Bangalore District Court
Smt. Lakshmibai vs The Managing Director on 27 January, 2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & XV ADDL. JUDGE, SCCH19,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 27th day of January 2021
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.6125 / 2019
Petitioners:1. Smt. Lakshmibai,
W/o Mahendra Singh,
Aged about 31 years,
2. Mr. Ganesh .M.
S/o Mahendra Singh,
Aged about 15 years,
3. Kum. Bhavani. M.
D/o Mahendra Singh,
Aged about 13 years,
All are residing at:
#251, KEB Layout,
Vinayaka Layout, Hosakote,
Bangalore Rural District 562114.
(Petitioners No.2 and 3 being a
Minors represented by their
Mother and Natural Guardian
2 SCH19
MVC.6125/2019
Smt.Lakshmibai W/o Mahendra
Singh.)
(By pleader Sri.T. Manjunatha)
V/s
Respondents: The Managing Director,
(APSRTC) No.15,
Kempe Gowda Road,
Mejestic, Bangalore 560009.
And also at:
The Regional Manager,
APSRTC Bus station,
Chittoor, Chittoor Urban.
Andhra Pradesh.
(Owner of the Bus No.AP03/Z0180)
(By pleader Sri.D.Vijaya Kumar)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have filed this petition U/sec.166 of M.V. Act, 1989 claiming compensation amount of Rs.30,00,000/ in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioners are as under:
3 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 According to the petitioners, that on 0709 2019 at about 130 p.m, when the husband of the 1st Petitioner i.e., deceased Sri.B.Mahendra Singh was crossing the Kolar - Bangalore, NH75 road, slowly and carefully near Maruthi Car show room, Hosakote Town, at that time, one APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life came at high speed and dashed to the deceased. As a result of forced impact, the deceased was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. Thereafter the deadbody was shifted to Govt., Hospital, Hosakote and after post mortem, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners and they have shifted to their native place and spent more Rs.1,00,000/ towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies expenses of the deceased.
3. It is further stated that, at the time of accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and 4 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 was the only earning member of the family and aged about 41 years and he was a Head Cook by Profession and earned Rs.20,000/ p.m. and contribute his entire income for the maintenance of his family. It is further stated that, due to sudden death of the deceased, the Petitioners are undergoing mental shock, mental agony and also facing financial difficulties. It is further stated that, the accident occurred purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180. Hence, the Hosakote Police have registered a case against the driver of said bus in Cr.No.313/2019 for the offence punishable U/sec.279, and 304(A) of IPC. Hence, they prayed to grant compensation.
4. After Service of notice, Respondent has appeared through their counsel and filed written statement.
5. Brief averments of the written statement of the Respondent as under:
5 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 The Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
Further while admitting about owner of APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180 and denied the entire averments of the petition. Further taken contention that, this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition, as the Petitioners are residents of Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural Dist., Further taken contention that, the offending vehicle is not involved in the accident and driver of the said bus was not at all caused any accident. Further stated that the accident occurred due to his negligence of the deceased, as he was sustained injuries by involvement of some other vehicle. Further stated that, there was no zebra crossing at the spot of the accident. Hence, this accident occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased. Further, this Respondent denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It is further stated that, claim of the petitioners is excessive 6 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 and exorbitant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. Based on the above pleadings, this Tribunal has framed the following: ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, on 07092019 at about 130 p.m, when the husband of the 1 st Petitioner i.e., deceased Sri.B.Mahendra Singh was crossing the Kolar - Bangalore, NH75 road, slowly and carefully near Maruthi Car show room, Hosakote Town, Bangalore Rural Dist., at that time, one APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life came at high speed and dashed to the deceased. As a result of forced impact, the deceased was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and 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?
7 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019
7. In order to prove the case, Petitioners side one witness examined as Pw1 and and produced in all 12 documents marked as Ex.P1 to 12. On the other hand, Respondents side two witness examined as RW.1 and 2. They have not produced any documents on their behalf.
8. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the materials available on hand.
9. For the following reasons, I given the answer to the above Issues as under: Issue No.1: In the Partly Affirmative, Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the Petitioner that on 07092019 at about 130 p.m, when the husband of the 1st Petitioner i.e., deceased Sri.B.Mahendra Singh was crossing the Kolar-Bangalore, NH75 road, near Maruthi Car show room, Hosakote Town, at that time, driver of one APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z 8 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 0180 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and dashed to the deceased. As a result of forced impact, the deceased was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot hence they prays for grant the compensation. In the Written statement Respondent have denied the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle and taken the contention that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased and there is no any fault of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. The Petitioner No.1 Smt.Lakshmi Bai examined herself as PW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In her Chief examination she has reiterated the averments of the Petition and produced the Certified copy of FIR marked as Ex.P1, produced Certified copy of Complaint marked as Ex.P2, produced Certified Copy of spot Mahazar marked as Ex.P3, produced Certified copy of Rough sketch marked as Ex.P4, produced Certified copy of IMV report 9 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 marked as Ex.P5, produced Certified copy of Inquest marked as Ex.P6, produced Certified copy of PM report marked as Ex.P7, produced copy of Charge sheet marked as Ex.P8, produced Certified copy of Election ID Card marked as Ex.P9, and also produced three Notarized copies of Aadhar cards marked as Ex.P10 to 12. In the cross examination the Respondent counsel specifically suggesting that, offending vehicle was not dashed to the deceased and falsely implicated in this case and the accident was occurred due to negligence of the deceased, but same is denied.
12. Respondent side one witness Sri.P.Jayachandra the Driver of the offending vehicle examined as RW.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In his Chief examination he has reiterated the averments of the written statement. Further deposed that, where the alleged accident has taken place there is no zebra crossing and there is no human being or animals should enter the national high way.
10 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 In the Cross examination admitting that, the bus was seized by the police with respect to the accident, which dashed to the person and have not filed any complaint about non involvement of the bus in the accident. Further admitted that, after completion of the investigation the I O has submit the charge sheet against him.
13. Another witness Smt. D.Komala the Conductor of the offending vehicle examined as RW.2 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. In her Chief examination she has reiterated the averments of the written statement. Further deposed that, where the alleged accident has taken place there is no zebra crossing and there is no human being or animals should enter the national high way. Hence there is no question of any human being crossing the national high way. In the Cross examination admitting that, the bus was not reached to the Bangaluru bus stand and not know the reason.
11 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019
14. The counsel of the Petitioner has argued that on the very same day of the accident, the complaint was lodged and the police have seized the bus with respect to the accident and the said bus was dashed to the deceased. The counsel of the Respondent argued that, the bus was not involved in the accident and there is no documents about the involvement in the accident, hence mere seized the bus by the police is not sufficient ground to prove the involvement of the bus in the accident. Further argued that the Petitioners have not examined any eye witnesses to the accident. Hence, the Respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
15. I have perused the documents produced by the Petitioners it disclosed that the Hosakote Police have registered the case in Crime No.313/2019 against the driver of APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 304A of IPC on the basis of the complaint lodged by the Complainant. After submitting the FIR, the police have 12 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 conducting the spot mahazer and prepared the Spot sketch of the accident took place and also seized the offending bus. After conducting the inquest of the deadbody and received the PM report and after received the IMV report and also after completion of the investigation, the I.O has submitted the Charge sheet against the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279, 304(A) of IPC.
16. The main contention of the Respondent is that the police have falsely implicated the offending vehicle and said vehicle was not involved in the accident. I have perused the documents produced by the Petitioners it disclosed that, on the very same day of the accident, within two hours the complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180 and the police have seized the said bus on the very same time within the five Kilo meters from the accident took place and same is admitted by the 13 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 driver of the offending vehicle in the Cross examination. In the complaint clearly mentioned the vehicle number and the complaint was lodged by one eye witness of the accident took place. Though the Respondent have examined the driver and conductor of the offending vehicle, but in the Cross examination admitting that, they have not challenged the charge sheet and also not filed any complaint about non involvement of the bus in the accident. Therefore, mere examined the driver and conductor is not helpful to disprove the Petitioners case and denial of the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. It is pertain to note that, even after seized the bus and after submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the bus, the Respondent or the driver of the bus were not challenged the complaint and charge sheet and also they have not taken any action against the complainant and police about falsely implicated the vehicle in the accident. Further, Counsel for the Respondent nothing has been eliciting about 14 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 denial of the accident and also involvement of the offending vehicle.
17. After seized the vehicle, the Respondent officials have got released the vehicle from concerned Police station. Further it is pertain to note that respondent has not denied the police documents and in the cross examination the RW 1 has clearly admitted that the offending vehicle was seized by the police and after completion of the investigation the I.O has submitted the charge sheet against him. Hence, there is no grounds to denial of the accident and involvement of offending vehicle. The I.O has investigated the matter and during the course of investigation seized the vehicle and after thorough investigation and collecting the materials he has submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence the Respondent is failed to prove that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in this case and it is proved that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
15 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019
18. Further I have perused the spot Mahazar and Rough sketch of the accident took place it disclosed that, the deceased was crossing the Kolar Bangaluru NH road near Maruthi Car show room, Hosakote, at that time the offending vehicle came from Kolar towards Bengaluru and dashed to the deceased. After perusal of Sketch it clearly disclosed that the accident occurred near the divider of the main road, therefore in case if the deceased was crossing the road with observing the vehicles on the road definitely the accident could not be happened. When the pedestrian crossing over the road at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing the responsibility for causing the accident more often then not will have to be save pedestrian along with the vehicle driver. If at all the deceased could have seen the offending vehicle and allowed it to pass before proceeding to his destiny, the accident would not have occurred. In this regard Respondent counsel has relied one Judgmentof Hon'ble High Court of 16 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 Karnataka, Bengaluru in the case of Mrs.Leelamkika V/s BMTC in MFA 5546/2018 C/w MFA 6746/2018 (MV), wherein held that, As aforesaid, it is the bounden duty of the pedestrian to look out for the oncoming traffic from all directions before crossing the road, where there was no designated crossing (Zebra crossing) for the pedestrian. Pedestrians cannot cross the road at their convenience more particularly where the flow of traffic is high. Hence, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate to fix the contributory negligence at 30% on the part of the injured/claimant.
Further, in another one Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1104 in the case of Koosappa Poojari V/s K.Sadabba and others., where in held that, Motor vehicles Act 1988 (59/88)Section 173 (1) contributory Negligence claimant has crossed the road where he was not supposed to crossHELDcertain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him if a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he can not claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accidentpedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver.
17 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 Therefore, herein the deceased is also responsible for causing the accident. However, the respondents have not denied the police documents and if the driver of offending vehicle was observed the pedestrian on the road and drive the vehicle with cautious and careful manner, definitely could be avoid the accident and respondent failed to prove the sole negligence of the deceased in the accident. Hence it is clear that the deceased and driver of offending vehicle have not followed the traffic rules, but major negligence taken on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, apportion of the negligence on the part of the deceased is taken at 10% and 90% on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Partly Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: The Petitioners claiming compensation amount of Rs.30,00,000/ with respect to death of Sri.B.Mahendra Singh. in a road traffic accident. The Petitioners have stated that, due to sudden death of the deceased they 18 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 have lost love, affection and companion and future support of the deceased. Further they were undergoing great mental agony and hardship. Hence they prayed to grant compensation.
20. The Petitioners have produced notarized copy of Election ID card of the deceased to prove his age which is marked as Ex.P9. On perusal of said document which clearly disclosed the date of birth of the deceased as 15071977. This accident occurred in the year 2019, so age of the deceased at the time of accident is 42 years. Then the proper multiplier is 14.
21. The Petitioners stated that, Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and Head Cook by Profession and was earning a sum of Rs.30,000/ p.m. and used his entire income for the maintenance of his family. But the Petitioners have not produced any document to prove the income of the deceased. As per notarized copy of the Election ID card, the 19 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 deceased was residing at Hosakote. However, considering the age and occupation of the deceased, this tribunal has taken the notitonal income of the deceased at Rs.12,000/ p.m.
22. 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"
20 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 Herein this case, the deceased was aged about 42 years. Hence the Petitioners are entitled to claim 25% of future prospectus as per above citation, due to death of the deceased in the road traffic accident.
23. It is pertinent to note that, the Petitioner No.1 is the wife and Petitioner No.2 & 3 are minor children of the deceased, hence they are considered as Dependants on the income of 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 1/3rd has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased.
a) Income of the deceased is taken at Rs. 12,00000
b) Addition of 25% income towards future Rs. 15,00000 prospectus:
Rs.12,000/ + 3,000/ (25%) = Deduction towards personal expenses: Rs. 10,00000 Rs.15,000/ Rs.5,000/ (1/ 3rd)
c) 21 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 Therefore this tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/, which comes as under: Rs.10,000 X 12 X 14 = Rs.16,80,000/ Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,80,000/ under the head loss of dependency.
24. Here the Petitioner No.1 is the wife of deceased, she has lost her Husband at age of 31 years. Regarding consortium, this tribunal has relied upon the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403, in which it is held as, "Words and phrases -Consortium - Consortium is the right of spouse to the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and sexual relations with his or her mate".
Hence, it is not possible to compensate the loss of love and affection of the deceased with the Petitioner No.1 by compensate in quantum of amount. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC 22 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 (between National Insurance co. ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others.) held that, Reasonable figures on 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 the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and by considering the loss of love, affection and care from her husband, this tribunal has award the reasonable compensation of Rs.40,000/ under the head loss of consortium.
25. The Petitioner No.2 & 3 are the children of the deceased, they have lost love, affection and future support of the deceased. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was held in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors., (Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (civil) 3192/2018) 23 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the Principles of awarding compensation under "Loss of consortium"
as laid down in Pranay Sethi (Supra).
In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs.40,000/ each, for loss of Filial Consortium.
24 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 Hence, the Petitioner No.2 & 3 are entitled compensation for an amount of Rs.40,000/ each under the head loss of Filial Consortium. In total the Petitioners No.2 and 3 are entitled for amount of Rs.80,000/ under this head.
26. The Petitioners claiming that, they have spent Rs.1,00,000/ towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased. But they have not produced any document in this respect. Considering the expenses towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC (between National Insurance co. ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others.) it is just and proper to award a Rs.15,000/ under this head. Further the Petitioners are also entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/ under the head loss of estate.
25 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019
27. Considering oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, it is just and proper to grant compensation as follows:
Sl.
Under the Heads of: Amount
No.
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 16,80,00000
2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,00000
3. Towards loss of Filial Rs. 80,00000
Consortium.
4. Towards funeral and Rs. 15,00000
obsequies ceremonies
5. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,00000
Total Rs. 18,30,00000
The Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.18,30,000/. As tribunal
has already held that accident was occurred due to contributory negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and deceased. Hence the deceased negligence part is taken at 10% and the driver of offending vehicle negligence is taken at 90% respectively. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation as follows:
Rs.18,30,000/ 1,83,000/ (10%) = Rs.16,47,000/.
26 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019
28. Interest:
In so far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in MFA.No.103557/2016 (between Sriram General Insurance Co. ltd., V/s Smt. Lakshmi & others, dd 20032018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC the rate of interest that can be awarded on Judgments cannot be more than 6% p.a. and that since Sec.149 of M.V. Act provides for the interest on Judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim Petitions has to be 6% p.a. and not more than that. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
29. Liability: As per the petition the Respondent being OwnercumInsurer of APSRTC bus bearing Reg.No.AP03/Z0180. As already discussed in the Issue No.1 it is proved that the accident was occurred due to major rash and negligent driving 27 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 of the offending vehicle. Accordingly Respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner with interest and costs. Hence, I given the answer to the Issue No.2 in the Partly Affirmative.
30. Issue No.3: for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby Partly allowed with cost as hereunder.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.16,47,000/ with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent is liable to pay aforesaid compensation amount to the Petitioners. Further, the Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount together with 6% interest within Sixty days, from the date of this Order.
28 SCH19 MVC.6125/2019 The Petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,47,000/ with interest. The Petitioner No.2 & 3 are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/ each with interest.
After deposit, out of awarded share compensation amount 60% with interest shall be release in favour of the Petitioner No.1 with proper identification and the remaining their share amount with interest shall be deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 in FD in any nationalized bank, for a period of Three years, with a liberty to withdraw accrued interest periodically.
After deposit, entire compensation amount with interest shall be deposit in the name of Petitioner No.2 in FD in any nationalized bank, at the choice of Petitioner No.1, for a period of five years, with a liberty to withdraw accrued interest periodically.
After deposit, entire compensation amount with interest shall be deposit in the name of Petitioner No.3 in FD in any nationalized bank, at the choice of Petitioner No.1, till the attains the age of majority, with a liberty to withdraw accrued interest periodically.
29 SCH19
MVC.6125/2019
Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on Computer, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 27 th day of January, 2021) (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 : Smt.Lakshmi Bai List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1: Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P2: Certified copy of Complaint
Ex.P3: Certified Copy of spot Mahazar
Ex.P4: Certified copy of Rough sketch
Ex.P5: Certified copy of IMV report
Ex.P6: Certified copy of Inquest report
Ex.P7: Certified copy of PM report
Ex.P8: Certified copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P9: Certified copy of Election ID Card
Ex.P10
to P12: Three Notarized copies of Aadhar
cards
30 SCH19
MVC.6125/2019
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent:
Rw.1 : Sri.P.Jayachandra Rw.2 : Smt. D. Komala
List of Documents marked for Respondent:
Nil (DYAVAPPA. S.B.) XV ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes,