Bangalore District Court
Smt.Kshma.H.R vs Sri.Hanumanthe Gowda on 23 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated this 23rd day of March, 2015.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.405/2013
PETITIONERS: 1. Smt.Kshma.H.R.
W/o.Late H.S.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 30 years,
2. Kum.Vaishnavi.H.R.,
D/o.Late H.S.Ramakrishna,
Aged about 2 ½ years,
3.Kum.H.S.Ramamani,
D/o.Late H.A.Sathyanarayana Rao,
Aged about 44 years,
Petitioner No.2 is minor
represented by her natural guardian
/ mother the 1st petitioner herein
Smt.Kshma.H.R.
Petitioner No.1 to 3 are
R/at House No.301,
12th 'A' Main, 6th Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
Previous Address:
No.41, Athamaram Kuteer, 3rd Cross,
Tapanna Layout, Vidyamananagar
west,
Andrahalli main road,
2 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
Bengaluru-560091.
(By Pleader
Sri.KNS)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Hanumanthe Gowda,
S/o. Chandrapppa,
R/at No.136, 1st Main,
Tejaswini Extension,
Vrshabhavathinagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru-560079.
(Exparte)
2. Reliance Gen. Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Subhasri Mahendra Towers,
2nd Floor, 11th Main, 3rd Block,
Jayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 080.
(By pleader Sri.HNK)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition against the respondents U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for the death of husband of petitioner No.1 namely Sri.H.S.Ramakrishna S/o.Late H.A.Sathyanarayana Rao in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petition averments are as under:
On 26-10-2012 at about 10.30 a.m., H.S.Ramakrishna was traveling in a Autorickshaw bearing reg. No.KA-02-AC- 3 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18 2001 to go to his company for attending duty and when he reached near Herohalli Cross, Magadi road, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the said Autorickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the road side parked canter bearing registration No.KA-30- 7877. As a result of the said accident, the Ramakrishna has sustained grievous injuries. Then the public gathered at the spot have tried to shift the injured to the Sri.Lakshmi Specialty hospital, but on the way to the hospital the injured succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter the post mortem was conducted at Rajarajeshwari medical college hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioners have spent an amount of Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses.
The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Ramakrishna was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 33 years, working as BPO Operation Manager at Capgemni Business Services (India) Ltd., Whitefield main road, Bangalore and earning Rs.75,312/-p.m. Further the petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 is the daughter and the petitioner No.3 is the unmarried sister of deceased and they were depending upon the income of the 4 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 deceased. Due to the unexpected death of Ramakrishna, they have lost their bread earner of the family and they have suffered lot and also suffered mental shock. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw. The respondent No.1 is the owner cum driver of offending vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
Contending the above facts, the petitioners have filed this petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- .
3. In response to the petition notices, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly he was placed exaprte.
4. The brief contents of the objection statement of the respondent no.2 are as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in 5 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. The respondent No.2 contended that, the driver/owner of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Further the respondent No.1 has used the Autorickshaw without having valid permit and fitness certificate and also he has plied the vehicle beyond the jurisdiction of permit area. Hence, the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the permit condition. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and dependency of the petitioners. Further the respondent No.2 contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts, the respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
6 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
1. Whether the petitioners prove that H. S. Ramakrishna, S/o. Late H. A. Sathyanarayana Rao died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 26-10-2012, at about 11-00a.m Opp to Karanji Dabha, near Herohalli cross, Magadi main road, Bengaluru, involving vehicle bearing Reg.No. KA-02-AC-
2001 belonging to Respondent No.1 and insured with Respondent No.2?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only legal heirs and the dependents of the deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondents, if so what is the quantum?
5. What order?
6. In order to prove the case, the 1 st petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to P-24. Further in support of her evidence, she has examined the employer of deceased as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-25 to 30.
7. To disprove the case of the petitioners and to prove the defence of respondent No.2, the ARTO is examined as R.W.1 and no documents are marked.
7 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
8. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the records.
9. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 to 3: Affirmative Issue No.4: Partly affirmative Issue No.5: As per final order For the following:
REASONS
10.Issue No.1 & 3 : Both these issues are interconnected with each other. Hence in order to avoid repetition of facts they are taken together for common consideration.
During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued by reiterating the contents of petition averments and also evidence put forth by PW-1 and
2. Further he argued that the defence of the respondent no.2 is that, the accident has occurred due to negligent act of the driver of the lorry as well negligent act of the driver of the Autorickshaw. But as per the police documents, it is clear that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Further he argued that to prove the occupation and income of the 8 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 deceased, the petitioners have examined the employer of the deceased as PW-2 and his evidence is supported with proper documents. Further he argued that though the respondent No.2 has examined ARTO as RW-1, but his evidence is not supported with proper documents. On the other hand, his evidence is helpful to the case of the petitioners. Further he argued that the petitioners have proved their case by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly he prays to allow the petition.
In support of the argument, he relied the citations reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) and 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others), 2014 ACJ 2161 (S.C) (Yerramma and others Vs. G.Krishnamurthy and another) and 2015 ACJ 594 (S.C) (Kanhsingh and another Vs. Tukaram and others). Further the counsel for the petitioner has filed the memo with copy of notifications, R.C. extract and driving license.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of the objection statement filed by the respondent No.2. Further 9 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 the counsel for the respondent No.2 argued that, on perusal of the documents, produced by the petitioners, it is clear that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry and also driver of the offending vehicle. Further he argued that though the petitioners have examined the employer of the deceased as PW-2 but he has admitted in his cross-examination that he is not a competent person to give evidence regarding the income and promotional opportunities of the deceased. Hence, the petitioners have failed to prove the occupation and income of the deceased. Further he argued that the petitioners have failed to prove that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased and also they have failed to prove their case as contended in the petition. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the petition.
15. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the merits of the case.
On perusal of the evidence on record, it reveals that, to prove their case, the 1 st petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and she has stated in her evidence by reiterating the contents of the petition averments. Further in support 10 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 of her evidence she has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 24.
16. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross- examination, the Pw-1 has clearly stated at page No.8 and 10 that:
"C¥À¥ÀsÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £À£Àß ¥Àw DmÉÆÃzÀ°è ¥ÀæAiÀiÁtô¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, D ªÉüÉUÉ MAzÀÄ PÁåAlgï ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁPïð ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CzÀPÉÌ DmÉÆÃZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß DmÉÆêÀ£ÀÄß ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV rQÌ ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ w½zÀÄ §AvÀÄ.
C¥À¥ÀsÁvÀªÀÅ CAzÁdÄ ¨É¼ÀV£À 11.00 UÀAmÉUÉ DzÀ §UÉÎ w½¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ RArPÉ 2 gÀ°è C¥À¥sÁvÀªÀÅ ºÉÃUÉ D¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ 11 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÞ CzÀÄ ¸ÀĽî¤AzÀ PÀÆrzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
£À£Àß ¥ÀwUÉ C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁUÀ®Ä PÁåAlgï ZÁ®PÀ£À ¤®ðPÀë EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ w½¢zÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, £ÁªÀÅ DmÉÆà ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹gÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence it appears that, the respondent No.2 has denied the entire accident. But to prove the said defence, the respondent No.2 has not produced any documentary evidence. On the other hand, though the respondent No.2 has examined the ARTO as RW- 1, but his evidence is not much helpful as the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
17. To prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw, the petitioners have relied upon the documents at Ex-P-1 to 7. On perusal of Ex-P-1 and 2 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it appears that, the Tavarekere police have registered a case against 12 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 the driver of the Autorickshaw and after completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Autorickshaw.
18. Further on perusal of Ex-P-1 i.e. certified copy of FIR, it appears that, within 3 hours from the time of accident, the complaint came to be lodged. Further on perusal of Ex-P-3 and 4 i.e. certified copy of panchanama and hand sketch, it appears that, on the spot of accident, the road was proceeding from eastern side to western side and at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was proceeding from western side to eastern side and the accident has occurred at the edge of the northern side of the road. Further on perusal of contents of panchanama and sketch it appears that, on the alleged spot, the width of the road is 40 feet and the lorry was parked on the northern side edge of the road. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if at all the driver of the offending vehicle has taken care and caution and he has taken the vehicle towards southern side, then he would have avoided the accident.
13 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
19. Further on perusal of Ex-P-5 i.e. certified copy of MVA report, it appears that, major damages were caused to the front portion of the Autorickshaw and the said Autorickshaw was fully damaged. Considering the above facts and also on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with above documents, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved that the accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw.
20. Further, on perusal of evidence of Pw-1, coupled with Ex-P-6 and 7 i.e. certified copy of PM report and inquest panchanama, it appears that, Sri.H.S.Ramakrishna has sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident and succumbed to the said injuries.
21. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved these issues by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.1 & 3 in the affirmative.
22. Issue No.2:- The case of the petitioners is that, the first petitioner is the wife, the second petitioner is the daughter and the third petitioner is the unmarried sister of 14 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 deceased and they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased and also their dependency upon the income of deceased. To prove the relationship of the petitioners, they have relied upon the documents at Ex-P-7, 9 and 11 i.e. certified copy of inquest panchanama, letter and also notarized copy of ration card. On perusal of contents of those documents, it reveals that, the petitioner No.1 to 3 are the wife, daughter and sister of deceased. Further on perusal of Ex-P-24 i.e. lab report, it appears that, the petitioner No.3 is suffering from some illness. Further on perusal of Ex-P-12 and 13 i.e. copy of death certificate it appears that, the father and mother of the deceased were died in the year 2010 and 2012 respectively.
Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with Ex-P-7, 9 and 11, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have proved that they are the legal heirs and dependents of the deceased. For the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have proved 15 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 this issue by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly I answer this issue is in affirmative.
23. Issue No.4: According to the petitioners, the deceased H.S.Ramakrishna was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 33 years, working as BPO Operation Manager at Capgemni Business Services (India) Ltd., Whitefield main road, Bangalore and earning Rs.75,312/-p.m. Due to his unexpected death, the petitioners have suffered mental agony and great financial loss. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 has disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased.
In order to prove the age of the deceased the PW-1 has relied upon the documents at Ex-P-14 to 23 i.e. copy of pay slips for the month of January 2012 to October 2012. On perusal of those documents, it appears that, the date of birth of the deceased is shown as 8-1-1980. Further on perusal of Ex-P-6 i.e. certified copy of PM report, wherein the age of the deceased is shown as 33 years. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 33 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 16. 16 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
24. Further to prove the educational qualification of deceased, the petitioners have relied upon the documents at Ex-P-8 i.e. certificate issued by The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. On perusal of the said certificate, it reveals that, the deceased has passed the Chartered Accountants examination in the year November 2006.
25. Further to prove the occupation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have examined the employer of the deceased as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence, he is working as H.R. Associate since 3 years at Capgemni Business Services (India) Ltd., and the deceased Ramakrishna has joined the company on 1-4-2005 as BPO Operation Manger and drawing salary of Rs.75,312/-p.m. Further the PW-2 has stated that if the deceased was alive, his salary would go up to Rs.22,000/-p.a. In support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-25 to 30.
Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-2 at length. In the cross- examination, the PW-2 has clearly admitted that: 17 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18 "I do not know what was his salary at the time of joining service. I do not know about appointment of employees of Capgemini Business Services (India) Ltd and sanctioning of increment to them or promotions etc. It is true that management has to decide what promotion should be given to particular employee, I know way relating to said work. It is true that I am not authorize to depose about the salary of the employee or hike in their salaries." On perusal of above evidence, it appears that, he has stated that he is not a competent person to say regarding the salary of employee and hike of their salary. On the other hand, on perusal of his evidence, it appears that, the respondent No.2 has not denied the occupation of the deceased. Further on perusal of Ex-P-15 to 23 and 26 i.e. copy of salary slips it appears that, the deceased was working as BPO Operation Manager at Capgemni Business Services (India) Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.75,312/-p.m. On perusal of Ex-P-23 i.e. copy of pay slip for the month of 18 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 October 2012 it appears that, deceased was drawing salary of Rs.75,312/-p.m.
26. Further as stated above that the PW-2 has admitted in his evidence that, he is not an authorized person to depose about the salary of the employees and hike in the salary. But only on stray admission, the evidence of PW-2 cannot be discarded.
27. Further on perusal of Ex-P-27 i.e. Form No.16 it appears that, deceased has declared his income as Rs.8,30,334/- for the period from 1-4-2011 to 31-3-2012. Further on perusal of Ex-P-30 i.e. letter issued by the Capgemini Business Services (India) Ltd., contended that, the salary of the deceased was revised to Rs.11,11,775/- from 1-1-2012. But on perusal of the salary slip, it appears that, deceased was drawing salary of Rs.75,312/- p.m. Further as stated above that the deceased was declared his income for Rs.8,30,334/- for the year 2011-2012 and paid the income tax. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.75,000/-p.m. certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
19 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
28. Further as stated above that, if the income of the deceased is taken as Rs.75,000/-, then the annual income come to Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.75,000X12). Further as per the income tax slab for the year 2012-2013, total tax would be Rs.1,03,000/-. If the above said tax is deducted in the total income, then the income of deceased comes to Rs.7,97,000/- (Rs.9,00,000 - Rs.1,03,000).
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, his income comes to Rs.5,31,334/- (Rs.7,97,000- 2,65,666).
29. Further as stated above that admittedly the deceased was aged about 33 years. Hence, in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others), the 50% of the income is to be added to the income of the deceased as future prospects. On such addition, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.7,97,000/-P.A. (Rs.5,31,334+Rs.2,65,667).
30. Further as stated above that the income of the 20 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 deceased is Rs.7,97,001/-P.A. and multiplier 16 is applied, then it comes to Rs.1,27,52,016/-. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.1,27,52,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
31. Further the first petitioner being the wife and she is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Further the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection and they are also entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
For the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,28,37,000/- under the following conventional heads. Compensation heads Compensation amount Towards loss of dependency and Rs.1,27,52,000/- estate Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/- Towards loss of consortium Rs. 25,000/- Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 30,000/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony
expenses
Total Rs.1,28,37,000/-
21 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
32. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of the petition and objection statement it reveals that, the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 insurance company is liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,28,37,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.
33. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my findings, on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,28,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the 22 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 being insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioners are entitled for the amount with the ration of 35:50:15.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.64,19,000/- and the petitioner No.3 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.19,18,000/-.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners No.1 and 3, the 50% each of the awarded amount shall be kept in FD in their names, in any nationalized bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be paid to them through account payee cheques after proper identification.
The entire compensation amount with accrued interest awarded to the petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name represented by her natural 23 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 guardian/mother in any nationalized/ schedule bank of petitioner's choice for a period of 15 years or till she attains the age of majority.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. 24 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 23 rd day of March 2015).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM BENGALURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Smt.Kshma.H.R. P.W.2. Mahendra List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 Certified copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 Certified copy of charge sheet Ex-P3 Certified copy of mahazar Ex-P4 Certified copy of sketch Ex-P5 Certified copy of IMV report Ex-P6 Certified copy of PM report Ex-P7 Certified copy of inquest Ex-P8 2 certificates of Professional examinations are commonly marked Ex-P9 Notarised copy of Aadhaar acknowledgment [Compared with original. The original Aadhaar acknowledgment is returned with a condition to produce the same whenever ordered.] Ex-P10 Copy of income tax return for the assessment year 2011- 2012 Ex-P11 Ration card [Original perused & returned with a condition to produce the same whenever ordered Ex-P12 Death certificate of father of the deceased Ex-P13 Death certificate of mother of deceased Ex-P14 Pay slips for the month of Jan-2012 to Oct-2012 to P23 Ex-P24 Medical report[4 pages] of petitioner No.3 25 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 Ex-P25 Authorization letter Ex-P26 Pay slips for the month of May-2012 to Oct-2012 are commonly marked Ex-P27 Form No.16 pertaining to the period 2011-2012 Ex-P28 Form No.16 pertaining to the period 2010-2011 Ex-P29 Letter issued by Human Resources officer, Capgemini Business Services (I) Ltd., Ex-P30 Annual compensation revision List of witnesses examined on respondent's side:
R.W.1 : Sri.Madan Gopal .M. List of documents exhibited on respondent`s side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.26 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18 SCCH-18 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.405/2013 PETITIONERS: 1. Smt.Kshma.H.R. W/o.Late H.S.Ramakrishna, Aged about 30 years,
2. Kum.Vaishnavi.H.R., D/o.Late H.S.Ramakrishna, Aged about 2 ½ years,
3.Kum.H.S.Ramamani, D/o.Late H.A.Sathyanarayana Rao, Aged about 44 years, Petitioner No.2 is minor represented by her natural guardian / mother the 1st petitioner herein Smt.Kshma.H.R. Petitioner No.1 to 3 are R/at House No.301, 12th 'A' Main, 6th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010.
Previous Address:
No.41, Athamaram Kuteer, 3rd Cross, Tapanna Layout, Vidyamananagar west, Andrahalli main road, Bengaluru-560091.
(By Pleader Sri.KNS) /Vs./ RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Hanumanthe Gowda, S/o. Chandrapppa, R/at No.136, 1st Main, Tejaswini Extension, Vrshabhavathinagar, 27 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 Kamakshipalya, Bengaluru-560079.
(Exparte)
2. Reliance Gen. Insurance Co.Ltd., Subhasri Mahendra Towers, 2nd Floor, 11th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560 080.
(By pleader Sri.HNK) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/s.110-A/166 of the M.V.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.Veeranna Somasekhara, III Addl. Sr.Civil Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri./Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,28,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 28 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18 The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 being insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioners are entitled for the amount with the ration of 35:50:15.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.64,19,000/- and the petitioner No.3 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.19,18,000/-.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners No.1 and 3, the 50% each of the awarded amount shall be kept in FD in their names, in any nationalized bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be paid to them through account payee cheques after proper identification.
The entire compensation amount with accrued interest awarded to the petitioner 29 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name represented by her natural guardian/mother in any nationalized/ schedule bank of petitioner's choice for a period of 15 years or till she attains the age of majority.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 2015
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
30 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
_____________________________ By the Petitioner/s Respondent/s No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition Court fee paid on Power Court fee paid on I.A., Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T
METROPOLITAN AREA:BANGALORE.
31 MVC.No.405/2013
SCCH-18
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.1,28,37,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 being insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioners are entitled for the amount with the ration of 35:50:15.
Out of the compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.45,00,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.64,19,000/- and the petitioner No.3 is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.19,18,000/-.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioners No.1 and 3, the 50% each of the awarded amount shall be kept in FD in their names, in any 32 MVC.No.405/2013 SCCH-18 nationalized bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be paid to them through account payee cheques after proper identification.
The entire compensation amount with accrued interest awarded to the petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name represented by her natural guardian/mother in any nationalized/ schedule bank of petitioner's choice for a period of 15 years or till she attains the age of majority.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.