Bangalore District Court
Mudukappa Karegowdara vs Sukanya. L on 22 March, 2022
BEFORE THE MACT & XV ADDL., JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (SCCH19)
Dated this the 22nd day of March 2022
Present: Smt. RajeshwariJPuranik,
B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru
MVC. No.3391/2020
Petitioners: 1. Mudukappa Karegowdara,
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 53 years.
2. Sundaramma,
D/o Bharamajja,
W/o Mudukappa Karegowdara,
Aged about 49 years,'
3. Lankesh. K.
S/o Mudukappa,
Aged about 31 years,'
all are R/at:
No.104, 6th Main,
Jnanaganga Nagar,
near Vishwavidyalaya,
Bangalore.
(Pleader by Sri.M. Subramani)
V/s
2 SCCH - 19
MVC. 3391 / 2020
Respondents:1. Sukanya. L.
W/D/o Devaraju,
No.17, 1st Cross,
Byraveshwara Nagar,
Sunkadakatte,
V.N.Post,
Bangalore - 560091.
(Owner of the Crane bearing
Reg.No.KA41/P3788).
(Exparte)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.
ltd., T.P. HUB, Regional Office
No.44/4, Leo Shopping
Complex, Residency road cross
Bangalore - 25.
Policy No.423301/31/2020/15672
valid from 140320 to 13032021
(By pleader Sri.B.T.Rudra Murthy)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have filed this petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 for claiming compensation of Rs.75,00,000/.
2. The brief facts of the Petitioner case are as follows:
According to the Petitioners that, on 10 062020 at about 120 p.m, son of the
3 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 Petitioner No.1 and 2 i.e., the deceased Muniyappa was crossing the road near Gayathri temple, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru at that time, driver of one Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P 3788 drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life, came in reverse manner at high speed and dashed against one Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA 05/AD2196 and further dashed against one Santro Car bearing reg.No.AP10/AU9641 and then Maruthi Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KA 02/MG4599 and also dashed to the deceased, who was crossing the road and then dashed to wall of one shop. As a result of forced impact, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. Thereafter, deadbody was shifted to Victoria Hospital for post mortem and after the post mortem, deadbody was handed over to the Petitioners and they have performed the last rites and obsequies of the deceased, for which they have spent morethan Rs.3,50,000/ towards funeral expenses and other expenses.
3. It is further stated that, at the time of accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and 4 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 aged about 32 years and working as Customer Support Executive, at VindhyaE Informedia Pvt., ltd., at Bangalore and earning a sum of Rs.15,377/ per month and contributing his entire earnings for the family maintenance. It is further stated that, deceased was the only bread winner in the family. Due to the sudden death of their only bread winner, the Petitioners lost love and affection of the deceased and are undergoing great mental shock and mental agony. The petitioners also facing great financial difficulties.
4. It is further stated that, the accident in question purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788, against whom the Kamakshipalya Traffic police have registered a case in Crime No.86/2020 Punishable under section 279, 304(A) of IPC. It is further stated that, the Respondent no.1 is the RC Owner and the Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, prayed to grant compensation.
5 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020
5. In pursuance to the notice, Respondent No.1 did not appear before the tribunal and hence he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through their Counsel and filed written statement.
6. Brief averments of the written statement of Respondent No.2 as under:
The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. While admitting about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788, this respondent restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further this Respondent took the contention that, the driver of offending vehicle did not posses valid and effective D.L. to the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Hence, there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Further denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and also expenses incurred towards funeral and obsequies of the deceased. Further they stated that, the compensation claimed by the Petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and 6 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 fanciful. Hence, with other contentions they prayed to dismiss the petition.
7. On basis of the Pleadings and materials, this tribunal has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, on 10062020 at about 120 p.m, when the son of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 i.e., the deceased Muniyappa was crossing the road near Gayathri temple, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru at that time, one Crane bearing Reg.No.KA 41/P3788 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life, came in reverse manner at high speed and dashed against one Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA05/AD2196 and further dashed against one Santro Car bearing reg.No.AP10/AU9641 and Maruthi Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KA02/MG4599 and also dashed to the deceased, who was crossing the road and then dashed to wall of one shop. As a result of forced impact, the deceased fell down 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?
8. In order to prove the case, Petitioners side two witnesses examined as PW.1 & 2. They have produced in all 32 documents marked as
7 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 side examined one witness as RW.1 and produced 5 documents marked as Ex.R1 to 5.
9. Heard the arguments of both side and Perused the materials available on hand.
10. For the following reasons, I given answer to the above Issues as under: Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the Petitioners that, on 10062020 at about 120 p.m, son of the Petitioner No.1 and 2 i.e., the deceased Muniyappa was crossing the road near Gayathri temple, Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru at that time, driver of one Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788 drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner came in reverse at high speed and dashed against one Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA05/AD2196 and 8 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 further dashed against one Santro Car and then Maruthi Omni Car and also dashed to the deceased, who was crossing the road and thereafter dashed to wall of one shop. As a result of forced impact, the deceased fell down and died on the spot.
12. The Petitioner No.1 Sri. Mudukappa Karegowdara, examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the contention of petition and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 documents. Ex.P1 is the Copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P2 is the Copy of the Complaint, Ex.P3 is the Copy of the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4 is the Copy of the Spot sketch, Ex.P5 is the Copy of the Inquest report, Ex.P6 is the Copy of the IMV report, Ex.P7 is the Copy of the P.M. report, Ex.P8 is the Copy of Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P9 is the Copy of reply to the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P10 is the copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P11 to 14 are the Notarized copy of Aadhaar cards, Ex.P15 is the Notarized copy of SSLC marks card, Ex.P16 is the Notarized copy of PUC marks card, Ex.P17 & 18 are the Notarized copy of D.Ed marks card, Ex.P19 is the Notarized 9 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 copy of D.Ed certificate, Ex.P20 is the Notarized copy of Diploma in computer course certificate, Ex.P21 is Correspondence course identity card, Ex.P22 is the appointment letter, Ex.P23 to 28 are payslips and Ex.P29 is the bank statement.
13. One witness Sri.Naveen Tharayingal the H.R.Manager of Vindya E informedia Pvt., ltd., examined as PW.2 and filed examination in chief affidavit and in his affidavit deposed that, one Mr.Muniyappa was working I their company as Customer Support executive and he was paid a salary of Rs.15,377/ p.m. and every year his salary would have raised according to the percentage slabs of the company. Further he has produced 3 documents marked as Ex.P30 to 32. Ex.P30 is the notarized copy of ID Card, Ex.P31 is the appointment letter of deceased and Ex.P32 is the pay slips from Jan to June 2020. In the Cross examination deposed that, the deceased had completed his probationary period.
14. Respondent side one witness Smt. Parimala the Deputy Manager in 2nd 10 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 Respondent company examined as RW.1 and reiterated the averments made in the Written statement. Further produced 5 documents which are marked as Ex.R1 to 5. Ex.R1 is the Authorization letter, Ex.R2 is the copy of Insurance policy, Ex.R3 is the letter, Ex.R4 is the postal receipt and Ex.R5 is the returned postal cover. In the Cross examination admitted that, they have obtained the copy of D.L. i.e., standing in the name of driver and said D.L. is valid upto 01062039 and it is only for non transport.
15. On perusal of the Charge sheet it discloses that, the Kamakshi Palya Traffic police have registered a case against driver of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788, in Crime No.86/2020 for the offence punishable U/sec.279, 337, 304(A) 427 of IPC and Section 134 (A & B), R/w sec.187, 3(1), 181, 5, 180 of IMV Act. So it is clear that, as on the date of the accident the driver of offending vehicle does not posses valid D.L.
16. In the petition for compensation U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act.1988 the 11 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 claimant has to prove the incident only on the preponderance of the probabilities and standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble APEX Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR(Civil) 319 Kausum and others V/s Satbir and others.
The socalled reason that as the name of Dheeraj Kumar was not mentioned in the FIR, so it was not possible for Dheeraj Kumar to see the incident, is not a proper assessment of the factsituation in this case. It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The Court must keep this distinction in mind.
10. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of this Court in Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, in which the relevant observation on this point has been made and which is very pertinent and is quoted below: "In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of 12 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
After careful scrutiny of Ex.P1 F.I.R. Ex.P2 Complaint, Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4 Copy Spot sketch, Ex.P5 Inquest report, Ex.P6 IMV report, Ex.P7 P.M. report, Ex.P8 Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P9 Reply to the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act and Ex.P10 Charge sheet, it appears that, driver of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788, drove the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the deceased and caused the accident. Therefore considering all these aspects I come to conclusion that, the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Accordingly I answer Issue no.1 in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2: The Petitioners claiming compensation amount of Rs.75,00,000/ with respect to death of Mr.Muniyappa in a road traffic accident. The Petitioners have stated that, due to sudden death of the deceased they lost love, affection and future support of the 13 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 deceased and also they were undergoing great mental agony and hardship. The deceased was the sole bread earner of the family.
18. To prove the age of the deceased, the Petitioners produced notarized copy of SSLC Marks card which is marked as Ex.P15. As per said document, date of birth of the deceased is shown as 20071987. Hence the age of the deceased is taken into consideration as 33 years at the time of accident. Then the proper multiplier is 16.
19. The Petitioners stated that, prior to the date of accident the deceased was hale, healthy and working as Customer Support Executive, at Vindhya E Informedia Pvt., ltd., at Bangalore and earning a sum of Rs.15,377/ per month and used his entire income for the maintenance of his family. To prove the income and avocation the Petitioners produced appointment letter of the deceased which is marked as Ex.P22, it discloses that, the deceased was appointed as Customer Support Executive and date of his joining was 01092018. They have also 14 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 produced pay slips which are marked as Ex.P23 to 28.
20. The Petitioners also examined Sri.Naveen Tharayingal the H.R.Manager of Vindya E informedia Pvt., ltd., as PW.2 and in his affidavit deposed that, one Mr.Muniyappa was working in their company as Customer Support executive and he was paid a salary of Rs.15,377/ p.m. Further he has produced 3 documents marked as Ex.P30 to 32. Ex.P30 is the notarized copy of ID Card, Ex.P31 is the appointment letter of deceased and Ex.P32 is the pay slips from Jan to June 2020.
21. The pay slips for the month of Jan - 2020 to May2020 discloses the gross salary of the deceased as Rs.15,377/ p.m. and net pay of the deceased as 14,151/ p.m. The Petitioners also produced the Ex.P17 & 18 Notarized copy of D.Ed marks card, Ex.P19 Notarized copy of D.Ed certificate and Ex.P20 Notarized copy of Diploma in computer course certificate, Therefore, by considering the evidence of PW.2, occupation and Qualification of the deceased and also by considering the documents 15 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 produced by the Petitioners this Tribunal took the monthly salary of the deceased Rs.15,000/ 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 (between National Insurance co. ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others.) "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"
Herein this case, the deceased was aged about 33 years. Hence the Petitioners are entitled to 16 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 claim 40% 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 Petitioners are Parents and brother of the deceased. In the Cross examination the PW.1 i.e., father of the deceased admitted that he is doing Coolie work and Petitioner No.3 is younger brother of the deceased who is aged about 31 years and major. Hence the Petitioner No.2 being mother of the deceased is only considered as dependent on the income of the deceased. So relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Varma and others -Vs Delhi Transport Corporation & another), out of the salary of the deceased 50% has to be deducted towards Personal expenses of the deceased as the deceased is the Unmarried / Bachelor.
a) Income of deceased Is taken at Rs. 15,00000
b) Addition of 40% income towards Rs.
future prospectus @ Rs.15,000/ + 21,00000 6,000/ (40%)
c) Deduction towards personal expenses:
Rs. 10,50000
Out of Rs.21,000/ (50%) =
Rs.10,500/
17 SCCH - 19
MVC. 3391 / 2020
Therefore this tribunal taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,500/, which comes as under: Rs.10,500 X 12 X 16 = Rs.20,16,000/ Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,16,000/ under the head loss of dependency.
24. The Petitioners are the Parents and brother of the deceased, they 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) 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.
18 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 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.
Hence, the Petitioners are entitled compensation for an amount of Rs.40,000/ each under the head loss of Filial Consortium. In total the Petitioners are entitled for Rs.1,20,000/ under this head.
25. The Petitioners claiming that, they have spent Rs.3,50,000/ towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies of the deceased. but they have not produced any
19 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 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.
26. 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. 20,16,00000
2. Towards Filial Consortium Rs. 1,20,00000
3. Towards funeral and Rs. 15,00000
obsequies ceremonies
4. Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,00000
Total Rs. 21,66,00000
The Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.21,66,000/.
20 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020
27. 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.
28. Liability: As per the petition, Respondent No.1 is the Owner and Respondent 2 is the Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Crane bearing Reg.No.KA 41/P3788. As already discussed in the issue no.1 it is proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
21 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020
29. The Respondent No.2 took specific contention that, the driver of Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788 do not having valid D.L. to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident, hence there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Further they argued that, the driver of offending vehicle has been Charge sheeted U/sec.279, 337, 304(A) 427 of IPC and Section 134 (A & B), R/w sec.187, 3(1), 181, 5, 180 of IMV Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition against this Respondent.
30. On perusal of the Charge sheet it discloses that, the Kamakshi Palya Traffic police have registered a case against driver of the Crane bearing Reg.No.KA41/P3788, in Crime No.86/2020 for the offence punishable U/sec.279, 337, 304(A) 427 of IPC and Section 134 (A & B), R/w sec.187, 3(1), 181, 5, 180 of IMV Act. So it is clear that, as on the date of the accident the driver of offending vehicle does not posses valid D.L.
31. Perused the following citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.
22 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020
a) In the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, MFA.No.22781/2012 C/w MFA.No.22539/2012 (M.V).
b) In the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, MFA.No.23810/2009 C/w MFA.No.23035/2009 (M.V).
c) In the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeals Nos., 72207221 of 2011.
Here this tribunal relied upon the citation in the case of M/s National Ins., Com., ltd., V/s Laxmi Narin Dhut and another case between Pappu and others V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba and another., wherein their lordships held that, in case of violation of any policy condition or driver not having the D.L. in such cases, "the Insurance company at first instance shall pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law." Hence the Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Further the Respondent No.2 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily held liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the 23 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 Petitioners. Thereafter the Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, I given the answer to the Issue No.2 in the Partly Affirmative.
32. Issue No.3: for the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed by the Petitioner 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.21,66,000/. with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent No.1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 being insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation together with 6% interest within Sixty days, from the date of this order. Thereafter the Respondent No.2 is at liberty to recover the said award amount from the Respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle.
24 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 The Petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,66,000/, with interest.
The Petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/ with interest.
The Petitioner No.3 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ with interest.
After deposit, out of awarded share compensation amount 50% each, with interest shall be release in favour of the Petitioner No.1 & 2 with proper identification and the remaining their share amount with interest shall be deposited in their name in FD in any nationalized bank, for a period of Three years, with a liberty to withdraw the accrued interest periodically.
After deposit, entire share compensation amount with interest shall be released in favour of the Petitioner No.3 with proper identification and document of the Petitioner.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
25 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 Draw the award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected by me and pronounced in open court on this the 22 nd day of March 2022) (RajeshwariJPuranik) 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. Mudukappa Karegowdara Pw.2 : Sri.Naveen Tharayingal List of documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P1 : Copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P2 : Copy of the Complaint, Ex.P3 : Copy of the Spot Mahazar, Ex.P4 : Copy of the Spot sketch, Ex.P5 : Copy of the Inquest report, Ex.P6 : Copy of the IMV report, Ex.P7 : Copy of the P.M. report, Ex.P8 : Copy of Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P9 : Copy of reply to the Notice U/sec.133 of IMV Act, Ex.P10 : Copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P11to14: Notarized copy of Aadhaar cards, Ex.P15 : Notarized copy of SSLC marks card, 26 SCCH - 19 MVC. 3391 / 2020 Ex.P16 : Notarized copy of PUC marks card, Ex.P17&18: Notarized copy of D.Ed marks card, Ex.P19 : Notarized copy of D.Ed certificate, Ex.P20 : Notarized copy of Diploma in
computer course certificate, Ex.P21 : Correspondence course identity card, Ex.P22 : Appointment letter, Ex.P23 to 28: Payslips Ex.P29 : Bank statement.
Ex.P30 : Notarized copy of ID Card, Ex.P31 : Appointment letter of deceased Ex.P32 : Pay slips from Jan to June 2020.
List of witnesses examined for Respondent:
RW.1 : Smt.Parimala .P. List of documents marked for Respondent:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter,
Ex.R2 : Copy of Insurance policy,
Ex.R3 : letter,
Ex.R4 : Postal receipt
Ex.R5 : Returned postal cover.
(RajeshwariJPuranik)
XV ASCJ & Member, MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.