Bangalore District Court
Poornima vs Mr.Chamaraju on 9 February, 2023
1 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
KABC020132492020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.2829/2020
PETITIONER/S: POORNIMA
D/o Basavaraju,
Aged about 05 years,
Since minor,
Rep.by her father & natural
guardian Basavaraju,
S/o Shantharaju,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Badavanahalli,
Badavanahalli Post,
Dodderi Hobli,
Madhugiri Taluk,
Tumkur District.
(By Sri.Jagadeesha,
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S: 1. Mr.Chamaraju
S/o Bhiranna,
2 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
Denche, G.D.Halli Post,
Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.
(R.C.Owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KA06EC2633)
(By Sri.Palakshaiah H.,
Advocate.)
2. IFFCOTOKIO General Ins. Co.,
Ltd.,
Shanthi Towers 4th floor, No.141,
3rd main, East to NGEF Layout,
Kasturinagar, Bengaluru560043.
(Policy No.117RXCWXF P400, Policy
No.MA184009, valid from 13.09.2019 to
12.09.2020)
(By Smt.Nagarathna P.,
Advocate.)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act through her natural guardian, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident dated 07.02.2020.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, on 07.02.2020 at about 8.00 a.m., the minor petitioner and her family members were standing on the extreme left side on Benchegate road, situated at opposite to Virupakshappa 3 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 House, Bukkapattana Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkuru District, at that time suddenly the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EC2633 came from Benche village towards Benche gate in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against her and caused the accident, as a result she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and immediately, she was shifted to Sira Govt. Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and for further management referred to Siddaganga Hospital and Research Centre, Dr.Sree Sree Shivakuar Swamiji Road, (B.H.Road), Tumkur, wherein admitted as an inpatient from 07.02.2020 to 11.02.2020 and underwent surgery i.e., ORIF with plating under general anesthesia on 09.02.2020 and discharged with an advise for follow up treatment and for complete bed rest. So far her father has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc., and the doctors have also advised to undergo one 4 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 more surgery for removal of implants in near future incurring huge expenses.
3. The Petitioner further averred that, prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy, was a brilliant student, aged about 5 years. On account of said accidental injuries, she is completely bed ridden, getting head ache and giddiness often, cannot walk, stand, sit squat on the floor, cannot use Indian type of toilet, cannot lift or carry weight and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and suffering, since the injuries caused are permanent in nature.
4. The Kallambella police have registered a criminal case against the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EC2633 in Cr.No.17/2020, after investigation the said police have also filed a charge sheet against the said offending vehicle rider punishable u/Sec.279 & 338 of IPC. The 1st Respondent is the RC owner and the 2 nd Respondent is 5 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to her.
5. In response to the summons, the Respondents have appeared through their respective counsels, but the Respondent No.2 alone filed written statement.
6. The Respondent No.2 in the written statement has denied the averments of the petition as false, admitted issuance of policy subject to its terms and conditions and submitted there is noncompliance of Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. Further submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The insured vehicle has been implicated in collusion for wrongful gain and a false case has been foisted. Further submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident, as such there is a violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them. 6 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
7. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, she met with a Road Traffic Accident on 07.02.2020 at about 8.00 a.m., opposite to Virupakshappa's House, Benche to Benchegate Road, Benchegate, Bukkapattana Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkuru District and sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.no.KA06EC2633?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, from whom and at what quantum?
3. What order or award?
8. The Petitioner in order to prove her case, she has examined her natural guardian/Father Sri.Basavaraju as PW.1 and produced 13 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.13. They have also examined Basavanna B. - MRD Section executive at Siddaganga Hospital, Tumkuru, as PW.2 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P.14 to P.17. Dr.Nagaraj B.N. - Orthopedic Surgeon at Sai Ortho and Dental Center, is 7 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 examined as PW.3 and produced 2 documents as per Exs.P.18 and P.19. On the other hand the Respondent No.2 has examined its Manger as RW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.R1 and R2.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions which are; (1) 2021 ACJ 2165: Ayisa & Ors., Vs. Manager, New India Assurance Co.Ltd., & anr., and (2) 2021 ACJ 2429: H.Kumari and others Vs. B.C.Sridhara & Ors..
The counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon following decisions; (1) MFA Nos.100226/2016 c/w 100730/2016 :Smt.Padma & Ors., Vs. Ramanjali Naidu & Ors., (2) Civil Appeal Nos.72207221/2011:Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Anr., (3) 2018 (1) KLR 249 or MFA 201484/2016: The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Annemma W/o late Irranna Javalgi & Ors., (4) MFA No.4716/2011 (MV):
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Smt.Umamaheshwari @ Umadevi & Ors..8 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
10. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence on record this court answers the above issues as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following;
REASONS
11. Issue No.1:
The Petitioner, in order prove that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of offending Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.KA06 EC2633, examined her guardian i.e., her father Sri.Basavaraju as PW.1 and produced 5 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.4 and P.6. PW.1 has specifically deposed in his evidence that on 07.02.2020 at about 08.00 a.m., his daughter Poornima and his family members were standing on the extreme left side on Benchegate road, situated at opposite to Virupakshappa House, Bukkapattana Hobli, Sira Taluk, 9 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 Tumkuru District, at that time suddenly the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EC2633 came from Benche village towards Benche gate in a rash and negligent manner, without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against his minor daughter and caused the accident. The Respondent No.2 has denied the rash and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. But the Respondent No.2 to substantiate this defense has not examined any witness including the eyewitness who had witnessed the accident and also not produced any supporting documents. In the crossexamination of PW.1 nothing worth is elicited to prove the defence of the respondent No.2 and to disprove the alleged manner of accident.
12. The respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW.1 who deposed more focusing on the point that the rider of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid DL as on the date of accident in contravention of policy terms and conditions and therefore his evidence is not much helpful to 10 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 the defence of the respondent No.2 that there was no rash or negligent act on the part of rider of the offending vehicle. On the other side, the documents produced by the Petitioner as per Exs.P.1 to P.4 and P.6 such as FIR, compliant, spot mahazar, IMV report and charge sheet are the public documents which have got presumptive value under law. The charge sheet filed as per Ex.P.6 clearly discloses that the investigation officer, after detail investigation has filed the charge sheet holding that the rider of the offending motorcycle had ridden it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Ex.P.5 wound certificate produced by the Petitioner further discloses that, the Petitioner has sustained grievous injury on account of accident. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 and the Exs.P.1 to P.4 and P.6, this court is of the opinion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.KA06EC2633 and same has resulted in grievous injury to the Petitioner. Accordingly issue No.1 held in the affirmative. 11 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
13. Issue No.2: It is the further specific case of the Petitioner that as per wound certificate at Ex.P.5, on account of the accident, she has sustained left femur mid shaft displaced fracture, which is grievous in nature. The Petitioner averred that due to this injury she has became permanently disabled. The Petitioner in order to substantiate that she is suffering from disability, has examined Sri.Basavanna B. as PW.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P14 to 17. In the cross examination of PW.2 nothing worth is elicited to disprove the said documents and further the respondent No.2 has not lead any contrary evidence to the said document.
14. Further the petitioner has examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.3 and produced documents as per Exs.P.18 and P.19. The PW.3 has deposed supporting the version of the Petitioner stating that, a patient by name baby Poornima, aged 7 years came to him on 14.12.2021 for assessment of 12 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 disability, she gave an alleged H/O RTA on 07.02.2020 did sustain fracture of left femur and as per discharge summary, the petitioner was treated at Siddaganga Hospital and underwent ORIF with plate and screws on 09.02.2020 and discharged with an advise and fracture got united and on 01.12.2020 got her implants removed and petitioner now complaints of pain and weakness in the left thigh, unable to run and walk fast, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg and on examination, the petitioner has healed surgical scar over the lateral aspect of the left thigh, wasting of the left thigh, restricted left knee movements and recent xray of the left femur shows united fracture. The PW.3 further deposed that the petitioner was examined clinically, radiologically and assessment of disability was done and the petitioner is suffering from the permanent physical disability of the left lower limb is at 40% and whole body disability is 13%. In the crossexamination of PW.3 it is elicited that he has not treated the petitioner, the fracture is united, the implants are removed, the healing process will be faster in the young aged 13 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 children, the contents of Para 5 of his chief examination affidavit are not supported with facts, the ROM can be improved with exercises and physiotherapy and disability may be reduced minimal as the petitioner is seven year old girl. Therefore, considering the evidence, further having regard to the nature of injury, age of the Petitioner, duration of treatment, the functional disability of the Petitioner is considered as 10% to the whole body. While discussing issue No.1, this court has already come to the conclusion that, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the rider of the offending motorcycle. Therefore, the petitioner entitled to get compensation.
Age of the Petitioner
15. The Petitioner, in order to prove her age, she has produced notarized copy of Aadhar Card as per Ex.P.9. As per the said document, her date of birth is 08.02.2014. The accident was occurred on 07.02.2020. As such, as on the 14 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 date of accident the age of the Petitioner is considered as 6 years.
Quantum of Income and quantum of compensation
16. The Petitioner, as on the date of accident, admittedly was a minor. Therefore, she was not earning anything. As per the decision of Hon'ble supreme court reported in ILR 2014 Kar 4891 rendered in Master Mallikarjun Vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance having regard to relevant factors, precedents and approach of various Hon'ble high courts with regard to the compensation of the child victims, held that appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant etc., should be Rs.1,00,000/ disability up to 10%, if the disability is above 10% and up to 30% to whole body 3 lakhs: up to 60% 4 lakhs: up to 90% 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be 6 lakhs. In the present case the Petitioner is suffering from disability to the tune of 10% and she was hospitalized for about 4 days. 15 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24 Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ under the head of pain and suffering already undergone including loss of comforts amenities on account of disability.
17. The Petitioner was inpatient from 01.12.2020 to 04.12.2020 and has underwent treatment, obtained follow up treatment. This must have caused loss of some income and discomforts to the parents of the Petitioner during that period. Therefore, her parents are entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/ under the heads of loss of income and discomforts to the parents. The guardian of the Petitioner has stated that they have spent considerable amount towards her conveyance and nourishment etc.. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head. The PW.1 stated that he has spent Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical expenses. But, in this regard the Petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P.10 for a sum of 16 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 Rs.97,427/. In the cross examination, PW.1 nothing worth is elicited contrary to the Ex.P.10. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.97,427/ under the heads of medical expenses. As per the version of the PW.1, the as per the advice of the doctors, his minor daughter has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants in near future, incurring huge expenses, but there is no estimation bill produced by the Petitioner. The PW.3 deposed that implants have been removed and on perusal of Ex.P.10 the said surgery cost is also included at Sl.No.25 bill. The PW.1 clearly stated that the petitioner underwent implant removal surgery at Aaditya Hospital, Tumkuru. As the said expenses is already included in Ex.P.10 and as already awarded the said amount in the above head and hence the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of future medical expenses.
18. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows: 17 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 Sl. HEAD COMPENSATION No. AMOUNT
1. Pain and suffering already Rs.1,00,000/ undergone and to be suffered in future including loss of comforts amenities on account of disability.
2. Discomforts, inconvenience and Rs.30,000/ Loss of earnings of the parent during the laid up period.
3. Medical Bills Rs.97,427/
4. Conveyance, attendant and Rs.20,000/ nourishment etc. TOTAL Rs.2,47,427/ If it is rounded off it comes around Rs.2,47,500/ and same is awarded to the petitioner under the above heads along with interest @6% pa..
19. LIABILITY:
The Respondent No.2 admitted issuance of policy to the Hero Honda motorcycle, but contended that the rider of the offending motorcycle did not having DL as on the date of accident. In support of the said defence the respondent No.2 has examined its Manager as RW.1 and produced documents 18 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 as per Exs.R1 and R2. In the crossexamination of RW.1 it is elicited that they issued notice to the insured as per Ex.R.2.
In order to disprove the evidence of RW.1 the respondent No.1 has not lead any contrary evidence and also not contested the case. Further, the Ex.P.6/chargesheet clearly shows that the rider of the offending insured vehicle had no valid and effective DL as on the date of accident and therefore, the respondent No.2 has proved its defence that the rider of insured vehicle had no DL as on the date of accident and the respondent No.1 has committed breach of policy conditions.
Under these circumstances, as the victim should not suffer and run pillar to post the principles of pay and recover is to be applied and now whether the respondent No.1 should be directed to pay and recover is to be looked into. I have perused the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the respondent No.2 which are referred above and with due respect to them of the opinion that they are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner 19 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 and of the opinion that they are applicable to this case.
Further, in the decision reported in "(2018) 9 SCC 650 in the case of Shamanna and Another Vs. Divisional Manger, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others.", the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoting the decision in Swaran Singh Case, observed that, "..onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, "pay and recover" can be ordered in case of thirdparty risks. The Tribunal is required to consider." Further in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Yallavva our Hon'ble HC clearly observed the the principles of pay and recovery. The said decisions are aptly applicable to the present case and respondent No.2 can be directed to first to pay and then recover from the owner of the offending vehicle. As per the discussion made above as the respondent No.2/insurance company has proved its defence and hence, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the 20 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 offending vehicle is solely liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner but as per the principles of pay and recovery the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to satisfy the award amount at the first instance and then is at liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.1 by filing execution petition as per law.
Though, the Petitioner has claimed for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ but she is entitled only for a sum of Rs.2,47,500/ with interest @ 6% per annum. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.3: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
21 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,47,500/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
The Respondent No.1/owner is solely liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement at the first instance and later to recover it from the respondent No.1/owner by filing execution petition.
On deposit of compensation and interest, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ shall be deposited in the name of the minor Petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank till she attains the age of majority and remaining amount shall be released in 22 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 the name of the Petitioner (to her Guardian) by way of epayment on proper identification and acknowledgement as per rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this 9th day of February 2023.) (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Mr.Basavaraju PW.2 Mr.Bsavaraju B., PW.3 Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
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 IMV report
Ex.P.5 True copy of Wound certificate
23 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24
Ex.P.6 True copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.7 Discharge summary
Ex.P.8 Notarized copy of my Aadhar card
(Original compared and returned) Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of minor petitioner (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.10 26 Medical bills amounting to Rs.97,429/ Ex.P.11 Medical prescriptions (17 in nos) Ex.P.12 Lab reports (2 in nos) Ex.P.13 Xray (1 in no) Ex.P.14 Authorization letter Ex.P.15 Case sheet Ex.P.16 CT scan (1 in no) Ex.P.17 Xray (1 in no) Ex.P.18 Clinical record Ex.P.19 Xray reports (2 in nos) List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Mr.S.Narendran List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 True copy of policy with terms and conditions Ex.R.2 Notice sent to insured dated 30.08.2021 with postal receipt.
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.24 MVC No.2829/2020
SCCH-24 09.02.2023 Judgment Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,47,500/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
The Respondent No.1/owner is solely liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement at the first instance and later to recover it from the 25 MVC No.2829/2020 SCCH-24 respondent No.1/owner by filing execution petition.
On deposit of compensation and interest, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ shall be deposited in the name of the minor Petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank till she attains the age of majority and remaining amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner (to her Guardian) by way of epayment on proper identification and acknowledgement as per rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw decree accordingly.
(Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC No.2829/2020 PETITIONER/S: POORNIMA D/o Basavaraju, Aged about 05 years, Since minor, Rep.by her father & natural guardian Basavaraju, S/o Shantharaju, Aged about 38 years, R/at Badavanahalli, Badavanahalli Post, Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk, Tumkur District.
(By Sri.Jagadeesha, Advocate.) V/S RESPONDENT/S: 1. Mr.Chamaraju S/o Bhiranna, Denche, G.D.Halli Post, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District.
(R.C.Owner of Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA06EC2633) (By Sri.Palakshaiah H., Advocate.) 27 MVC 2829/2020 SCCH-24
2. IFFCOTOKIO General Ins. Co., Ltd., Shanthi Towers 4th floor, No.141, 3rd main, East to NGEF Layout, Kasturinagar, Bengaluru560043.
(Policy No.117RXCWXF P400, Policy No.MA184009, valid from 13.09.2019 to 12.09.2020) (By Smt.Nagarathna P., Advocate.) 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 on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of 28 MVC 2829/2020 SCCH-24 Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER
The petition is allowed in part
with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.2,47,500/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred Only) along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
The Respondent No.1/owner is solely liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest before this Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this Judgement at the first instance and later to recover it from the respondent No.1/owner by filing execution petition.
29 MVC 2829/2020
SCCH-24 On deposit of compensation and interest, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ shall be deposited in the name of the minor Petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank till she attains the age of majority and remaining amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner (to her Guardian) by way of epayment on proper identification and acknowledgement as per rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of ....2023.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
30 MVC 2829/2020
SCCH-24 Memorandum of costs incurred in this case.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 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 31 MVC 2829/2020 SCCH-24