Bangalore District Court
) Smt.Ushadevi vs ) The New India Assurance on 21 October, 2020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL;
B'LORE (SCCH-17)
DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
PRESENT; Smt.Vijayalaxmi Ghanapur,
L.L.M.,
XIX Addl SCJ & MACT.
MVC.No.1013/2017
Petitioners: 1) Smt.Ushadevi,
W/o.Late L.Manjunath,
Aged about 38 years
2) Yashaswini M.
D/o.Late L.Manjunath,
Aged about 10 years
All are r/o. at;
No.7/2-1, 8th cross,
Magadi road
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Bangalore North
Bangalore - 560 023
(Petitioner No.2 being minor
Rep. by mother natural guardian
Smt.Ushadevi)
(By Sri.VS)
V/s
SCCH-17 2 MVC 1013/2017
Respondents : 1) The New India Assurance
Co. Ltd., Motor Claims T.P.Hub,
No9/2, Mahalaksmi Chambers,
M.G.Road, Bangalore - 560 001
2) Sri.Giri,
S/o.Kempanna,
Aged about 51 years,
R/o. at Nanjundeshwara Cranes,
Chikkagollaratti Magadi Main
Road, Bangalore - 560 091
3) Smt. Bali @ Asha @ Bali Asha
W/o. Late L.Manjunath @ Manju,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o. No.117, 2nd cross, 2nd main
Road, Sollapuradamma Layout,
Sunkadakatte, Bangalore -91
And also r/o. at;
Kallamma House, 12th cross,
Pipe line road,
Srinivasapura, Sunkadakatte
Bangalore - 560 091
(R1 - GSM)
(R2 ex parte)
(R2 by Sri.KPS)
1.
SCCH-17 3 MVC 1013/2017
J U D G M E N T
Petition is filed under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- on account of death of Sri.L.Manjunath in the motor Accident.
2. The substance of the petition, in brief, is as under:
Petitioners averred that, they are wife and minor daughter of the deceased Manjunath, who died in the motor accident occurred on 29.12.2016 at about 8.40 p.m. in the night when he was standing with his scooter bearing reg. No.KA-02-HK-8561 in front of Vijaya Bank, Sunkadakatte, Magadi main road, at that time a crane bearing reg. No. KA- 02-ME-7663 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner took sudden right turn and dashed against the deceased Scooter. As a result, the deceased was thrown out SCCH-17 4 MVC 1013/2017 and fell down sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Lakshmi Hospital, Sunkadakatte, wherein the doctor declared he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. After the post mortem at Victoria Hospital and handed over the dead body to the petitioners.
At the time of accident he was hale and healthy working as Manager at Balaji Industries, Bhuvaneshwarinagar and earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
Jurisdictional police registered the case against the driver of crane, which is insured the first respondent and owned by second respondent and they are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, petition is filed. SCCH-17 5 MVC 1013/2017
3. In response to the petition notice, second respondent remained absent. He was placed exparte. First respondent appeared and filed written statement.
It is pertinent to mention here that third respondent, who is stated to be second wife of deceased L.Manjunath has also filed another MVC bearing No.448/17 on the file of Hon'ble III Addl. Judge and MACT, which was dismissed after full fledged trial for the reason of double filing with respect to same accident. Hence, the said petitioner under MVC 448-17 was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the present case.
4. The substance of the written statement of first respondent, in brief, is as under:
SCCH-17 6 MVC 1013/2017
First respondent resisted the claim by filing written statement denying petition averments in toto, and inter alia contended that, petition is bad for violation of mandatory requirements as contemplated u/S 134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act, as the owner of vehicle and jurisdictional police failed to furnish accident particulars. It contended that owner/driver not possessing valid driving licence. It admits the issuance of policy, which is subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein. It denied the mode and manner of accident and the involvement of insured vehicle. It is further specifically contended that the driver of the crane has not possessed valid driving licence and hence, this company is not liable for any payment. Without prejudice to its contention it contended that the accident has taken place due to the negligence of rider and there was no SCCH-17 7 MVC 1013/2017 negligence on the part of crane driver. It denied the age, avocation and income of deceased. Compensation claimed is exorbitant. Among these grounds and reserving liberty to contest the claim on all grounds u/S 170 of MV Act it prays to dismiss the petition.
5. Following issues arise for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 29.12.16 at 8.40 p.m. when the deceased was standing on the front of Vijaya Bank, Sunkadakatte, Magadi main road, Bangalore, met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbs to same due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of crane bearing No.KA-02-ME-7663 as alleged?
2. Whether petitioners prove the age, occupation and income of deceased?
Additional issue No.1:
Whether respondent No.3 proves that she being the second wife of deceased L.Manjunath and dependant on his income is entitle for the compensation
3. What order or award?SCCH-17 8 MVC 1013/2017
6. In order to prove their case, the first petitioner has examined herself as Pw.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to 13. Respondent No.1 examined RTO, Rajajinagar as Rw.1 and documents Ex.R1to 3 were marked.
It is pertinent mention here that the petitioner in MVC 448-17 i.e., present respondent No.3 also contested the matter by examining herself as Pw.1 in that case and all the documents are got marked as per Ex.P14 to 16 in this present case.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the entire material on record.
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the partly Affirmative Additional issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order SCCH-17 9 MVC 1013/2017 for the following:
R E A S O N S
9. Issue No.1: Petitioners asserted that the deceased Manjunath died in a road traffic accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of crane bearing reg. NoKA-02-ME-7663. Per contra first respondent denied the same and specifically contended that deceased himself was responsible for the accident and also the driver of the crane has not possessed valid driving licence and hence, the insurance company is not liable for payment.
It is well settled that to claim compensation u/S. 166 of MV Act it is sine- qua-non to demonstrate the actionable negligence on the part of tortfeasor, which is to be proved under the touchstone of preponderance of probability and SCCH-17 10 MVC 1013/2017 not beyond reasonable doubt as it is warranted in a criminal trial to bring home the guilt of accused. Initial burden of proof is always on the claimant.
10. To absolve the burden of the proof, the wife of the deceased i.e., first petitioner filed her evidence affidavit by reiterating the petition averments. She specifically stated that on the ill fated day her husband was standing in front of Vijaya Bank and due to the dashing of crane he fell down and succumbed to the injuries while going to the hospital.
11. To justify her verbal evidence, she relied upon documents viz., Ex.P1 the first information report along with complaint lodged by the traffic Kamakshipalya Traffic P.S. in crime No.469/2016 upon the complaint given by one Vishwanath. Ex.P2 is complaint. Ex.P3 & 5 are mahazar SCCH-17 11 MVC 1013/2017 wherein, the topographical situation of the place of accident and exact place of impact and reason for death are narrated. Ex.P4 is crime details form. Ex.P6 is IMV report. Ex.P7 is inquest mahazar. Ex.P.8 is the post mortem report. Ex.P.9 is the charge sheet filed by the police against the crane driver by opining that the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle but it has taken place due to the negligence of the crane driver.
12. During cross-examination of Pw.1 she has denied the suggestion stated to her that accident was taken place due to the rash and negligence of her deceased husband but not of crane driver. Ex.P.5 clearly indicates the place of accident and the manner, in which the driver of the crane drove the same in order to take turn and dashed the scooter.
SCCH-17 12 MVC 1013/2017
13. The first respondent specifically contended that the driver of the crane who is also the owner of the vehicle has not possessed valid driving licence. He also vehemently argued that since the driver of crane not has possessed valid driving licence and hence, he violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and second respondent himself is liable to pay compensation. To prove his contention, he examined RTO of Rajajinagar as Rw.1 and got marked Ex.R1 & 2.
14. Ex.R1 is the driving licence of Giri Kempanna i.e., second respondent. It is clearly reveals that the said second respondent has possessed the driving licence from 27-03- 1986 and valid till 07-12-2021. It is also reveals that he is able to drive LMV-TR, trans, PSV bus and MCWG and it also SCCH-17 13 MVC 1013/2017 reveals that he has hold licence to drive non transport vehicles from 8.8.16 to 7.8.2021 and transport vehicles from 4.12.2018 to 7.12.2021. Apart from this, it is pertinent to mention here that as per Ex.P15(the evidence of Rw.1 in MVC No.448/17), RTO of Rajajinagar examined and he clearly deposed that mobile crane is non transport vehicle and its laden and registered laden weight is 10,200/- kgs. (same is shown in the RC book of the owner i.e., second respondent). He further clearly deposed in his examination- in-chief that as per Ex.R2 i.e., to drive the mobile crane, there is no necessary of endorsement. During the cross- examination by the Learned counsel for petitioner, the witness further deposed that as per provisions of MV Act endorsement in driving licence is not required to be noted. The said relevant depositions are as under: SCCH-17 14 MVC 1013/2017
" ªÁºÀ£À £ÉÆAzÀtô ¸ÀASÉå PÉJ-02-JAE-7663 ªÁºÀ£ª À ÀÅ ªÉƨÉʯï PÉæãï DVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀÅ £Á£ï mÁæ£ïì¥ÀÇÃmïð ªÁºÀ£À DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ¯ÁåqÀ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ jf¸ÀÖgç ï ¯ÁåqÀ£ï vÀÆPÀ 10,200 PÉ.f EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤.Dgï2 gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ C¥Á¢vÀ PÉæãÀ£ÀÄß Nr¸À®Ä »A§gÀºz À À CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®"è.
" PÉæãÀ£ÀÄß Nr¸À®Ä JA«DåPïÖ CrAiÀÄ°è »A§gÀºÀzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj" .
It is further noteworthy that the same designated person i.e., RTO of Rajajinagar has been examined as Rw.1 in the present case and deposed that the unladen weight of the mobile crane is 10,200/- kgs and there is necessary of endorsement to drive the said vehicle and training is required to the driver. But during the cross-examination of the said RTO, he clearly stated that there is no specific training/ special classes in this regard and they endorsed after due notice skilled driving of the driver, who drove the SCCH-17 15 MVC 1013/2017 same in their presence. He also deposed that as per Ex.R1 the driver can be able to drove the lorry and bus etc., The said deposition is as under:
¤.Dgï1 gÀ C£ÀéAiÀÄ J¯Áè ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ¯Áj, §¸ï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¥ÀvÀæ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw PÀÄjvÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ±Á¯ÉU¼À ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è »A§gÀºÀª£À ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄAzÉ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ »A§gÀºÀª£À ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛêÉ.
Admittedly, the unladen weight of the said crane is 10,200/- kgs. In such scenario there is every necessary to refer the meaning of Heavy good vehicle, which reads as follows;
"Heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road- roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000/- kilograms.SCCH-17 16 MVC 1013/2017
So, the said unladen weight of crane is not exceeds 12,000/- kgs. Admittedly, the said second respondent who is the owner of the crane has possessed driving licence to drive non transport vehicle from 8.8.2016 to 7.8.2021. Admittedly, the date of accident is 29.12.2016. Hence, as on that date he holds valid licence to drive non transport vehicles.
15. The learned counsel for first respondent relied the ruling reported in 2019 ACJ 409. Perused the same. In that case the owner of the vehicle in spite of repeated directions has not produced any driving licence. But in the said case the insurance company itself produced the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. So, the facts and circumstances of that case are totally different from the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. SCCH-17 17 MVC 1013/2017
The first respondent not stated any particulars of transport or non transport vehicle. Looking to the contentions in the written statement it appears that the first respondent formally denied the driving licence of the second respondent.
Looking to the experience/ skill in driving since 1986 it could be held that the owner cum driver of crane can easily handle the driving of crane. But on that ill fated day he met with the accident. Therefore, I decline to accept the said contention of the first respondent that the second respondent not possessed valid driving licence and hence, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation.
16. Admittedly, the first respondent has not challenged the police report. Admittedly it is not the case SCCH-17 18 MVC 1013/2017 of the first respondent that he has challenged the charge sheet and it is for pending for consideration. Therefore, undisputed documents which are prepared by the police while discharging official duty supported by the verbal version of Pw.1 and exact topographical situation of place of accident and place of impact, it is clear that due to the negligent driving of the crane driver the accident was took place. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the crane driver i.e., second respondent is the sole architect of fatal accident in which the deceased has lost his life for no fault of his own. Hence, I answer issue No.1in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.2:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 is the wife and the petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased and SCCH-17 19 MVC 1013/2017 they are the legal representatives of deceased. On the other hand first respondent has disputed the above contention in toto. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have relied on Aadhaar cards of petitioners as per Ex.P10 & 11 and also certified copy of registered adoption deed Ex.P13 wherein, the petitioner No.2 adopted by the deceased and first petitioner.
On perusal of these documents it reveals that petitioners are the wife and minor daughter of the deceased Manjunath. Considering the above facts and also evidence of Pw.1 coupled with documents and for the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are the legal heirs and financial dependants of the deceased. Petitioners successfully proved that they are the legal heirs and dependants of deceased.
SCCH-17 20 MVC 1013/2017
18. Additional Issue No.1: Respondent No.3 who is stated to be the second wife of the deceased. She also filed MVC No.448/2017. After the full fledged trial the tribunal came to conclusion that because of double petition in respect of same accident the petition of present third respondent is liable to be dismissed. The material on records clearly reveals that she has given statement before the police as second wife of the deceased and she requested to hand over the dead body of deceased to her. During the evidence she stated that she is the second wife and their marriage performed in Dharmasthala and she has produced photos and CD. She has also deposed that they are living together from last fourteen years.
Admittedly, the motor vehicle Act is beneficiary legislation. There is no strict formula to prove the legality SCCH-17 21 MVC 1013/2017 of the marriage like civil cases. The respondent No.3 need not prove her legal status as a wife to succeed the estate of the deceased. Here in this case, the tribunal can only consider whether she is dependent or not. Looking to the efforts made by her and by considering that no women in India can pose any stranger as her husband, I hold that she is second wife of deceased. Hence, I hold that the third respondent is also dependant of the deceased and entitle for compensation. First petitioner has a minor adopted girl child and responsibility lies on her to provide better future to that child in all the handles. Hence, it is just and fair to award more compensation to her than the third respondent.
Petitioners being wife and minor daughter and respondent No.3 is also wife of the deceased Manjunath, are entitle for compensation under the following heads; SCCH-17 22 MVC 1013/2017
a) Loss of dependency: To determine the loss of dependency the age of the deceased, number of the dependants and income of the deceased are relevant. The petitioners and respondent No.3 proved that they are the dependants of the deceased. Petitioners stated that, deceased Manjunath was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 41 years, working as Manager and earning Rs.20,000/-per month. Further the contention of the petitioners and respondent No.3 is that, the deceased Manjunath was the only earning member in their family and due to unexpected death of Manjunath, they have put to great hardship and lost their bread earner. On the other hand, the first respondent has denied the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
SCCH-17 23 MVC 1013/2017
To prove the age, the petitioners have produced driving licence of deceased and same is marked at Ex.P.12 which reveals that the date of birth of deceased is shown as 29-10-1975. The accident was occurred on 29-12-2016. So, as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 41 years and the same is considered as age of the deceased. Then the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is '14'.
Further to prove the occupation and income, the petitioners have not produced any supportive documents. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of positive documents regarding the occupation and income of deceased and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the deceased is considered as Rs.9,000/-p.m. as the matter SCCH-17 24 MVC 1013/2017 of the year 2016, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, deceased L. Manjunath was aged about 41 years. Hence, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a Judgment reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 in a Special Leave Petition (CIVIL) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s. Pranay Sethi and others) dated 31-10-2017, where the deceased was a self employee or on a fixed salary, between 40 to 50 years an addition of 30 of the income is to be added towards future prospects. In the instant case the deceased comes under the age group of below 40 to 50 years, 30% of the income is to be added to the income of deceased as future prospects, on such SCCH-17 25 MVC 1013/2017 addition, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.11,700/-p.m.(Rs.9,000 + 2,700).
Further as stated above that, there are 3 dependents. Hence, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on such deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,800/- p.m..(Rs.11,700/- minus Rs.3,900/-).
The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.7,800/- P.M. and the multiplier 14 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.13,10,400/- (Rs.7,800X12X14). Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rs.13,10,400/- under the head of loss of dependency.
SCCH-17 26 MVC 1013/2017
b) Loss of consortium: The first petitioner and third respondent are being the wives and second petitioner being the minor child are entitle for the compensation under the loss of consortium. For this I relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.3192/2018) in case of Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and Others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
" A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which the compensation it so be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is "Loss of Consortium":
In legal parlance "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium; parental consortium and filial consortium.SCCH-17 27 MVC 1013/2017
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband -wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training."
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of SCCH-17 28 MVC 1013/2017 the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflection changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationship. Modern jurisdictions world- over have recognized that the value Further on perusal of child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in case of death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensating for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
In the instant case, first petitioner and third respondent are the wives of the deceased are entitled for SCCH-17 29 MVC 1013/2017 Spousal consortium, which can be compensated for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation and petitioner No.2 is the minor daughter of the deceased is entitled for Parental consortium for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. Therefore, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and respondent No3.
c) Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses:. Further the petitioners and respondent No.3 are the wife and minor daughter of deceased and as such, in view of the Judgment of our Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Pranay Sethi) dated 31-10-2017, the petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.15,000/-under the head of loss of estate. SCCH-17 30 MVC 1013/2017
d) Further they are entitled for an amount of Rs.15,000/-under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, the petitioners and third respondent are entitled for total compensation under the following conventional heads.
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
a) Towards loss of dependency Rs. 13,10,400/-
b) Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000/-
c) Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
d)Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/-
body, funeral & obsequies ceremony
expenses
Total Rs. 14,60,400/-
19. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of
petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals SCCH-17 31 MVC 1013/2017 that, the first respondent is the insurer and second respondent is the owner of the crane bearing Reg.No.KA- 02-ME-7663. Therefore, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. First respondent being the insurer has to indemnify the owner. Hence, first respondent is liable to pay the compensation.
Awarding the interest on compensation amount is concern in MFA No.103557/2016 (Sriram General Ins.Co. Ltd., V/s.Smt. Lakshmi & Others) (DD.20-03-2018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC, the rate of interest that can be awarded on judgments cannot be more than 6% and that since Sec.149 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for interest on judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim petitions has to be 6% per annum and not more than that. Hence, in the SCCH-17 32 MVC 1013/2017 case on hand, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
20. Issue-3: By virtue of above findings, Tribunal proceeds to pass the following;
O R D E R Petition is allowed in part with costs.
Petitioners and third respondent are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,60,400/-. (Rupees Fourteen lakhs sixty thousand four hundred only) with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
However, it is first respondent to indemnify the owner. Hence first respondent is directed to deposit the SCCH-17 33 MVC 1013/2017 aforesaid compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
Out of the award amount petitioners and third respondent are entitled for apportionment as below:
Petitioner-1 50%
Petitioner-2 25%
Respondent No.3 25%
In the event of deposit, 25% (out of 50%) of the amount of petitioner-1 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or schedule bank of her choice for a period of three years with liberty to withdraw accrued interest periodically in respect of amount awarded in her name and remaining 25% shall be released in her favour.
Entire amount of minor petitioner-2 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of her mother till she attains majority with liberty to draw accrued interest periodically.
SCCH-17 34 MVC 1013/2017
As the compensation amount awarded to respondent No.3 is meager, release the entire amount in her favour.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, transcribed by her corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open court, this the 21st day of October, 2020) (VIJAYALAXMI GHANAPUR) XIX ADDL.SCJ & MACT, BANGALORE.
A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS EXAMINED & MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:
FOR PETITIONERS:
Pw.1: Ushadevi DOCUMENTS:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Crime details form
Ex.P.5 Sketch
Ex.P.6 IMV report
Ex.P.7 Inquest mahazar
SCCH-17 35 MVC 1013/2017
Ex.P.8 PM report
Ex.P.9 Charge sheet
Ex.P.10 to 12 Aadhaar cards
Ex.P13 Adoption deed
Ex.P.14 Evidence of Pw.1 in MVC 448/17
Ex.P.15 Evidence of Rw.1 in MVC 448/17
Ex.P.16 Evidence of Rw.2 in MVC 448/17
FOR RESPONDENTS:
Rw.1 R.Chandrashekar
DOCUMENTS:
Ex.R.1: Copy of driving licence
Ex.R.2: Copy of B extract
Ex.R.3: Copy of policy
(VIJAYALAXMI GHANAPUR)
XIX ADDL.SCJ & MACT,
BANGALORE.