Bangalore District Court
Smt. Sukanyamma T.K vs Ganesan R on 18 August, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.7895/2010
Dated this the 18th day of August 2016
Petitioner/s : 1. SMT. SUKANYAMMA T.K
W/o Late Basavamadappa,
aged about 34 years.
2. MAHADEVA SWAMY B
S/o Late Basavamadappa,
Aged about 14 years.
3. DEVU B
S/o Late Basavamadappa,
Aged about 12 years.
4. SHRI MADEGOWDA
S/o Late Madegowda,
Aged about 74 years.
5. SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/o Shri Madegowda,
Aged about 62 years.
All are R/at No.14/8,
4th cross,
Opp. Raghavendra Temple,
Manjunath Nagar,
Magadi main road,
Bangalore-560 023.
SCCH-14 2 MVC NO.7895/2010
(Petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors,
Rep. by mother and
natural guardian
Smt. Sukanyamma T.K.)
(By pleader Sri DES)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. GANESAN R.
S/o Rama Gounder,
No.177A/70, Mettu street,
Salem Corporation Salem,
Tamilnadu State- 636308
2. NATIONAL INS.,CO.LTD.,
No.144, Shivaram Complex,
M.G.Road,
Bangalore - 560 001.
(R1-By pleader Sri MNU
R2-By pleader Sri RP)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 3 MVC NO.7895/2010
JUDGMENT
This is a petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking for compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of Sri.Basavamadappa S/o Madegowda in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of petition are as under;
The petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Basavamadappa who was aged 48 years, was working as a police constable and was drawing a salary of Rs.12,800/- pm., On 14.6.2010 at about 6-45 pm., the deceased Basavamadappa was riding his motorcycle bearing No.KA-04- EM-9464 on NH-7 Bangalore-Hosur road from Attibele to Hosur on police duty. While he was proceeding near Attibele Border Arch, Attibele, Bangalore, at that time, lorry bearing No.TN-45- AK-5688 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner endangering human life without observing the traffic rules and regulations came and dashed against the motorcycle from behind. As a result, the said Basavamadappa had sustained severe fatal injuries and died on the spot. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the petitioners who have performed funeral and have conducted related ceremonies. The deceased used to contribute his entire income for the family and the petitioners are dependants of the deceased. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners are undergoing deep mental agony and untold hardship. The accident in SCCH-14 4 MVC NO.7895/2010 question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry. Attibele Police have registered crime No.150/2010 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 304(A) of IPC and R/w Sec.187 of IMV Act. The respondents are the owner and insurer of said lorry and are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, the petitioners have sought awarding compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In response of the notice, the respondents have appeared the court and filed their written statement separately. The respondent No.1 has denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended that the accident has not occurred due to negligence of his driver, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, that his lorry was duly insured and the policy was in force on the date of accident. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of lorry bearing No.TN-45-AK-5688, but he has denied the other averments of the petition as false. He has contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the alleged accident and since the deceased was working in police department, the petitioners by colluding with the police and other officials have created documents for claiming compensation from him, that no accident has occurred on the alleged date and time due to negligence of the offending vehicle as alleged by the petitioners, that even though charge sheet is field against the lorry driver, the deceased was totally SCCH-14 5 MVC NO.7895/2010 responsible for the accident, that the alleged charge sheeted driver never touched the deceased when he was riding his vehicle on the road, that the respondent No.1 and concerned police have not complied their mandatory duties, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and has not rationale. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Basavamadappa died in a road traffic accident on 14.6.2010 at about 6.45 p.m. on NH-7, Bangalore-
Hosur road, near Attibele Border Arch, Attibele, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.TN-45-AK-5688?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 14. The respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence, whereas the respondent No.2 has examined 6 witnesses as RW-1 to 6 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 16.
SCCH-14 6 MVC NO.7895/20106. After hearing the arguments, this court vide Judgment dated: 17.07.2014, has allowed the petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.19,96,467/- with interest @ 6% pa, from the date of the claim petition till its realization. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 have filed MFA no. 7133/2014 and 7522/2014 respectively before Hon'ble High Court. After hearing both the sides, Hon'ble Court was pleased to allow the appeal vide Judgment dated:01.04.2016 and pleased to set-aside the Judgment and award passed by this court and remitted the matter back to this court for fresh disposal after providing opportunity to both parties for adducing further evidence. Accordingly, the matter is restored to its original number. After receipt of records, notices were issued to both the parties. The petitioners and the respondent No.2 have appeared before the court through their counsel. The respondent No.1 remained absent. Then, the petitioners have examined two witnesses as PW.2 and 3. They have not produced any documents. The respondent no.2 did not wish to adduce further evidence.
7. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon following rulings;
1. 2009 ACJ 1725: Bimla Devi & Ors., Vs., Himachal Raod Trans.Corpn, & Ors.,
2. 2011 ACJ 1475: Somari Devi & Ors., Vs., Ragwar Singh & Ors.,
3. 2015 ACJ 797: K.Rajani & Ors., Vs., M.Satyanarayana Goud & Anr.,
4. 2015 ACJ 2226: Bhalchandra Vs., Shardabai & Ors., SCCH-14 7 MVC NO.7895/2010
5. 2015 ACJ 883: Asha Devi & Ors.,
6. 2012 ACJ 2569: Shalini & Ors., Vs., Harbhajan & ors.,
7. 2007 ACJ 2824: New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs., G.Vijaya Kandiban & Anr.,
8. 2012 ACJ 2529: Maya Azhagar & Anr., Vs., Thangaiah & Anr., The respondent no.2 has relied upon following rulings.
1. ILR 2009 KAR 3562: Veerappa & Anr., Vs., Siddappa & Anr.,
2. ILD 2009 KAR 2921: Bajaj Allianz General Ins.,Co. Lt., Vs., B.C Kumar & Anr.,
3. 2013 (2) AKR 470: Bajaj Allianz General Ins.,Co.Ltd., Vs., Ashok Raja Urs K. & Anr.,
4. 2013 (2) AKR 467: United India Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs., Smt.Muninar`1asamma & Ors.,
5. 2013(3) AKR 663: Bajaj Allianz General Ins.,Co.Ltd., Vs., Kumari G.M Neelamma & Anr.,
6. 2012 (1) AKR 512: United India Ins.,Co.Ltd., Bangalore Vs., Krishna & Ors.,
7. ILR 2014 KAR 6693: Sri Sunith Kumar Vs., ICICI Lombard General Ins.ColLtd., & Anr., I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.21,08,000/-
from the respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:SCCH-14 8 MVC NO.7895/2010
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1: The petitioners are claiming compensation for the death of Basavamadappa. The respondents are the owner and insurer of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688. The policy of the said lorry was in force on the date of accident. Copy of policy at Ex.R-6 confirms the same. There is no dispute that the deceased was a police constable and was serving in Attibele police station. Salary certificate at Ex.P-12 and information given under RTI Act at Ex.R-11 reveal the occupation of the deceased. It is an admitted fact that Attibele police have registered Cr.No.150/2010 regarding accident in question, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 304-A of IPC and U/s 187 of MV Act, that C.C.No.1234/2010 was registered and the driver of said lorry was tried for the said offences, that the criminal Court has acquitted the said driver vide Judgment dt.20.7.2012. Copy of said Judgment is at Ex.R7. The petitioners have not denied the contents of information given under RTI Act as per Ex.R-11 which reveal that after death of Basavamadappa, one of his LRs was given job as SDA on compassionate ground vide order dt.28.4.2011 who was drawing a gross salary of Rs.11,075/- p.m.,
10. There was no delay in lodging complaint, but the FIR was received by the Court on 16.6.2010 at 11.00 a.m., Ex.R-1 is certified copy of FIR and it confirms the same. There is no SCCH-14 9 MVC NO.7895/2010 explanation regarding late delivery of FIR to the Court. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that in order to implicate the vehicle in question, there was a delay in sending the FIR to Court. The respondent no.2 has examined RW-1:Virupaksha Swamy, RW-2:Yelagaiah, RW-3:Sudeep, RW-4:Shivakumar, RW-5:Manoharan and RW-6:K.Ilangovan to prove his defence. Among them, RW-6 was the translator during recording of evidence of RW-5 and hence, evidence of RW-6 is not helpful. Similarly, RW-1 to 3 have turned hostile to the defence of the respondent no.2, whereas RW-4 has reiterated the averments of W.S. of the respondent no.2 and RW-5 has supported the version of RW-4, but evidence of RW-4 is inadmissible as he is not an eye witness to the accident. Evidence of RW-1 to 3 goes in favour of the petitioners. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from them in cross examination. Hence, their evidence is believable. On the contrary, RW-5 has admitted as under during cross examination and reexamination:
Cross examination:
" It is true suggest that I don't know the contents of this examination in chief affidavit".
Reexamination:
Q. Whether prior to signing the affidavit filed for examination in chief the contents of affidavit was readover to you in Tamil language by the advocate Sri.M Srinivas advocate who knows the Tamil to you?
A. No. Nobody was translated and told me in Tamil language".SCCH-14 10 MVC NO.7895/2010
The above evidence is sufficient to discard the evidence of RW-5. His acquittal from the criminal case is evident from Ex.R-7, but judgment of acquittal is not a conclusive proof of his innocence. There was no complaint by RW-5 or by the respondent no.1 regarding false implication of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK- 5688 in the case. Copy of IMV report and of statement of the respondent no.1 at Ex.P-6 and 14 disclose that lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 was detained by the police on 29.6.2010 and was subjected to inspection. Both the vehicles were damaged in the accident. There is no explanation from the respondents as to damage found on lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688. Ex.R-10 is the details of vehicles passed through toll gate and it reveals that lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 had passed the said toll gate at 6.42 p.m., on the date of accident. The place of accident is very near to the toll gate. The accident has occurred at 6.45 p.m., near toll gate. Therefore, it is probable that the accident has occurred due to negligence of driver of said lorry. Damage found on the said lorry, statement of the respondent no.1 as per Ex.P-14 strengthens the probability.
11. Copy of PM report is at Ex.P-5 and it discloses that Basavamadappa died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. There is nothing on record to believe that the said Basavamadappa died due to some other reason and in some other place. Copy of station diary at Ex.R-2 confirms that the deceased was going towards Hosur at the time of accident on official duty.
SCCH-14 11 MVC NO.7895/2010His motorcycle was damaged on the relevant point of time. Such damages could be caused in a road accident. Though, there was a delay in sending FIR to the Court, but entry regarding accident was recorded in station diary on 14.6.2010 at about 6.50 p.m., There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of station diary. Therefore, delay in submitting the FIR to the Court after 2 days is not fatal and is not sufficient to believe that in order to implicate lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 in the case, FIR was delayed. Argument of counsel for the respondent no.2 in that regard is liable to be rejected.
12. There is no dispute that the vehicle of the respondents is a HTV. Police records especially IMV report, RC particulars and copy of policy confirm the same. The vehicle which caused the accident is described as a canter in the complaint. The first informant is a transporter. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that canter is a MGV and the first informant being a transporter would not have given a wrong description of the vehicle in the complaint. It is to be noted that RW-3 is the said first informant and he has given proper explanation for that while he was under cross examination. There is nothing to disbelieve his explanation. RW.5 has admitted in cross examination that his lorry is a canter type carriage body lorry. Moreover, the accident has occurred at about 6.45 p.m., It is stated that the vehicle was proceeding at a speed of about 60 kmph. Natural tendency of bypasser would be to attend the injured first. Hence, it was possible for a person to misidentify the SCCH-14 12 MVC NO.7895/2010 vehicle after the accident. The argument of the counsel for the respondent no.2 in that regard also holds no water.
13. PW-1:Sukanyamma is the petitioner no.1 and she has reiterated the averments of the petition. She is not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, her evidence is inadmissible as to manner of accident, but her evidence as to death of the deceased and cause for his death is admissible and believable. Copies of police records at Ex.P-1 to 7 and 14 corroborate the evidence of PW-1 regarding death of the deceased. Evidence of PW-2 and 3, of RW-1 to 4 and documents at Ex.R-1 to 5, 7, 8, 17 and 18 confirm the same. Hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the said Basavamadappa died on 14.6.2010 due to injuries caused to him in road traffic accident. PW-2 and 3 have deposed that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688. RW-1 to 3 support the version of PW-1 to 3. Evidence of RW-3 is contradictory to his evidence before criminal Court. Copy of his deposition is at Ex.R-8. But, his evidence before this Court is as per the averments of complaint at Ex.P-2, further statement at Ex.R-3. Hence, I believe the evidence of RW-3 as deposed before this Court.
14. Copy of judgment in C.C.No.1234/2010 reveals that the driver of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 was acquitted for the charges levelled against him regarding accident, but his acquittal was due to lack of evidence. There is no finding by the Court that a false case has been foisted against the said driver SCCH-14 13 MVC NO.7895/2010 and lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 is falsely implicated in the case. The entries in Ex.R-10 and IMV report disclose that lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 had passed the toll gate just about 2-3 minutes before the accident and it was found damaged on the relevant point of time. There is no proper explanation from the respondents in that regard. RW-4 and 5 deposed about false implication of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 in the said accident. Admissions of RW-5 make his evidence inadmissible, whereas RW-4 is not an eye witness which makes his evidence unbelievable. Reply given by the respondent no.1 and RW-5 as per Ex.R-14 and narration given in claim form at Ex.R-15 whose translation is Ex.R-16 have no basis. It is stated that the lorry had passed the place of accident ½ an hour before the accident. There was no chance of occurrence of accident after 6.50 p.m., as there is an entry in station diary regarding accident at 6.50 p.m., It is not possible that the lorry had passed the toll gate before 6.42 p.m., as details of vehicles at Ex.R-10 reveals that the lorry had passed the toll gate about 6.42 p.m., If the accident had not occurred due to lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688, then the lorry would not have been damaged. Therefore, it is probable that the accident was due to involvement of lorry bearing no.TN-45- AK-5688.
15. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has drawn my attention to Ex.R-17 and 18 and argued that PW-2 is not an eye witness, but he is a panch witness, that PW-3 is neither an eye witness nor a panch witness and hence, their evidence is liable to SCCH-14 14 MVC NO.7895/2010 be rejected. Ex.R-17 and 18 make it clear that PW-2 is named as witness to inquest panchanama, whereas PW-3 is not named as witness. But, it is to be noted that if there are several witnesses to the accident, one of them will be made as panch witness and all of them will not be made as eye witnesses. There are some inconsistencies between the evidence of PW-2 and 3, but those inconsistencies are minor discrepancies and are immaterial. They are not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and 3. There is no evidence or admission to believe that the investigation done by RW-1 and 2 was defective or collusive. There is no evidence as to false implication of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 in the crime. Rulings relied upon by the respondent no.2 in that regard are not applicable to the facts of this case. Evidence of RW-5 is self serving and his admissions during cross examination falsify the defence of the respondent no.2. Conduct of the respondent no.1 and of his driver i.e., of RW-5 is not of a prudent man. No counter complaint was filed. No action is initiated against the police for false implication of their vehicle. Such conduct indicates the involvement of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688 in the accident. Thus, evidence of PW-1 to 3 is believable. Evidence of RW-1 to 3 goes in favour of the petitioners. Evidence of RW-4 and 5 is unacceptable. Ex.P-1 to 7 and 14 corroborate the evidence of PW-1 to 3. Documents at Ex.R-1 to 8, 10, 14 to 16 are not sufficient to prove the defence, but those documents indirectly help the petitioners to prove their case. I am of the opinion that Basavamadappa died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of SCCH-14 15 MVC NO.7895/2010 the driver of lorry bearing no.TN-45-AK-5688. The petitioners have succeeded to prove the issue. The respondents have failed to establish their defence. The preponderance of probability tilts towards the petitioners. Hence, I answer the issue in affirmative.
16. ISSUE NO.2: This court while passing Judgment dated 17.07.2014 has opined that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.19,96,467/- with interest @6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Both the parties went in Appeal in MVC No. 7133/14 and 7522/14. Hon'ble High Court has set-aside the Judgment and award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Though, there is no opinion by Hon'ble High Court that whether the compensation awarded by this court is just and proper or not. Since, the Judgment and award is set- aside, I am of the opinion that this court has to give its finding regarding this issue afresh.
17. PW.1:Suknayamma has deposed that her husband was aged 48 years and was working as police constable at Attibele police station and was drawing a salary of Rs.12,800/- p.m., as on the date of accident. Her evidence regarding the age, occupation and income is denied in cross examination, but the said denials are not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. RW.1: Viruparksha PSI and RW.2: Yelagaiah, PI have deposed that the deceased was working as police constable in Attibele police station. Their evidence is not denied in cross examination. Copy of Voter ID of the deceased is at Ex.P9, cumulative record of the deceased is at Ex.P11 which reveal that the deceased was SCCH-14 16 MVC NO.7895/2010 aged 47/48 years as on the date of accident. His date of birth is shown as 15.08.1962 in cumulative records which prevails over the date of birth mentioning in voter ID. Hence, I am of the opinion that the deceased was aged 47 years as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier is 13.
18. Salary certificate of the deceased is at Ex.P12 which reveals that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.12,732/- as on the date of accident. Professional tax was Rs.120/- and it shall be deducted from the salary of the deceased. Income tax was not applicable to the deceased. Hence, after deduction professional tax, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,612/-. Annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,51,344/-. I am of the opinion that if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.1,50,000/- p.a., it will meet the ends of justice. He was aged 47 years. He was getting periodically increment and promotion. If he were alive, he would have got promotion and several increments. Therefore, principle laid down in Munnalal Jain case and ruling reported in ILR 2015 KAR 3793 are applicable to this case. 30% amount shall be added towards future prospects. After addition of 30% amount, gross income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,95,000/-.
19. The petitioners are claiming to be wife, children and parents of the deceased. Copy of voter ID of the petitioner no.1 and copy of ration card are produced to prove the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased which are marked as SCCH-14 17 MVC NO.7895/2010 Ex.P8 to10. Evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.P8 to 10. The petitioners have not produced any document pertaining to the petitioner no.4 and 5, but there is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of PW.1 in respect of relationship between the petitioners and the deceased. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased. The children are minors and the parents are aged more than 60 years. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the dependents of the deceased. Looking to the size of the family, it can be said that 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 1/4th of Rs.1,95,000/- comes to Rs.48,750/-. After deduction of said amount, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,46,250/- which can be rounded to Rs.1,46,000/-. The petitioners have lost their dependency. Loss of their dependency would be Rs.1,46,000X13=Rs.18,98,000/-.
20. The petitioners have lost love and affection and estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner no.1 lost marital bliss. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.75,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium to the petitioner no.1. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
SCCH-14 18 MVC NO.7895/20101 Loss of dependency Rs.18,98,000/- 2 Loss of love and Rs. 75,000/-
affection 3 Loss of estate Rs. 75,000/-
4 Transportation of dead Rs. 30,000/-
body and funeral expenses 5 Loss of consortium to Rs. 30,000/-
the petitioner no.1 Rs.21,08,000/-
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 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., Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
21. The respondents are the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.TN-45-AK-5688. It is held above that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said lorry. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioners as calculated above. The respondent no.2 has failed to prove his defence that the respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy is at Ex.R6. It was valid as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent no.2 is liable to indemnify the respondent no.1 and to compensate the petitioners as stated above. He has to deposit the amount before court. The petitioners SCCH-14 19 MVC NO.7895/2010 are entitled to share the compensation amount and proportionate interest in following ratio:
The petitioner no.1 : Rs.7,08,000/-
The petitioner no.2 & 3: Rs.5,00,000/- each The petitioner no.4 & 5: Rs.2,00,000/- each Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
22. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a
compensation of Rs.21,08,000/-with interest
@ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.21,08,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Court within one month from the date of Award.SCCH-14 20 MVC NO.7895/2010
The petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation amount as under:
The petitioner no.1 : Rs.7,08,000/- The petitioner no.2 & 3: Rs.5,00,000/- each The petitioner no.4 & 5: Rs.2,00,000/- each After deposit of the amount, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of share of the petitioner No.4 and 5 each shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in the said bank under the guardianship of the petitioner no.1 till they attain majority or till expiry of 5 years whichever is later. Balance amount of the share of the petitioner no.1, 4 and 5 with interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 18th day of August 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 21 MVC NO.7895/2010
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW.1 Suknayamma T.K. PW.2 Arun D.K PW.3 Mahesh
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of PM report
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P7 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P8 Notarised copy of the election identity card of PW1
Ex.P9 Notarised copy of the election identity card of
deceased CT scan report
Ex.P10 Notarised copy of ration card
Ex.P11 Notarised copy of the cumulative record of deceased Ex.P12 Salary certificate of deceased Ex.P13 Certified copy of intimation Ex.P14 Statement given by R1 List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 R.Virupaksha swamy RW2 A.Yelagaiah RW3 Sudeep RW4 G.Shivakumar RW5 Manoharan RW6 K.Ilangovan
List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 Copy of FIR
Ex.R2 True copy of the extract of the station diary
SCCH-14 22 MVC NO.7895/2010
Ex.R3 to Certified copies of the statements Ex.R5 Ex.R6 Copy of Insurance policy Ex.R7 Judgement copy of CC No.1234/2010 Ex.R8 Certified copy of statement of Sudeep in 1234/2010 Ex.P9 Endorsement given by Project Director, National Highway Ex.R10 Register of the Attibele toll Ex.R11 The document given by Public information officer Ex.R12 Notice sent to the respondent No.1.
Ex.R13 Acknowledgement
Ex.R14 Reply notice
Ex.R15 Claim form
Ex.R16 Translated copy
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 23 MVC NO.7895/2010
Dt.18.08.2016
P-DES
R1-Exparte
R2 -RP
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.SCCH-14 24 MVC NO.7895/2010
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.21,08,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.21,08,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Court within one month from the date of Award.
The petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation amount as under:
The petitioner no.1 : Rs.7,08,000/- The petitioner no.2 & 3: Rs.5,00,000/- each The petitioner no.4 & 5: Rs.2,00,000/- each After deposit of the amount, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of share of the petitioner No.4 and 5 each shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in the said bank under the guardianship of the petitioner no.1 till they attain majority or till expiry of 5 years whichever is later. Balance SCCH-14 25 MVC NO.7895/2010 amount of the share of the petitioner no.1, 4 and 5 with interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 26 MVC NO.7895/2010
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.7895/2010 Petitioner/s : 1. SMT. SUKANYAMMA T.K W/o Late Basavamadappa, aged about 34 years.
2. MAHADEVA SWAMY B S/o Late Basavamadappa, Aged about 14 years.
3. DEVU B S/o Late Basavamadappa, Aged about 12 years.
4. SHRI MADEGOWDA S/o Late Madegowda, Aged about 74 years.
5. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/o Shri Madegowda, Aged about 62 years.
All are R/at No.14/8, 4th cross, Opp. Raghavendra Temple, Manjunath Nagar, Magadi main road, Bangalore-560 023.
(Petitioner No.2 and 3 are minors, Rep. by mother and natural guardian Smt. Sukanyamma T.K.) (By pleader Sri DES) V/s SCCH-14 27 MVC NO.7895/2010 Respondent/s 1. GANESAN R. S/o Rama Gounder, No.177A/70, Mettu street, Salem Corporation Salem, Tamilnadu State- 636308
2. NATIONAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.144, Shivaram Complex, M.G.Road, Bangalore - 560 001.
(R1-Exparte R2-By pleader Sri RP) 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
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
SCCH-14 28 MVC NO.7895/2010ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.21,08,000/-with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.21,08,000/- to the petitioners with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till date of payment. In view of policy, the respondent no.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before the Court within one month from the date of Award.
The petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation amount as under:
The petitioner no.1 : Rs.7,08,000/-
The petitioner no.2 & 3: Rs.5,00,000/- each The petitioner no.4 & 5: Rs.2,00,000/- each After deposit of the amount, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner no.1 and Rs.1,00,000/- out of share of the petitioner No.4 and 5 each shall be deposited in their respective names in any nationalized, scheduled or SCCH-14 29 MVC NO.7895/2010 co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in the said bank under the guardianship of the petitioner no.1 till they attain majority or till expiry of 5 years whichever is later. Balance amount of the share of the petitioner no.1, 4 and 5 with interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 30 MVC NO.7895/2010By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee ____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 31 MVC NO.7895/2010
SCCH-14 32 MVC NO.7895/2010