Bangalore District Court
In Mvc.No.608/2015 vs In All The Petitions on 29 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.(SCCH-18)
Dated this 29th day of July 2017.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.Nos.608, 1332 & 1359/2015
PETITIONERS IN MVC.No.608/2015:
1. Mr.P.Subramani
S/o. Late Palaniyappan @ Pazhanisamy,
Aged about 60 years,
2. Mrs.S.Vasantha,
W/o.P.Subramani,
Aged about 48 years,
3. Mr.S.Karthick,
S/o.P.Subramani,
Aged about 25 years,
All the petitioners are
R/at No.158, Kettur,
Punjaikala Mangalam(P)
Erode Taluk,
Erode District.
PETITIONER IN MVC.No.1332/2015:
Mrs.Kavitha.N
W/o.Late Rajkumar.K
Aged about 22 years,
2 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
R/at No.34, 8th Cross,
Near Big Bazaar,
Bhadrappa Layout,
Nagashettihalli, RMV Extension,
Bengaluru - 560094.
PETITIONERS IN MVC.No.1359/2015:
1. Sri.R.Krishna Murthy,
S/o.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 55 years,
2. Mrs.K.Indra,
W/o.R.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 45 years,
3. Smt.K.Pachaiyammal
D/o.R.Krishna Murthy,
Aged about 23 years,
All are R/at No.537,
Road Street, Penugapuram (V)
Severappondi (PO)
Polar (Taluk),
T.V.M.(District)606 902.
(By Pleader Sri.PPR)
/Vs/
RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE PETITIONS:
1. Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
(Deleted)
2. Mr.Kantha Raju.K
S/o.Krishnappa,
R/at No.25-3, GKM College Street,
3 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Church Road,
J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560078.
(By pleader Sri.MJ)
3. ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co. Ltd.,
ICICI Lombard House,
No.414, Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi Vinayaka Temple,
Prabhadevi,
Mumbai-400025.
Local Address:
No.89, 2nd Floor, SVR Complex,
Madiwala, Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru-560068.
(By pleader Sri.GS)
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners in MVC.No.608/2015, 1332/2015 and
1359/2015 have filed these claim petitions against the
respondents U/s.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking
compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- for the
death of Sathiya Raj.S S/o.P.Subramani and K.Rajkumar
S/o.R.Krishna Murthy in a road traffic accident.
4 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
2. These petitions are arising out of the common accident.
Hence, all the petitions are clubbed and taken together and
common evidence is adduced.
3. The brief contents of the petitions are as under:
On 25-10-2014, at about 9.30 p.m. Sathiya Raj was
proceeding as a pillion rider in motorcycle bearing registration
No.KA-01-HF-5634 and the said motorcycle was ridden by
Rajkumar in a slow and cautious manner and when they reached
near Audi Car show room, Beretena Agrahara, at that time, the
driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MB-8644 drive the same
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle.
Due to the said impact, the rider and the pillion of the motor
bike have fell down on the road along with vehicle and sustained
grievous injuries and the injured Rajkumar died on the spot.
Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot have shifted the
injured Sathiya Raj to Blossom hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, in
spite of best treatment, he succumbed to the said injuries on
the next day. Further, after the post mortem, the petitioners
5 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
have received the dead bodies and conducted the funeral and
obsequies ceremony by spending huge amount.
4. The contention of the petitioners in MVC.No.608/2015
is that, deceased Sathiya Raj was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 29 years, working as an Asst.Manager at
M/s.Shobha Developers, Bengaluru and earning Rs.50,000/- p.m.
Further the contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner
No.1 and 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the brother of
deceased and they are the legal heirs of deceased. Further the
contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Sathiya Raj was
the only earning member in their family and due to unexpected
death of Sathiya Raj, they have suffered lot and lost their
bread earner of the family and put to great mental shock.
5. The contention of the petitioners in MVC.1332/2015 and
MVC.1359/2015 is that, deceased Raj Kumar was hale and
healthy at the time of accident, aged about 25 years, working as
a Senior Supervisor at M/s.Shobha Developers, Bengaluru and
earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. Further the contention of the
6 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
petitioners is that, the petitioner in MVC. 1332/2015 is the wife
and the petitioner No.1 and 2 in MVC 1359/2015 are the parents
and the petitioner No.3 in MVC. 1359/2015 is the sister of
deceased and they are the legal heirs of deceased. Further the
contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Raj Kumar was
the only earning member in their family and due to unexpected
death of Raj Kumar, they have suffered lot and lost their bread
earner of the family and put to great mental shock.
6. The contention of the petitioners is that, the
respondent No.2 and 3 are the owner and insurer of the alleged
car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MB-8644 and the policy was in force
as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged car and as
such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts,
they have filed these respective claim petitions for seeking
compensation as mentioned above with interest and cost.
7 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
7. In response to the petition notice, the respondent
No.1 to 3 have appeared before the court through their
respective counsel and the respondent No.2 and 3 have filed
their separate objection statement. On the other hand, as per
order dated: 01-12-2016, the name of the respondent No.1 is
deleted in all the petitions.
8. The brief contents of objection statement of
respondent No.2 are as under:
The claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not
maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent
No.2 has denied the contents of column No.1 to 22 of the claim
petitions in toto. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the
entire accident in toto. Further the respondent No.2 has denied
the age, occupation and income of the deceased persons.
Further the respondent No.2 has admitted that, he is the owner
of the alleged car and the said vehicle was insured with the
respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of
accident and as such, he is not liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners in all the case. Contending the above facts, he prays
8 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
to dismiss all the claim petitions filed by the petitioners as
against him with cost.
9. The brief contents of objection statement of
respondent No.3 are as under:
The claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not
maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent
No.3 has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased
persons as mentioned in the petitions. Further the respondent
No.3 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged car and
the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions
mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the owner
of the alleged car and the concerned police have not complied
the mandatory provisions of Sec.134 (c) and 158(6) of MV Act.
Further he contended that, the driver of the alleged car was not
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the alleged
car as on the date of accident and as such, the owner of the
vehicle has violated the policy conditions. Further he contended
that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding
of the rider of the motorcycle i.e. deceased Rajkumar.
9 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Contending the above facts, the respondent No.3 prays to
dismiss all the claim petitions as against him with cost.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues
were framed in MVC.608/2015:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Sri.Sathiya Raj
S/o.P.Subramani died due to injuries sustained by him
in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on
25-10-2014, at about 9:30 p.m, near Audi Car Show
Room on NH-7 Hosur Road, Biretena Agrahara,
Bangalore involving CAR bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MB-
8644 belonging to Respondent No.2 and the said
vehicle insured with 3rd respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has
mainly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only
legal heirs and the dependent of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation
as prayed? if so, at what rate and from whom?
5. What order or award?
11. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following
issues were framed in MVC.1332/2015:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that Sri.Raj Kumar
S/o. Krishna Murthy died due to injuries sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place
10 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
on 25-10-2014, at about 9:30 p.m., near Audi Car
Show Room on NH-7 Hosur Road, Biretena Agrahara,
Bangalore involving CAR bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MB-
8644 belonging to Respondent No.2 and the said
vehicle insured with 3rd respondent?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the accident has
mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that she is the only
legal heir and the dependent of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
as prayed? if so, at what rate and from whom?
5. What order or award?
12. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following
issues were framed in MVC.1359/2015:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Sri.Raj Kumar
S/o. Krishna Murthy died due to injuries sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place
on 25-10-2014, at about 9:30 p.m., near Audi Car
Show Room on NH-7 Hosur Road, Biretena Agrahara,
Bangalore involving CAR bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MB-
8644 belonging to Respondent No.2 and the said
vehicle insured with 3rd respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident has
mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the said vehicle?
11 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
3. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal
heirs and the dependents of the deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed? if so, at what rate and from
whom?
5. What order or award?
13. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 in
MVC.608/2015 has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked
the documents as Ex-P-1 to P-26 and 39. Further to prove their
case i.e., in MVC.1332/2015 and 1359/2015, the petitioner in
MVC.1332/2015 has examined herself as PW-2 and got marked
the documents as Ex-P-27 to 38 and 40 to 42 and the petitioner
No.1 in MVC.1359/2015 has examined himself as PW-3 and got
marked the documents as Ex-P-43 to 45. Further to prove the
occupation and income of deceased Sathiya Raj and Rajkumar,
the petitioners have examined the Senior Executive of
M/s.Shoba Developers as PW-4 and got marked the documents
as Ex-P-46 to 65.
12 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
14. To disprove the case of the petitioners and to prove
the defence, the respondent No.2 and 3 have not produced any
oral and documentary evidence.
15. Heard the arguments of counsel for the petitioners
and the counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
16. My answers to the aforesaid issues in MVC.608/2015
are as follows:
Issue No.1 to 3: In the affirmative
Issue No.4: In the partly affirmative
Issue No.5: As per final order
for the following:
17. My findings to the aforesaid issues in MVC.1332/2015
and 1359/2015 are as follows:
Issue No.1 to 3: In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the Partly affirmative
Issue No.5: As per final order
For the following:
R E A S O N S
18. Issue No.1 & 2 in MVC.608/2015, MVC.1332/2015
& 1359/2015:- These issues are inter connected with each
13 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
other. Hence, in order to avoid the repetition of facts, they are
taken together for common consideration.
19. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioners argued by reiterating the contents of
petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 to 4. Further he
argued that, to prove the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the alleged car, the petitioners have produced the
copy of police investigation papers and on perusal of the
contents of those documents, it is clear that, the alleged
accident has occurred mainly due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the alleged car. Further he argued that, the
petitioners in MVC.608/2015 are the parents and brother of
deceased Sathiya Raj and the petitioner in MVC.1332/2015 is
the wife of deceased Rajkumar and the petitioners in
MVC.1359/2015 are the parents and sister of deceased
Rajkumar. Further he argued that, to prove the occupation and
income of deceased persons, the petitioners have examined the
employee of Shoba Developers as PW-4 and on perusal of the
14 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
evidence of PW-4, it is clear that, at the time of accident,
deceased Sathiya Raj and Rajkumar were working as Senior
Supervisor and Asst.Manger respectively at M/s.Shoba
Developers, Bengaluru and drawing salary of Rs.50,000/- P.M.
and Rs.20,000/- P.M. Further he argued that, the defence of the
respondent No.3 is that, at the time of accident, Rajkumar was
not having driving licence to ride the motorcycle, in spite of
that, he has ridden the motorcycle and as such, he has
contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of
accident. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.3 has not
produced any supportive documents and not examined any one of
the witness who has seen the accident. On the other hand, the
petitioners have proved their case by producing supportive
documents and as such, the oral version of the respondent No.3
is not acceptable one. Further he argued that, the petitioners
have proved their case as contended in the petition by producing
oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the claim petitions.
15 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
20. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for
the petitioners has relied upon the following citations:
1. ILR 2016 KAR 549 (Mrs.Rajeshwari G.Bhuyar and others
Vs.Sindhu Travels and another)
2. 2008 AIR SCW 3981 (Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder
Singh and others)
3. 2013 ACJ Page 1403 (Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh
and others)
4. 2013 AIR SCW 3258 (Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore
Dan and others)
5. AIR 1998 SC 3191 (Mr.Helen C.Rebello and others Vs.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpn. And another).
21. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.3 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement
filed by the respondent No.3. Further he argued that, on
perusal of the evidence of PW-2 and 3, it reveals that, at the
time of accident, Rajkumar was riding the motorcycle and he was
not holding driving licence to ride the motorcycle and as such,
deceased Rajkumar has contributed major extent of negligence
for occurrence of accident. Further he argued that, to prove
16 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
the occupation and income, though, the petitioners have
examined the employer of deceased person as PW-4, but the
evidence of PW-4 is not supported with proper documents.
Further he argued that, the petitioner No.3 in MVC.608/2015
and the petitioner No.3 in MVC.1359/2015 are the majors and as
such, they are not the dependents of deceased Sathiyaraj and
Rajkumar. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-4, it reveals
that, after the death of Sathiya Raj and Rajkumar, the
petitioners have received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under
group insurance scheme and as such, if this court grants the
compensation to the petitioners, then the said amount shall be
deducted in the total compensation amount entitled by the
petitioners. Further he argued that, the petitioners have failed
to prove their case as contended in the petitions by producing
proper documents. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has
proved its defence, by extracting admission from the petitioners
and their witnesses. Contending the above facts, he prays to
17 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
dismiss all the claim petitions as against the respondent No.3
with cost.
22. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for
the respondent No.3 has relied upon the following citations:
1. 2016 ACJ 2723 (Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Shashi
Sharma and others)
2. MFA 30284/08 (MV) dated 5-12-2012 (Ramalingappa Vs.
Shivarao and others)
23. On rival contention urged by the petitioners and
respondent No.3, I intend to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of the evidence available on records, it reveals
that, to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 in MVC.608/2015
has examined himself as PW-1 and the petitioner in
MVC.1332/2015 has examined herself as PW-2 and the
petitioner No.1 in MVC.1359/2015 has examined himself as PW-3
and they have stated in their evidence by reiterating the
contents of petitions. Further in support of their evidence, they
have produce the documents and the same are marked as
Ex-P-43 to 45.
18 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
24. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.3 has
cross-examined the PW-1 to 3 at length. In the cross-
examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.11 & 12
that:
"C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è gÁdPÀĪÀiÁgï FvÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß
ªÉÃUÀªÁV ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV MªÉÄäÃUÉ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ
§®¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV, MªÉÄäÃ¯É D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ §½ §AzÀ PÁgÀt
vÁV¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, £Á£ÀÄ
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr®èªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
C¥ÀWÁvªÀÅ ¨ÉÊPï ¸ÀªÁgÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, £Á£ÀÄ
¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ GzÉÝñ¢AzÀ ¥ÉÇð¸ÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÆrü
PÁgÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî PÉøÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀĪɣÀÄ JAzÀgÉ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On the other hand, the PW-2 has also clearly stated in her
cross-examination at page No.9 that:
"£À£Àß ¥ÀwUÉ ¨ÉÊPï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ rJ¯ï EgÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ,
CzÀjAzÀ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV ¨ÉÊPï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä §gÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ,
D PÁgÀt C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄ ªÉÃUÀªÁV
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV, PÁgïUÉ
rQÌ ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
19 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Further the PW-3 has also clearly stated in his cross-
examination at page No.8 that:
"ªÀÄÈvÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ gÁeïPÀĪÀiÁgï FvÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï
ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä rJ¯ï£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀjUÉ rJ¯ï
EgÀzÉà EzÀÄÝ, CzÀjAzÀ DvÀ£ÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨ÉÊPï£ÀÄß
ªÉÃUÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvɬÄAzÀ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV,
PÁgïUÉ vÁV¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀjAzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ CªÀgÀ
vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it reveals that, the
defence of the respondent no.3 is that, the alleged accident has
not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the alleged car, on the other hand, the accident has occurred
due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle
bearing Reg.No.KAr-01-HF-5634 i.e. deceased Rajkumar.
25. To prove the said defence, the respondent No.3 has
not produced any supportive documents and not examined any
one of the witness cited in the charge sheet or the driver of the
alleged car. On the other hand, on perusal of the entire evidence
20 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
of PW-1 to 3, it reveals that, though the counsel for the
respondent No.3 has cross-examined the PW-1 to 3 at length,
but nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their
version regarding the rah and negligent driving of the driver of
the alleged car as contended in the petition.
26. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the alleged car, in support of their oral evidence, the
petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation
papers and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 9. On perusal of
Ex-P-1 and 9 i.e. true copy of FIR with complaint and charge
sheet, it reveals that, Electronic City traffic police have
registered a case against the driver of the alleged car bearing
Registration No.KA-01-MB-8644 and after completion of
investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet
as against the driver of the alleged car.
27. Further during the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the respondent No.3 vehemently argued that, at the
time of accident, the rider of the motorcycle i.e. deceased
21 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Rajkumar was not having driving license to ridden the motorcycle
and as such, he has also contributed major extent of negligence
for occurrence of accident. In support of his arguments, the
counsel for the respondent No.3 has not produced any supportive
documents. On the other hand, as stated above that, in support
of oral evidence of petitioners, they have produced the copy of
police investigation papers and as such, the evidence of
petitioners is supported with corroborative documents.
28. Further on perusal of Ex-P-5 i.e. copy of hand sketch,
it shows that, on the alleged spot, the road was proceeding from
south to north i.e. Hosur towards Bengaluru and width of the
said road is 25 feet and the said road was straight road.
Further it reveals that, at the time of accident, the rider of the
motorcycle i.e. deceased Rajkumar was riding the motorcycle
from north to south direction and at that time, the driver of the
alleged car was driving the car from south to north direction and
the alleged accident has occurred near the edge of the eastern
portion of the road. Considering the above facts and looking to
22 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
the situation appeared in Ex-P-5-copy of hands sketch and for
the above reason, I am of the opinion that, when the driver of
the alleged car was proceeding from south to north direction,
then it was the duty of the driver of the car to drive the vehicle
on the western side of the road. But on perusal of Ex-P-5, it
shows that, the driver of the alleged car was driven the vehicle
on the western side of the road, but abruptly, he has took the
vehicle to entire eastern portion of the road. Considering the
above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that,
if the driver of the alleged car has taken some care and caution
and he has drive the car on proper side of the road, then he
would have avoided the accident. Considering the above facts
and looking to the situation appeared in Ex-P-5 i.e. hand sketch
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the accident
has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of
the alleged car.
29. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled
with contents copy of police investigation papers and for the
23 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
above reason, I am of the opinion that, as per the version of the
respondent No.3, if at all, the alleged accident has not occurred
due to negligence on the part of the driver of the alleged car,
then it was the duty of the respondent No.3 to examine any one
of the witness cited in the charge sheet or the driver of the car.
But the respondent No.3 did not do so. For the above reason,
I am of the opinion that, to disbelieve the version of the
petitioners, the respondent No.3 has not produced any rebuttal
evidence and documents and as such, the contention of the
respondent No.3 is that, the rider of the motorcycle was also
contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of the
accident is not acceptable one.
30. At this stage, I have gone through the citation relied
upon by the counsel for the petitioners reported in 2008 AIR
SCW 3981 (Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh and others),
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
(B) Motor vehicle Act (59 of 1988), S.168- Accident
- Claim for compensation- Negligence - Person driving
24 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
vehicle without licence - Same by itself may not lead
to finding of negligence as regards accidents- No
finding of fact arrived at that claimant was driving
two-wheeler rashly and negligently when met with
accident with mini-truck - Thus only because he was
not having a licence, he could not be held to be guilty
of contributory negligence.
On going through the above Judgment, the observation of
the Hon'ble Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
31. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled with
documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that,
the petitioners have proved that, the alleged accident has
mainly occurred due rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the alleged car as contended in the petitions by producing oral
and documentary evidence.
32. Further on perusal of Ex-P-7, 8, 27 and 28 i.e. copy of
inquest panchanamas and PM reports, it shows that, Sathiya Raj
25 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
and Rajkukmar have sustained grievous injuries in the above said
accident and succumbed to the said injuries.
33. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the
case and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 to 3 coupled with
documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that,
the petitioners have proved these issues by producing proper
documents. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.1 and 2 in
MVC.608/2015, 1332/2015 and 1359/2015 in the affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.3 IN MVC.No.608/2015:- The specific
contention of the petitioners is that, petitioner No.1 and 2 are
the parents and the petitioner No.3 is the brother of deceased
Sathiya Raj and as such, they are the legal heirs and dependents
of deceased. Further the contention of the petitioners is that,
deceased Sathiya Raj was the only earning member in their
family and due to unexpected death of Sathiya Raj, they have
suffered lot and lost their bread earner.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 and 3 have denied
the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
26 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
35. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have relied
upon the copy of Aadhaar cards standing in the name of
deceased Sathiya Raj and the petitioners and the same are
marked as Ex-P-21 to 24. On perusal of the contents of those
documents, it reveals that, the petitioners are the parents and
brother of deceased and as such, they are the legal heirs of
deceased. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1, it reveals
that, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are not the earning members and
the petitioner No.3 is an unemployee. Considering the above
facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the
petitioners No.1 to 3 are the dependents of deceased.
Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of
PW-1 and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the
petitioners have proved this issue by producing oral and
documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.3 in
the affirmative.
36. Issue No.3 in MVC.1332/2015 & 1359/2015: The
specific contention of the petitioner in MVC.1332/2015 is that,
27 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
she is the wife of deceased Rajkumar and the contention of the
petitioners in MVC.1359/2015 is that, the petitioner No.1 and 2
are the parents and the petitioner No.3 is the sister of
deceased Rajkumar and as such, they are the legal heirs and
dependents of deceased. Further the contention of the
petitioners in both the case is that, deceased Rajkumar was the
only earning member in their family and due to unexpected
death of Rajkumar, they have suffered lot and lost their bread
earner.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 and 3 have denied
the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
37. To prove the relationship, the petitioner in
MVC.1332/2015 has relied upon the notarized copy of
certificate of registration of marriage solemnized between
Rajkumar and the petitioner and the petitioners in
MVC.1359/2015 have relied upon the copy of election ID card,
standing in the name of petitioners and the same are marked as
Ex-P-40 and 43 to 45. On perusal of the contents of those
28 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
documents, it reveals that, the petitioner in MVC.1332/2015 is
the wife and the petitioners in MVC.1359/2015 are the parents
and sister of deceased Rajkumar and as such, they are the legal
representatives of deceased. Further on perusal of evidence of
Pw-2 and 3, it reveals that, the petitioner in MVC.1332/2015 and
the petitioner No.1 and 2 in MVC.1359/2015 are not the earning
members and the petitioner No.3 in MVC.1359/2015 is unmarried
women and as such, all of them are dependents of deceased
Rajkumar.
Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of
PW-2 and 3 coupled with documents and for the above reason,
I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved this issue
by producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue
in both the case in the affirmative.
38. Issue No.4 in MVC.608/2015: The specific
contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Sathiya Raj was
hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 29 years,
working as an Assistant Manager at M/s.Shoba Developers,
29 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Bengaluru and earning Rs.50,000/-p.m. Further the contention
of the petitioners is that, deceased Sathiya Raj was the only
earning member in their family and due to unexpected death of
Sathiya Raj, they have suffered lot and lost their bread earner.
On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has denied the
above contention of the petitioners in toto.
39. To prove the age, the petitioners have relied upon the
copy of SSLC marks and the same is marked as Ex-P-17. On
perusal of Ex-P-17, wherein, the date of birth of the deceased
Sathiya Raj is shown as 11-4-1985 and the same is considered as
date of birth of the deceased, then it is clear that, as on the
date of accident, deceased Sathiya Raj was aged about 29 years.
Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is
'17'.
40. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioners
have examined the Senior Executive-HR of M/s.Shoba Ltd., as
PW-4, who has stated in his evidence that, since February 2006
he is working as a Senior Executive-HR in the said company.
30 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Further he has stated that, one Sathiya Raj was working as an
Assistant Manager in the said company from 29-9-2014 to till
his death i.e. on 25-10-2014. Further he has stated that,
deceased Sathiya Raj was drawing salary of Rs.38,542/- P.M. and
if he has alive, he would have get 10% increment on his salary of
every month and also he was having an opportunity to getting
promotion as per the norms of the company. In support of his
evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are
marked as Ex-P47 to 51.
41. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.3 has
cross-examined the PW-4 at length. On perusal of the evidence
of PW-4, it shows that, though the counsel for the respondent
No.2 has cross-examined the PW-4 at length, but nothing has
been elicited from him to disbelieve his version regarding the
occupation and income of deceased Sathiyaraj.
42. Further on perusal of E-P-12 i.e. copy of appointment
letter, it shows that, deceased Sathiya Raj was appointed as an
Asst.Manager in Shoba Ltd., w.e.f. 29-9-2014 and the salary of
31 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
the deceased was fixed at Rs.38,542/-p.m. Further on perusal
of Ex-P-20 i.e. copy of BE marks card, it shows that, in the year
2004, deceased Sathiya Raj has completed his BE Civil
Engineering at Anna University, Chennai. Further on perusal of
Ex-P-46 i.e. copy of appointment letter and on perusal of Ex-P12
i.e. copy of appointment order, it shows that, both the
documents are one and the same. Further as stated above that,
at the time of accident, deceased Sathiya Raj was drawing salary
of Rs.38,542/- P.M. and as such, income of the deceased is taken
as Rs.38,000/- P.M. certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
43. Further as stated above that, deceased Sathiya Raj
was a bachelor and as such, if 50% of the income of deceased
shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on such
deduction, income of the deceased comes to Rs.19,000/-p.m.
(after deduction) and the same is considered as income of the
deceased certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
44. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-4 coupled with
documents produced by him, it shows that, deceased Sathiya Raj
32 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
was a permanent employee of M/s.Shoba Ltd., and as such, he
was having fixed income and he was aged about 29 years as on
the date of accident. Hence in view of the observation of the
Hon'ble apex court in a citation reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105
(Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar sharma and others),
if 50% of the income is to be added to the income of deceased
as future prospects, on such addition, the total income of the
deceased comes to Rs.28,500/-p.m. (Rs.19,000+Rs.9,500) and the
same is considered as income of the deceased certainly it would
meet the ends of justice.
45. The income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.28,500/-p.m. (after deduction of personal expenses) and the
multiplier 17 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.58,14,000/-. (Rs.28,500X12X17). Considering the above
facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation
of Rs.58,14,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
46. Further the petitioners are the parents and brother
of deceased and as such, they are entitled for compensation of
33 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Rs.45,000/-under the head of loss of love and affection and
they are also entitled for compensation of Rs.45,000/-under
the head of loss of estate and they are entitled for
compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of
transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony
expenses.
47. The contention of the petitioners is that, they have
spent huge amount towards medical expenses of injured Sathiya
Raj till his death. In support of their contention, the PW-1 has
relied upon the medical bills and the same are marked as
Ex-P-25. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has disputed
the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the counsel
for the respondent No.3 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length,
but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills.
Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with medical
bills, it shows that, the petitioners have spent an amount of
Rs.54,163/- towards medical expenses. Considering the above
facts and for the above reason, I deem it just and reasonable
34 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
to grant for compensation of Rs.54,000/- under the head of
medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the
petitioners are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.59,88,000/- under the following conventional heads.
Compensation heads Compensation amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 58,14,000/-
Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 45,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs. 45,000/-
Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 30,000/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses
Towards medical expenses Rs. 54,000/-
Total Rs. 59,88,000/-
48. Issue No.4 in MVC.1332/2015 & 1359/2015: The
specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased
Rajkumar was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged
about 25 years, working as a Senior Supervisor at M/s.Shoba
Developers, Bengaluru and earning Rs.20,000/-p.m. Further the
contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner in
MVC.1332/2015 is the wife of deceased Rajkumar and the
35 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
petitioners in MVC.1359/2015 are the parents and sister of
deceased Rajkumar. Further the contention of the petitioners is
that, deceased Rajkumar was the only earning member in their
family and due to unexpected death of Rajkumar, they have
suffered lot and lost their bread earner.
On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has denied the
above contention of the petitioners in toto.
49. To prove the age, the petitioners have relied upon the
copy of SSLC marks card and the same is marked as Ex-P-34
wherein, the date of birth of the deceased Rajkumar is shown
as 30-5-1989 and the same is considered as date of birth of the
deceased, then it is clear that, as on the date of accident,
deceased Rajkumar was aged about 25 years. Hence, the proper
multiplier applicable to the case on hand is '18'.
50. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioners
have examined the Senior Executive-HR of M/s.Shoba Ltd., as
PW-4, who has stated in his evidence that, since March 2013 to
till his death i.e. on 25-10-2014 deceased Rajkumar was working
36 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
as a projects engineer in M/s.Shoba Developers Ltd., and
drawing salary of Rs.19,076/- P.M. Further he has stated that,
if deceased Rajkumar has alive and continued the job, then he
would have get 10% increment on his salary every year and also
he has got an opportunity to get promotion as per the norms of
the company. In support of his evidence, he has produced the
documents and the same are marked as Ex-P62 to 64.
51. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.3 has
cross-examined the PW-4 at length. On perusal of the entire
evidence of PW-4, it reveals that, though, the counsel for the
respondent No.3 has cross-examined the PW-4 at length, but
nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version
regarding the occupation and income of deceased Rajkumar.
52. Further on perusal of E-P-53 i.e. copy of appointment
letter, it shows that, Rajkumar was appointed as a Senior
supervisor in M/s. Shoba Ltd., w.e.f. 25-3-2013 and the salary of
the Rajkumar was fixed at Rs.19,890/-p.m. Further on perusal
of Ex-P-55 i.e. letter issued by Shoba Developers, it shows that,
37 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
the job of the deceased Rajkumar was confirmed w.e.f.
1-10-2013. Further on perusal of Ex-P41 and 59 i.e. pay slips
(both are one and the same) for the month of September 2014,
it shows that, in the month of September 2014, deceased
Rajkumar's last drawn salary was Rs.19,076/- and the same is
considered as income of the deceased and the same is taken as
Rs.19,000/- P.M. certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
53. Further as stated above that, there are 4 dependents
(wife, parents and sister) and as such, if 1/4th of the income of
deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on
such deduction, income of the deceased comes to
Rs.14,250/-p.m.
54. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-4 coupled with
documents produced by him, it shows that, deceased Rajkumar
was a permanent employee of M/s.Shoba Ltd., and as such, he
was having fixed income and he was aged about 25 years as on
the date of accident. Hence in view of the observation of the
Hon'ble apex court in a citation reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105
38 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
(Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar sharma and others),
if 50% of the income is to be added to the income of deceased
as future prospects, on such addition, the total income of the
deceased comes to Rs.21,375/-p.m. (Rs.14,250+Rs.7,125) and the
same is taken as Rs.21,000/-p.m. certainly it would meet the
ends of justice.
55. The income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.21,000/-p.m. (after deduction of personal expenses) and the
multiplier 18 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to
Rs.45,36,000/-. (Rs.21,000X12X18). Considering the above
facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation
of Rs.45,36,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
56. Further as stated above that, the petitioner in
MVC.1332/2015 is the wife of deceased Rajkumar and as such,
she is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head
of loss of consortium. Further the petitioner in
MVC.1332/2015 and the petitioners in MVC.1359/2015 are the
wife, parents and sister of deceased and as such, they are
39 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of
loss of love and affection and they are also entitled for
compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of loss of
estate and also they are entitled for compensation of
Rs.30,000/- 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, I am of the opinion that, the
petitioners are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.47,16,000/- under the following conventional heads.
Compensation heads Compensation amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 45,36,000/-
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/-
Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/-
Towards loss of estate Rs. 60,000/-
Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 30,000/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony expenses
Total Rs. 47,16,000/-
57. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petitions and
contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent
No.2 is the owner and the respondent No.3 is the insurer of the
40 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
alleged car bearing Reg.No.KA-01-MB-8644 and the policy was in
force as on the date of accident.
58. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the respondent No.3 vehemently argued that, after the
death of Sathiya Raj and Rajkumar, the petitioners being the
legal representatives of deceased persons have received an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-each from Group personal insurance
claim and as such, the said amount has to be deductible from the
above mentioned compensation amount entitled by the
petitioners.
59. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.3 has relied upon a citation reported in 2016 ACJ
2723 (Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Shashi Sharma and others).
60. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
petitioners argued that, the said amount is an insurance amount
and the same cannot be deductible in the total compensation
amount entitled by the petitioners as the deceased persons have
personally paid the premium to the said insurance policy.
41 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
61. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has relied upon a citation reported in 2013 AIR SCW
3258 (Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others).
62. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW-4, it reveals
that, admittedly, after the death of Sathiya Raj and Rajkumar,
the parents of deceased Sathiya Raj and the wife of deceased
Rajkumar have received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- each under
group personal insurance claim.
63. At this stage, I have gone through the citation relied
by the counsel for the petitioners reported in 2013 AIR SCW
3258 (Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and others),
wherein, at para No.19 of the Judgment, the Hon'ble supreme
court observed as under:
19. The first issue is "whether Provident Fund,
Pension and Insurance receivable by claimants come
within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be
termed as "Pecuniary Advantage" liable for
deduction."
42 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
The aforesaid issue fell for consideration
before this Court in (Helen C.Rebello and others Vs.
Maharasthra State Road Transport Corporation and
another) reported in (1999 1 SCC 90: (AIR 1998 SC
3191). In the said case, this court held that,
Provident Fund, Pension, Insurance and similarly any
cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. are
all a "pecuniary advantage" receivable by the heirs on
account of one's death but all these have no
correlation with the amount receivable under a
statue occasioned only on account of accidental
death. Such an amount will not come within the
periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as
"pecuniary advantage" liable for deduction.
Further the Hon'ble Apex Court observed in
the same para as under:
The insured (deceased) contributes his own
money for which he receives the amount which has
no correlation to the compensation computed as
against the tort-feasor for his negligence on account
of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable
as compensation under the Act is on account of the
injury or death without making any contribution
towards it, then how can fruits of an amount
43 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
received through contributions of the insured be
deducted out of the amount receivable under the
Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this act he
receives without any contribution. As we have said,
the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles
Act is a statutory while the amount receivable under
the Life insurance policy is contractual"
On going through the above said observation, the said
observation is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
64. Further at this stage, I come across a citation of our
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1998 SC 3191 (Helen
C.Rebello and others Vs. Maharasthra State Road Transport
Corporation and another), wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court
observed in last para of the Judgment as under:
"We have no hesitation to conclude that the
set of decisions, which applied the principle of no
deduction of the life insurance amount should be
accepted and the other set, which interpreted to
deduct, is to be rejected. For all these
consideration we have no hesitation to hold that such
44 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
High Courts were wrong in deducting the amount paid
or payable under the life insurance by giving
restricted meaning to the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act basing mostly on the language of English
statutes and not taking into consideration the
changed language and intends of the legislature
under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1 "39. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned
judgment dated 9th September, 1985 and restore
the judgment of the tribunal dated 29 September,
1980 and hold that the amount received by the
claimant on the life insurance of the deceased is not
deductible from the compensation computed under
the Motor Vehicles Act."
On going through the above observation, the said
observation is also aptly applicable to the case on hand and the
said observation is helpful to the contention raised by the
petitioners. Considering the above facts and for the above
reason, I am of the opinion that, the contention raised by the
respondent no.3 is not acceptable one.
45 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
65. Further as stated above that, the alleged accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
alleged car and as such, both the respondents are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
However, the respondent No.3 being the insurer of the alleged
car is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as calculated
above along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of petition
till the date of deposit to the petitioners. Accordingly,
I answer the issue No.4 in MVC.608/2015, MVC 1332/2015 and
MVC 1359/2015 in the partly affirmative.
66. ISSUE NO.5 IN ALL THE CASE: In view of my
findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The claim petitions i.e. MVC.No.608/2015, 1332/2015 and MVC.No.1359/2015 filed by the petitioners U/S.166 of M.V. Act are hereby partly allowed with cost.
46 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18 The petitioners are entitled for compensation as noted below with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of deposit. MVC.No.608/2015 Rs.59,88,000/-
MVC.No.1332/2015 & Rs.47,16,000/-
MVC.No.1359/2015 The respondents No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount to the petitioners. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.3- insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount in this tribunal within 30 days from date of this order.
Out of the above compensation amount awarded to the petitioners in MVC 608/2015, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.23,95,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for an amount of Rs.29,94,000/- and the petitioner No.3 is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,90,000/-.
Out of the above compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 3, an amount of Rs.7,25,000/-, Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.1,75,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.1 to 3, 47 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015 SCCH-18 respectively, in any nationalized/schedule bank of petitioner's choice for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner No.1 to 3 through account payee cheques on proper identification.
Out of the above compensation amount awarded to the petitioners in MVC.1332/2015 and MVC 1359/2015, the petitioner in MVC.1332/2015 is entitled for an amount of Rs.21,22,000/-(45%) and the petitioner No.1 in MVC.1359/2015 is entitled for an amount of Rs.9,43,000/- (20%) and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for an amount of Rs.11,79,000/- (25%) and the petitioner No.3 is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,72,000/-(10%).
Out of the above compensation amount awarded to the petitioners, an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in MVC.1332/2015 in any nationalized/schedule bank of petitioner's choice for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
48 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18 Out of the above compensation amount awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 3 in MVC.1359/2015, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.3,75,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner No.1 to 3, respectively, in any nationalized/schedule bank of petitioner's choice for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner No.1 to 3 through account payee cheques on proper identification.
Keep the original judgment in MVC.No.608/2015 and its copy in other cases.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 29th day of July 2017).
(VEERANNA SOMESEKHARA) III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined for petitioner's side:
PW-1: Sri. Subramani P. PW-2: Mrs.Kavitha 49 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015 SCCH-18 PW-3: Sri. R.Krishna Murthy PW-4: Sri.Mahesh K.G. List of documents exhibited for petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 True copy of Panchanama Ex-P3 Intimation letter regarding Medico legal case Ex-P4 &5 True copy of Rough Sketch Ex-P6 True copy of MVI report Ex-P7 Copy of Inquest report Ex-P8 Copy of PM report Ex-P9 True copy of charge sheet Ex-P10 Letter of Blossom hospital Ex-P11 Death certificate Ex-P12 Appointment letter Ex-P13 Pay slip (Final settlement) Ex-P14 Copy of form No.16 Ex-P15 & 16 Letters issued by Jain Housing and URC construction Pvt.
Ltd.
Ex-P17 SSLC marks card
Ex-P18 Diploma marks card
Ex-P19 BE degree certificate
Ex-P20 Consolidated statement of marks (BE civil Engg.)
Ex-P21 Adhaar card
Ex-P22- 24 3 notarized adhaar cards
Ex-P25 6 medical bills
Ex-P26 8 prescriptions
Ex-P27 Copy of inquest report
Ex-P28 PM report
Ex-P29 Death certificate
Ex-P30 Appointment order
Ex-P31 &32 Pay slips for the months of July & Aug.2014
Ex-P33 Copy of form NO.16
Ex-P34 SSLC mark card
Ex-P35 Diploma marks card
50 MVC.Nos.608,1332 & 1359/2015
SCCH-18
Ex-P36 Consolidated marks sheet (Civil Engg.)
Ex-P37 Notarized copy of Marriage certificate
Ex-P38 Notarized copy of Adhaar card
Ex-P39 Notarized copy of Passport
Ex-P40 Notarized copy of certificate of registration of marriage
Ex-P41 Pay slip for the month of Sept.2014
Ex-P42 Final settlement
Ex-P43 Notarized copy pf Election Id card
Ex-P44 Notarized copy of Election Id card
Ex-P45 Notarized copy of Election Id card
Ex-P46 Offer Letter
Ex-P47 Appointment letter
Ex-P48 Final settlement
Ex-P49 Form No.16
Ex-P51 SSLC marks card copy
Ex-P52 Provisional certificate copy
Ex-P53 Copy of Offer letter
Ex-P54 Copy of appointment letter
Ex-P55 Copy of letter dt.11.11.2013
Ex-P56 Final settlement
Ex-P57-59 3 pay slips
Ex-P60 Copy of Form No.16
Ex-P61 Form-12(b) and form -16
Ex-P62 Diploma certificate
Ex-P63 &64 Copy of marks cards Ex-P65 Certificate of incorporation List of witnesses examined for respondents' side:-
-None-
List of documents exhibited for respondents' side:
-Nil-
III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.