m. the deceased (Pradeep Chauhan) was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53/X-8148 Nallurahalli main road from Nallurahalli towards Vydehi on the extreme left side of the road slowly and cautiously,
3 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 when he reached in front of Anjaneya Temple, at that time, one TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-01/TC-164, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life, came from opposite direction to right side of the road and dashed against the deceased motor cycle. Due to forced impact, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Vydehi hospital, and during the course of treatment on 26-2-2016 at about 2-44 a.m. he died due to accidental injuries. Thereafter Post mortem was done and examination handed over the body of deceased to Petitioners. Then dead body was shifted to their native and performed funeral and obsequies of the deceased. For which, the Petitioners have spent more than Rs.2,50,000/-. Due to sudden and sad demise of the deceased, Petitioners are undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings.
3. It is further stated that, Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and aged about 22 years and Software Engineer by Profession, at Accenture Company ltd., Whitefield, Bengaluru and earned Rs.25,000/- p.m. It is further contended that, deceased was the only earning member of the family and he used to look after the Petitioners. It is further stated 4 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 that, the accident occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-01/TC-164. Hence, White Field Traffic Police have registered a case in their Cr.No.43/2016 for the offence punishable U/sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC. It is further stated that, the respondent No.1 being R.C. owner and Respondent No.2 being Insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the Petitioners prayed to grant compensation.
4. After Service of notice, Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal and hence placed exparte. Respondents No.2 appeared through their Counsel and filed Written statement.
5. Brief averments of the written statement of Respondent No.2 as under:
Petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. Further denied the relationship of deceased with the Petitioners and denied the expenses incurred towards transportation of dead body, funeral and other expenses. Further they denied the existence of Policy in respect of TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-01/TC-
5 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 164 and restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further stated that the driver of TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-01/TC-164, does not posses valid and effective driving licence to drove the said vehicle and its owner does not posses valid FC and permit to the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, there is a violation of policy conditions. The claim of the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. Further the Respondent no.2 has also filed Additional Objections to the main petition contending that, accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased himself. They further stated that, in the IMV report, the vehicle of Respondent no.1 was not sustained any kind of damages and on the other hand, deceased vehicle was badly damaged. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Based on the above pleadings, my Predecessor has framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased Pradeep Chauhan?
6 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016
2) Whether Petitioners prove that, on 25.2.2016 at about 10.30 a.m., the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 53-X-8148 Nalluruhalli main road from Nallurahalli towards Vydehi on extreme left side when reached infront of Anjeneya Temple the driver of the TATA Ace bearing Registration No. KA-01-TC-164 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life without following any traffic rules and regulations at high speed from opposite direction came to right side of the road and dashed against the deceased as a result the deceased fell down due to impact deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, how much and from whom ?
4) What award/order?
7. In order to prove the case, three witnesses examined as Pw.1 to 3 and produced in all 28 documents marked as Ex.P1 to 28. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 side examined 3 witnesses as Rw.1 to 3 and produced in all 6 documents marked as Ex.R1 to 6.
8. Heard arguments of both side and Perused the materials available on hand.
7 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016
9. On careful appreciation of the entire materials and evidence on record, the above issues are answered as under :
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 and 2 :- These two issues are
interrelated, they have taken together for common discussion.
11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, on 25.02.2016 at about 10.30 a.m. son of the petitioner No.1 and 2 Sri. Pradeep Chowhan was riding the Motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-X-8148 on Nallurarahalli main road towards Vydehi Hospital on the extreme left side as slowly and cautiously, when he reached the infront of Anjeneya Temple, at that time, one Tata Ace bearing No.KA-01-TC-164 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed came from the opposite direction and dashed against the deceased Motor cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down and due to impact, succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on 26.02.2016. Further stated that, the petitioners are the 8 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 father and mother and sister of the deceased. In the written statement, the respondent have denied the entire averments of the petition and also taken the contention that the accident was sole negligence driving of the deceased and also denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
12. The petitioner No.1 Sri. Dilip Kumar Singh examined himself as PW.1 and filed the affidavit and lieu of chief examination. In his chief affidavit, he has repeated the averments of the petition and further produced the copy of the FIR and complaint marked as Ex.P.1 and 2, produced the spot mahazar and sketch Ex.P.3 and 4, produced inquest and IMV report marked as Ex.P.5 and P.6, produced IMV report and Charge sheet are marked as Ex.P.7 and 8, produced copies of Aadhaar card and 2 Election identity cards are marked as Ex.9 to 11, produced one notarized copy of Company identity card marked as Ex.P.12, produced copy of SSLC Certificate, Marks card and 4 marks cards with one decree certificate marked as Ex.P.13 to 18. In the cross- examination, counsel for the respondent nothing has been elicited about the denial of the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased.
9 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016
13. I have perused the election identity cards and also marks cards of the deceased person, it disclose that the petitioner No.1 is the father of the deceased. Petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 is the sister of the said deceased person. The police have also recorded the statement of the parents of the deceased and there is no any contradictions to disbelieve the said documents produced by the Petitioner. Further one witness Bhavani examined as PW.2 has deposed in his chief examination that, the Company has paid full and final settlement amount to the parents of the deceased person. In the cross-examination the respondent counsel nothing has been elicited about the denial of the relationship. Therefore, considering all the materials available on hand it is clear that, the petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 is the sister of the deceased Pradeep Chowhan.
14. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross- examined the PW.1 and specifically suggested that, the accident occurred due to sole negligent riding of the deceased, but same is denied. But nothing has been elicited about the denial of the police documents. Further, the PW.2 has produced the letter of the Company with regard to full and final settlement and 10 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 office letter of the Company marked as Ex.P.20 and P.21 and appointment letter and also produced 3 pay slips marked as Ex.P.22 to P.25 and also another one full and final settlement letter marked as Ex.P.26. But in the cross-examination, the respondent counsel has not questioned about negligent riding of the deceased. Another one witness Sri. Ramesh examined as PW.3 and he has produced one Insurance benefit letter, same is marked as Ex.P.28 and deposed that the Company has given the amount benefit to his family members under the head of Group Person Accident Scheme.
15. Respondent side one witness Muniraju B.V. examined as RW.1, he is the employee of the Vydehi Hospital has produced one case sheet of the deceased and also produced one Medico register extract marked as Ex.R.2 and 3 and another one witness T. Rammurthy is the representative of the Insurance Company examined as RW.2. He has filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In his chief affidavit, he has repeated the entire averments of the objection and produced one investigation report marked as Ex.R.5. In the cross- examination, he has admitting that the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the insurer vehicle and also the Insurance Company has not 11 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 challenged the said charge sheet. But they have not denied the accident and further admitting that, the investigator has not recorded the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle. Another one witness Thrinetra M.N. examined as RW.3. He has filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In his chief affidavit, he has repeated the averments of the objection, but not denied the accident and admitted that, on the very same day of the accident, the complaint was lodged and also the Insurance Company has not challenged the charge sheet and the police have seized the said offending vehicle and submit the charge sheet against the driver of the said offending vehicle.
16. I have perused the documents produced by the petitioners it appears that the Whitefield Traffic Police have registered the Criminal case in Crime No.43/2016 for the offence punishable U/sec.279, 337 of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act against the driver of the Tata Ace bearing No.KA-01-TC-164 on the basis of the complaint ldoged by the complainant. After submitting the FIR, the police have conducted the spot mahazar and prepared the sketch. After seized the vehicle, the Inspector of vehicles have inspected the vehicles and submits the IMV report. During the course of treatment in the hospital, 12 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 the rider of the Motor cycle was succumbed to the injuries in the accident. Thereafter, the I.O has conducted the inquest and received the PM report and after completion of the investigation, the I.O has submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 187 of IMV Act. The police have alleged that, the driver of the TATA Ace vehicle bearing No.KA-01-TC-164 drove in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
17. Though the respondent has denied the accident and also taken the specific contention that, the accident occurred due to sole negligent riding of the deceased, in support of their contentions, the counsel for the respondent nothing has been eliciting in the cross- examination of the petitioner side witnesses. Though the respondent side witnesses are examined, they have not produced any document to prove that, occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of the Motor cycle. One of the investigator of the Insurance Company has deposed that during his investigation, it is proved that the accident occurred due to negligent riding of the rider of 13 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 the Motor cycle, but the said investigator has not recorded the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle and he has only enquired the nearest shop persons, but they have not examined any other independent witnesses.
18. After perusal of the mahazar and rough sketch it disclosed that, the rider of the Motor cycle has proceeding to the left side of the road. At that time, the driver of the offending vehicle came from opposite side and take the vehicle to the right side of the road. Therefore, it appears that the accident was occurred at left side of the main road. Even though, there is a sufficient space in the left side of the road to proceed, but the driver of the said TATA Ace vehicle took the vehicle to right side. Therefore it is clear that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. It is pertain to note that Insurance Company or the owner and driver of the offending vehicle were not challenged the said mahazar and also rough sketch. Further the respondents have not denied the said rough sketch. Mere denial of the accident and also stating that the accident occurred due to negligence of the rider of the Motor cycle is not sufficient to prove the contributory negligence. The respondents have not 14 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 examined the driver of the offending vehicle, hence an adverse inference can be drawn against the rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. In the cross-examination, the respondent side witnesses have not denied the accident and also they have admitted that, respondent Insurance Company not challenged the investigation and also charge sheet submitted by the I.O. Under these circumstances, it is proved that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Motor cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Hence, I given the answer to the Issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE No.3:- The Petitioners claiming compensation amount of Rs.75,00,000/- with respect to death of Sri.Pradeep Chauhan, in a road traffic accident. The Petitioners have stated that, due to sudden death of the deceased, they have lost love, affection and future support of the deceased. Further, they are undergoing great mental agony, hardship. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family.
15 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016
20. As per the Petition, deceased is aged about 22 years. They have produced Notarized copy of the Certificate and SSLC marks card of the deceased, which are marked as Ex.P13 & 14. On perusal of said documents, which disclose the date of birth of the deceased as 21-11-1992. So age of the deceased is 23 years as on date of accident. There is no any contradiction to disbelieve or suspect the documents pertaining to the age of the deceased. So the age of the deceased was 23 years at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier is 18.
21. The Petitioners stated that, Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and aged about 22 years and was Software Engineer, at Accenture company ltd., White field, Bangalore and earned Rs.25,000/- p.m. It is further stated that, deceased was the only earning member of the family and he used to look after the Petitioners. The Petitioners have produced Educational certificates of Notary copies of the deceased i.e., S.S.L.C., PUC and degree marks cards. Which shows that the deceased was a Degree holder.
22. Further the Petitioners also examined two witnesses as Pw.2 and 3. Pw.2 has produced Copy of Offer letter of 16 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 the company marked as Ex.P21, Appointment letter of the deceased marked as Ex.P22, Pay slips for 3 months marked as Ex.P25 and also produced full and final settlement letter marked as Ex.P.26. Pw.2 in his examination in chief affidavit deposed that, the deceased was working as Software Engineer in their company. Further deposed that deceased doing work in their company from 8-4-2015 and he was under Probationary period. Ex.P24 Pay slip disclose that the deceased drawn the Gross salary of Rs.23,208/- and Net pay of Rs.22,021/- in the month of January 2016. After perusal of the evidence of the Pw.2 it appears that, the job of the deceased was not confirmed and he was under
the probationary period. Further, the said company is not undertaken by the Govt., it is a private sector. Therefore, this tribunal has not considered the entire payment as stated in the salary slip. However, considering the educational certificates, and considering the job of the deceased i.e., working in a private company and age and avocation of the deceased and after deducting the tax and other deductions, this Tribunal is taken reasonable earning of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- p.m.
17 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016
23. With regard to the loss of future prospectus is concern, the Apex court in the earlier Judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh & Ors Vs Rajbir Singh & Ors) also taken note of the fact that, self employed persons are also entitled for future prospectus and the said Judgment was referred to larger bench and the Apex court in the recent judgment passed in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC in the case of National Ins., com. Ltd., V/.s Pranay sethi and others, held that, In case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component
24. Here the 1st Petitioner is father, Petitioner No.2 is the mother and the Petitioner No.3 is the Sister of the deceased. Here the Petitioners have not stated anything about income and avocation of the Petitioner No.1 i.e., 18 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 father of the deceased. Hence, Petitioner No.1 being the father, is not entitled for any compensation under the head loss of dependency. Further, the Petitioner No.2 being mother and Petitioner No.3 being unmarried sister of the deceased are only considered as dependants on the deceased. So, relying upon the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Varma and others - Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & another), out of the salary of the deceased 50% (as the deceased is a Bachelor) has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
a) Income of deceased is taken at Rs.15,000/-
b) Adding future prospects of 40% to the actual income: Rs.15,000/- + 6,000/- (40%)= Rs.21,000/-.
c) Deduction towards personal expenses; Rs.21,000/- - 10,500/- (50%) = Rs.10,500/-.
Therefore this tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/-. Which comes as under:-
Rs.10,500 X 12 X 18 = Rs.22,68,000/-
25. Here the Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the Parents and Petitioner No.3 is the unmarried sister of the deceased, they have lost love, affection and future support of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- each. In total the Petitioners
19 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 are entitled for Rs.90,000/- under the head loss of love and affection,
26. The Petitioners claiming that, they have spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased. But they have not produced any document in this respect. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held in the case of National Insurance Company ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and Others., reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC, that with regarding the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Therefore, in view of Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is just and proper to award a Rs.15,000/- under the head funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased. Further the Petitioners are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of estate.
27. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence of Pw.1, it is just and proper to grant compensation as follows:
20 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 Sl.
Particulars Amount
No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 22,68,000-00
2. Towards Love and affection Rs. 90,000-00
3. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00
4. Towards funeral and obsequies Rs. 15,000-00
ceremonies
Total Rs. 23,88,000-00
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.23,88,000/-.
28. The counsel of the Respondent argued that, the amount settled by the deceased company and paid to the legal heirs of the deceased has to be deduct in the compensation amount. Per-contra the counsel for the Petitioner argued that, the amount payable in any benefits and settlement by the company is not deductable from the compensation payable under the motor vehicles Act. In this regard I have gone through the citations, cited by the Petitioners counsel as under:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2013 ACJ 1441, held that, Quantum - deductions - Provident fund, pension and insurance - Whether amount received under Provident fund, Pension and Insurance are 21 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 pecuniary advantage within the Periphery of MV. Act and are liable for deductions - Held: No. Further held that, compensate advantage cannot be termed as pecuniary advantage.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held in the case of National Ins. Co., ltd., V/s Rekha Ben and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 205. that, Loss of Income would not be set up because of claimants earned living, source from which compensation on account of accident is claimed and the source from which compensate employment is offered is completely separate and there is no coercion between these source.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, held in the case of Rajeshwari.G.Bhuyar & others, V/s Sindhu Travels and another, reported in 2017 ACJ 87 that, Deduction of group personal accident insurance policy - whether the amount received by the claimant under the accident insurance policy taken by the employer of the deceased is deductable from the compensation payable under M.V. Act - Held: No.
30. Therefore, in view of the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and also Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru the claimants are not liable for deductions of the full and final settlement amount from the compensation awarded by this Tribunal to the Petitioners. Therefore the Petitioners are entitle to claim the entire compensation amount.
22 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016
31. Interest:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015 (arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs. Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout & Ors vs Sathya Pradyumna Mohapatra & Ors), (2011) 4 SCC 481: (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Muncipal council of Delhi Vs Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragidy and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., from the date of application till the date of payment. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. In view of settled rate of interest, 9% is justified and not on higher side. Accordingly the petitioner is entitled to interest @ 9% pa.,
32. Liability:-
As already observed above, 1st Respondent is the R.C. owner and Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Respondent no.2 taken specific contention that the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased. Though the Respondent side examined 3 witnesses, they deposed that after the accident, offending vehicle was seized by the Police and they have not challenged the Charge sheet.
23 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 Further admitted that, the investigator has not recorded the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against driver of TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-01/TC-164, due to his rash and negligent driving and caused accident. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. Further Respondent no.2 being insurer of the vehicle is primarily held liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 Partly in the Affirmative.
33. Issue No.4: After having answered Issue No.1 to 3 as supra I hold that, the petition filed by the petitioner 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 hereby Partly allowed with cost as hereunder.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.23,88,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
24 SCH-19
MVC. 2037 / 2016
The Respondent 1 and 2 jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners. Further Respondent no.2 being Insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Compensation amount together with 9% interest within Sixty days, from the date of this order.
The Petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,88,000/-, with interest. Further, Petitioner No.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- each, with interest.
After deposit, out of total compensation amount 50% each, with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner No.1 to 3 with proper identification and the remaining amount shall be deposited in FD in any nationalized bank in the name of Petitioner No.1 to 3 respectively, for a period of Three years., with a liberty to withdraw accrued interest periodically.
25 SCH-19 MVC. 2037 / 2016 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed and computerized by her, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of March 2018) (DYAVAPPA. S.B.) XV ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses examined for Petitioner:
Pw.1 : Sri.Dilip Kumar Singh Pw.2 : Sri.Bhavani Konala Pw.3 : Sri.Ramesh.
List of documents marked for 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 Sketch
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.6 : True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P.7 : True copy of PM Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.9 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card
of the Petitioner No.1
Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Election ID card
of the petitioner No.1
26 SCH-19
MVC. 2037 / 2016
Ex.P.11 : Notarized copy of Election ID card of the deceased Ex.P.12 : Notarized copy of Company ID card of the deceased Ex.P.13 : Notarized copy of SSLC Certificate of the deceased Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of SSLC Marks Card of the deceased Ex.P.15 : Notarized copy of PUC Certificate of the deceased Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of PUC Marks Card of the deceased Ex.P.17 : Notarized copy of Provisional Degree Certificate of the deceased Ex.P.18 : Notarized copy of Degree Marks Card of the deceased Ex.P.19 : Letter of authority Ex.P.20 : Letter of full and final settlement of deceased N. Pradeep chauhan.
Ex.P.21 : Offer letter of the company Ex.P.22 : Appointment letter dated 8.11.2014.
Ex.P.23 To Ex.P.25 : Pay slip for 3 months Ex.P.26 : Full and final settlement 27.01.2017 Ex.P.27 : Letter of authority Ex.P.28 : Benefit payment details of the deceased.
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent:
Rw.1 : Sri.Muniraju B.V.
Rw.2 : Sri.T.Murthy
Rw.3 : Sri.Thrinethra.M.N.
27 SCH-19
MVC. 2037 / 2016
List of Documents marked for Respondent:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter,
Ex.R2 : Case sheet,
Ex.R3 : Certified copy of Medico legal register
extract,
Ex.R4 : Authorization letter,
Ex.R5 : Investigation report by Investigator.
Ex.R6 : One letter
(DYAVAPPA. S.B.)
XV ASCJ & Member, MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.