Bangalore District Court
Shri.Nanda Kumar vs R.Venkatareddy on 23 April, 2019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & V
ADDL. JUDGE SCCH-20, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd day of April, 2019
Present: Smt. A.G.SHILPA, B.A., LL.B.,
V Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC. No.1275/2017
PETITIONER: 1. Shri.Nanda Kumar
S/o Bhupathi
Aged 28 years
2. Kum.Deepthi,
D/o Nanda Kumar
Aged 1-1/2 years
(represented by her natural guardian and
her father)
All are residing at # 32, 100 feet main road
5th cross, Bhavaninagar
Banashankari 2nd stage, Bidarahalli,
Bangalore - 560070
Presently residing at No.109, Mukuntamma
Nagar, 2nd cross Dodda Banasawadi
2nd cross, Dodda Banasawadi
Kalyanangar post
Bangalore - 560043
(By Pleader Sri.Muniyappa D.Naveen)
SCCH-20 2 MVC No.1275/2017
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS: 1.R.Venkatareddy
S/o P.Ramappa,
203, shop No.13, II floor,
80 feet road, Kaqlyananagar,
Opp. St. Geroge,
College of Nursing,
Near Sub Registrar office,
Banaswadi, Bangalore 560043.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,
Shopping complex, 44/45
Residence Road,
New Mayo Hall,
Bangalore - 560001.
(R1-By Pleader Sri.KS Babu)
(R2- By Pleader Sri.M.Ramesha)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed present petition U/sec 166 of IMV Act claiming compensation amount of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Hema w/o Nanda Kumar in Road Traffic Accident along with interest and for cost. SCCH-20 3 MVC No.1275/2017
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are that:
On 29.11.2016 at about 06.00 PM, on service road, near Gold Gym, Kalyananagar, Bangalore, deceased met a road traffic accident. It is her case that on alleged date, time and place the deceased was riding a motor cycle and the Tractor-Tanker bearing Regn No: KA-07 TA-2691 / KA- 07 TA-2692 came from Hennur towards Kalyananagar, at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed to the deceased, due to which deceased fell down and Tractor-Tanker right side rear wheel ran over the deceased, and she sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. After post mortem, the body was handed over to the petitioners and they performed funeral, obsequies, last rites ceremony by spending more than a sum of Rs.50,000/-. SCCH-20 4 MVC No.1275/2017
Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was hale, healthy and was aged 28 years and she was a cook,and cooked at 3-4 house and she was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. Shee was the only earning member in the family and she worked very hard to look after her family. She had a bright future in her career. The petitioners were entirely depending upon the deceased. Due to untimely death of the deceased, the family members are completely broken & life has become desolated by the grief causing lot of pain, shock, mental agony and financial difficulties.
The Banaswadi police have registered case against the driver of Tractor-Tanker bearing Regn No: KA-07 TA- 2691 and KA-07 TA-2692 in Cr.No.384/2016 U/s 279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. Hence, prayed to allow this petition.
In pursuance of the claim petition, this court issued notice to respondent No.1 and 2 and they have appeared SCCH-20 5 MVC No.1275/2017 through pleader and have filed written statement separately.
3. Brief averments of the written statement of the respondent No.1 are as follows:
The respondent No.1 has denied the all plaint allegations made against him and as false, vexatious and concocted and the petitioners are put to strict proof of the averments regarding the place, date and time of the accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioners are fanciful, speculative and exorbitant besides being without any basis. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. Brief averments of the written statement of the respondent No.2 are as follows:
The 2nd respondent admitted for having issued policy bearing No.421392/31/2016/3839 in favour of the 1st respondent insuring the driver of Tractor-Tanker bearing SCCH-20 6 MVC No.1275/2017 Regn No: KA-07 TA-2691 and KA-07 TA-2692 for the period 13.01.2016 to 12.01.2017. The respondent has denied all other averments made in the petition. It is stated that in the event that an award is passed against the respondent their liability to indemnify their insured is subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy and under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act. It is defence that the liability to indemnify the insured subject to holding valid and effective driving license by the rider. Further it is admitted that the petitioner is required to declare that she did not file any other petitions claim for compensation on the same cause of action before any other tribunal, in case of such petitions are pending, she ought to give an undertaking that she shall withdraw all other cases claiming for the same relief.
Further submitted that in the event of this court has inclined to allow the above petition and award interest may be restricted to 6% pa., therefore, the 2nd respondent in the above case prayed to dismiss claim petition. SCCH-20 7 MVC No.1275/2017
5. On basis of the Pleadings and materials and materials, my Predecessor has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 29/11/2016 at about 06.00 PM, when the deceased was pillion rider on Honda Activa bearing No. KA-03-JW-8215, near Gold Gym, Kalyananagar, Bangalore, at that time, driver drove tractor-tanker bearing No: KA-07-TA-2691 and KA-07-
TA-2692 at high speed, rash and negligent, and dashed against the deceased vehicle, and deceased fell down, he sustained injuries & died on spot?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove their case, the petitioner No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to 17 and closed his side. The Respondents examined two witnesses as RW-1 and 2 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 11.
7. Heard the arguments of both side and perused the records.
SCCH-20 8 MVC No.1275/2017
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1: The PW-1 is none other than husband of the deceased. He filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of examination in chief reiterated petition averments contending that on 29.11.2016 at 6.00 PM, on service road, near Gold Gym, Kalyananagar, Bangalore, deceased met road traffic accident. It is his case that on alleged date, time and place the deceased was riding a motor cycle and Tractor-Tanker bearing Regn No: KA-07 TA-2691 and KA- 07 TA-2692 driver came from Hennur towards Kalyananagar, at high speed, in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and SCCH-20 9 MVC No.1275/2017 Tractor-Tanker right side rear wheel ran over the deceased, and he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.
10. In order to prove her contention the PW-1 relied upon police documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P.8. However, it is settled law that evidence in MVC cases must be assessed independently form criminal proceedings. Therefore, prudence require corroboration.
11. The Ex.P1 first information report and Ex.P2 first information statement corroborates information of accident to the police. The Banaswadi police had registered FIR vide Cri.No.384/2016 against the driver of Tractor- Tanker bearing Regn No: KA-07 TA-2691 and KA-07 TA- 2692 for committing offence punishable U/s 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC on basis first information statement of Smt. Manjula cousin sister of the deceased. She is an eye witness and rider of motor cycle. The deceased was pillion SCCH-20 10 MVC No.1275/2017 rider. The FIR was registered on 29.11.2016 on the same day of the accident.
12. The Ex.P3 Spot Mahazar and Ex.P.4 sketch corroborates the place of accident and course of vehicle causing accident. The Honda Activa is seen ahead of Tractor-Tanker. It is 20ft broad road. The accident occurred on 15ft distance on the road. There was enough space to pass. But, driver seems to have negligently or rashly dashed Honda Activa from behind. It clearly indicates an act of rash or negligence on part of the Tractor-Tanker driver.
13. The Ex.P5 IMV report goes to show that the break system was in order and accident was not due to mechanical defect. Therefore, Tractor-Tanker driver didn't have sufficient cause to dash Honda Activa. Even otherwise deceased being pillion rider negligence can't be SCCH-20 11 MVC No.1275/2017 attributed to her. The Ex.P.6 is Inquest Report and Ex.P.7 PM report, corroborates the death was due to road traffic accident. The Banaswadi traffic police filed charge sheet against driver of Tractor-Tanker for committing an punishable U/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC R/w section 3(1) 181, 146, 196, 5, 180, 66(1) and 192 of IMV Act. The Ex.P9 is death certificate of the deceased.
14. The Pw1 is not an eye witness to the accident. However he has aware that his sister Smt. Manjula was riding Honda Activa. He went to the spot after the accident. When he visited the spot the offending vehicle was parked at the side. Nothing material is elicited out of Pw1 by the respective counsels for Respondents.
15. The Pw1 narrated about road traffic accident as told to him by Manjula. It is suggested to Pw1 by 1st respondent that Manjula stated in her first information statement Ex.P2, the tractor-trailor was going ahead and SCCH-20 12 MVC No.1275/2017 two wheeler was behind but the pw1 denied it and stated that tractor-trailor was going at front. It is further suggestion that the tractor-trailor was going behind therefore there is no possibilities of tractor and trailor dashed two wheeler from behind. Infact Manjula had told the pw-1 that tractor-trailor came from left to right side without indication and dashed them.
If the Tractor-Trailor driver without giving any indication came from left to right side and the Tractor- trailor slammed to the left side of the Honda Activa and Manjula lost control due to which deceased fell down to her left side on road and Tractor-Trailor must have run over her, it is gros negligence by the driver of Tractor..
16. It is not sufficient to suggest that distance between two vehicle was less because the PW-1 is not an eye witness to the accident. Now, it is suggested to Pw1 Smt.Manjula rode Honda Activa behind Tractor-Tanker SCCH-20 13 MVC No.1275/2017 and even if driver had put indicator there was tanker attached to the tractor and the vehicle coming from behind couldn't notice the indicator. I am afraid it's wild imagination and there is no cogent evidence to turn it in to reality.
17. The Rw2 is the owner of tractor and allegedly tanker. It is his defence that road was in bad condition and Manjula attempted to over take the vehicle and she lost control and she fell to pot hole consequently deceased was not wearing helmet, she fell on her left side and sustained injuries to her left side ear and shoulder, deceased head hit the edge of pothole.
18. Firstly the Rw1 is not an eye witness to the accident and he has concentrated to shift the burden and liability upon 1ST Respondent. In fact the police had seized the vehicle and 1st Respondent got it released from police custody. The police charge sheeted his vehicle alleging he SCCH-20 14 MVC No.1275/2017 was supplying water. From analyzing aforesaid evidence is entirely new story weaved by the Respondents. Neither the 2nd respondent nor driver had immediately informed police or nearest police station about the accident. The oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence clearly indicate an act of rash or negligence on the driver of the Tractor-Trailor. Therefore, I answer the issue No.1 in Affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: Now in respect to quantum of compensation is concerned, as on the date of accident he was aged 26 years and appropriate multiplier for the said age is 17. He is survived by 1st petitioner husband and 2nd petitioner daughter. They are Legal representatives of the deceased and they are entitled to claim compensation U/s 166 of MVAct. However, there is no income proof of the deceased, and by assuming that a cook earn notional income of Rs.7,000/- and if deceased was alive she would SCCH-20 15 MVC No.1275/2017 be contributing income towards family maintenance, management and welfare of the child, therefore 1/3 of her actual income is deducted towards personal expenses.
20. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Special Leave petition (Civil)No.25590/2014 (national insurance company ltd Vs Pranay sethi and others) reading and referring Resham Kumari and others Vs Madan Mohan and another both three judge bench decisions , a two judge bench of this court in national insurance company ltd Vs Pushpa and others referred the decisions as follows:
(i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a SCCH-20 16 MVC No.1275/2017 contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
(iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
(iv) In case the deceased was self-
employed or on a fixed salary, an
addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years.
SCCH-20 17 MVC No.1275/2017An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
(v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
(vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
(viii) Reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs.
SCCH-20 18 MVC No.1275/201740,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
The aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced at the rate of 10% in every
three years.
21. Deceased was employed, thereby 40% of actual income should be added for determining future prospectus.
Towards loss of dependency calculation is as follows:
Adding 40% future prospects: 40% X 7000 + 7000 = 9,800/-
Deducting 1/3 personal expenses:
9800 X 1/3 = 3266- 9800 = 6534/- 6534 X 12 X '17' = 13,32,936/-
22. In view of the decision of Special Leave petition (Civil)No.25590/2014 (national insurance company ltd Vs Pranay sethi and others) on conventional heads namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
SCCH-20 19 MVC No.1275/2017
1. Loss of dependency Rs.13,32,936/-
2 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
3 Loss of consortium Rs.40,000/-
4 Towards funeral and Rs. 15,000/-
obsequies ceremonies Total Rs.14,02,936/-
In all the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,02,936/- which can be rounded to Rs.14,03,000/-.
23. Liability In respect to the liability is concerned, firstly IMV report Ex.P5 describes the offending vehicle as Tractor - Trailer not as a Tractor-Tanker. None of the respondents dispute the documents and the documents including policy was also issued to Tractor and Trailor, and the premium was paid for tractor and trailor.
24. The RW1 is Insurance company representative and he has taken a defense that insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy for the reason Banaswadi East Traffic Police filed a charge sheet against SCCH-20 20 MVC No.1275/2017 the driver and RC owner of tractor and tanker as Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 for commission of offence punishable under section, 3(1), 181, 146, 196, 5, 66(1), 192 of Motor Vehicles Act and seriously alleged the driver for not possessing valid driving licence. To add more RW1 stated that the policy was issued to Tractor and Trailer for Agricultural purpose only but the vehicle was used as a Tanker to supply water in Bangalore city.
However, the RW-1 admits as on date of accident the policy was in force for tractor and trailer. I find the Rw-1 is deposing the evidence on basis of charge sheet alone. He stated, I am not personally aware, whether tractor, Trailer was used for Agricultural purpose. He does not know that R1 is a farmer and they do not take the occupation on their policy application.
25. The RW2 is RC owner and he has completely denied i.e., vehicle is the water tanker. He has produced Ex.R.6 Notarized copy of RC, Ex.R7 Certified copy of the SCCH-20 21 MVC No.1275/2017 DRIVING LICENSE, Ex.R.8 Certified copy of the Policy terms and conditions, Ex.R.9 Certified copy of the order sheet in CERTIFIED COPY 2341/2017, Ex.sR.10 Certified copy of the charge sheet, Ex.R.11 - 7 computer extracts of RTC to support agriculture.
26. Upon reading spot Mahazar Ex.P.3, it describe the offending vehicle as Tractor and Tanker whereas Ex.P.5 describe the vehicle as Tractor and Trailer. It does not describe vehicle as water tanker. The Ex.R.6 is Registration Certificate of Tractor and Trailer. The Driving licence is valid for Tractor. The Ex.R8 is also issued for Tractor and premium of Rs.1238/- is paid to the Trailer personally indemnity bond was executed in respect to the Tractor and Trailer. The Investigation Officer must have conducted Panchanama for seizure of the said vehicle because he has furnished PF before the Magistrate. But none of the parties have produced the seizure Mahazar. SCCH-20 22 MVC No.1275/2017 The Ex.R.11 RTC of 1st respondent goes to show 1st Respondent pursue agriculture and he is a farmer. This must be produced to show that Tractor and Trailer was issued for Agricultural purpose and not for any commercial purpose. Let me go through the RW2 evidence once again and he is not an eye witness to the accident, and his defense is hearsay. He lives at Kolar District and accident occurred within Bangalore city, thereby the 2nd Respondent is seriously opposing the claim alleging vehicle was used as a water tanker illegally. According to 1st respondent, tractor was brought to Bangalore for repairs. This fact is stated for the first time, he did not plead about the same either before investigation officer or written statement or evidence affidavit. Be that as it may, he has produced all relevant documents and details of the vehicle before Investigation Officer who must have verified it before filing the charge sheet. From the vehicle documents, it is clear the vehicle is tractor and trailer.
SCCH-20 23 MVC No.1275/2017
27. Now question arise, whether the vehicle was used for supply of water. The Investigation officer is not examined in this case. At the same time, why did not IMV Inspector note in his IMV report. The vehicle was Tractor but there is no evidence of attached water tanker. These documents are a proof of Tractor & Trailer. There is no evidence as to where, when and how water was being supplied by the tractor. These documents are not helpful to ascertain, whether the Tractor and Trailer was converted to tanker supplying water in Bangalore City. There is no cogent evidence in this regard.
28. However, there is still existence of opposition by Insurance Company. The vehicle is a Tractor and Tanker but policy was issued to Tractor and Trailer for Agricultural purpose only. In this respect, There is no evidence by RW2, Tractor and Trailer was brought to Bangalore for SCCH-20 24 MVC No.1275/2017 repairs. Still the factual determination of the defense is based on proof.
29. I have referred to the our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 2003 SCC online KAR 804 ILR 2004 KAR 3562 (Smt.Beemavaiah Vs Shankerd @ Adhy and others) Held;
The license issued for driving of tractor could not become in effective from movement trailer is attached to the tractor.
27. The Tractor and Trailer being goods vehicle even assumed alleged few drums or tanker was carried such vessels are not seized and reported in seizure memo. This only indicates that the Investigation officer did not properly verify the documents in respect to the vehicle and the driver. The policy is issued for Agricultural and Forestry purposes with exceptional clauses. The Tractor was not used by 1st respondent for purposes mentioned in the exception clause. Therefore, the Insurance company cannot escape from liability on this ground. There is no SCCH-20 25 MVC No.1275/2017 fundamental violation of the policy. There is no evidence for it being used in exception situations described in its limitation as to use. Further, there is no evidence that the Tractor was converted to Tanker and was used for profit and gain. The condition in the policy would also indicate that Tractor and Trailer is not only used for Agricultural purpose and also other purpose. Thus it cannot be said that Tractor in this popular meaning used for Agricultural purpose only.
30. The 1st Respondent has relied upon Catena of decisions as follows :
1) Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur - The New Assurance Co Ltd V/s. Santosh Kumar & Ors
2) (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 between Mukund Dewangan V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd
3) AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3356 between Nagashetty V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others SCCH-20 26 MVC No.1275/2017
4) AIR 2018 Supreme Court 2906 between Jagdish Kumar Sood V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Others
5) (2014) 13 Supreme Court Cases 254 between Lachoo Ram and Others V/s.
Himachal Road Transport Corporation.
6) LAWS (DLH) 2018 10 209 - High Court of Delhi V/s. Kiran Alexander and Ors
31. I have given my utmost attention and understanding to the cases to apply the laws laid down to the facts and circumstances of this case. In this case driver held a valid DRIVING LICENSE to drive Tractor. Merely because the charge sheet describe the vehicle as a Tractor and tanker or even if it is assumed the tanker is attached to it and water was carried in it, the driver had license to drive the tractor, thereby he is not disabled or guilty. The Insurance company cannot escape from its liability.
SCCH-20 27 MVC No.1275/2017
32. Upon reading the written statement of 2nd Respondent, there is contention taken that tractor attached water tanker used for commercial purpose and thereby insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Firstly, there is no cogent evidence to support the contention. The actual fact, as long as the policy covers the tractor liability would be on the Insurance Company.
33. As already discussed Investigation officer is not examined in this case. No direct suggestion was put forward during cross examination to the RW2 as regard to these facts. The Insurance Company has failed to establish that the Insured used the Tractor for commercial purpose. Merely because the Tractor and Trailer was running in the Bangalore city limit at the time of accident does not ipso facto mean that it was used for commercial purpose. It would be un-appropriate to hold that because the charge sheet describe vehicle as Tractor and Tanker as against all SCCH-20 28 MVC No.1275/2017 relevant documents and details of the vehicles which goes to show it is tractor and trailer. There is no evidence for attaching tanker to the vehicle. After taking into account the evidence in the present case, it is clear that the defense taken by the Insurance Company is to escape the liability. Accordingly, I had to answer Issue No.2 partly in the AFFIRMATIVE.
34. Issue No.3: After having answered issue No.1 to 3 as supra I hold that, the petition filed by the petitioners is fit to be allowed in Part, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
SCCH-20 29 MVC No.1275/2017
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,03,000/- with interest @ 9% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The 2nd Respondent shall deposit the award amount together with 9% interest to the petitioners within TWO months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioner No: 1 & 2 shall equal share the compensation, interest and cost. Out of the share of 1st Petitioner, he is entitled for release of 40% amount and remaining 60% shall be deposited in his name in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of THREE years and interest drawn quarterly.SCCH-20 30 MVC No.1275/2017
The share of 2nd Petitioner shall be deposited in her name in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank of the choice of natural guardian/1st petitioner until 2nd Petitioner attains majority and interest drawn at the time of maturity.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of April 2019).
(A.G.SHILPA,) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-20 31 MVC No.1275/2017
A N N E X U R E:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 : NandaKumar Documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P1 : True Copy of the FIR,
Ex.P2 : True Copy of the FIS,
Ex.P3 : True copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P4 : True copy of sketch
Ex.P5 : True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 : True copy of Inquest report,
Ex.P7 : True copy of PM report
Ex.P8 : True Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P9 : death certificate
Ex.P.10 : birth certificate of Deepthi NH
Ex.P.11 : Marriage certificate
Ex.P.12 : copy of Adhaar card
Ex.P.13&14: copy of Adhaar card of the
petitioners
Ex.P.15 : copy of DL driver of two wheeler
Ex.P.16&17: Two letterates of the employer
SCCH-20 32 MVC No.1275/2017
Witnesses examined for respondents: -
RW-1 Ritesh RW-2 Venkatareddy
Documents marked for respondents: -
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R2 : Vehicle policy terms and conditions
Ex.R3 : RTO extract of DL
Ex.R4 : B.registar extract
Ex.R5 : Charge sheet
Ex.R6 : copy of RC
Ex.R7 : copy of driving license extract
Ex.R8 : copy of terms and conditions
Ex.R9 : copy of order sheet in CC No.2341/2017
Ex.R10 : copy of charge sheet
Ex.R11 : 7 computer extract of RTC
(A.G.SHILPA,)
V ASCJ & Member, MACT,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
SCCH-20 33 MVC No.1275/2017
23.04.2019
Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court vide, separate Order :
ORDER
The claim petition filed under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,03,000/- with interest @ 9% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.SCCH-20 34 MVC No.1275/2017
The 2nd Respondent shall deposit the award amount together with 9% interest to the petitioners within TWO months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioner No: 1 & 2 shall equal share the compensation, interest and cost. Out of the share of 1st Petitioner, he is entitled for release of 40% amount and remaining 60% shall be deposited in his name in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of THREE years and interest drawn quarterly.
The share of 2nd Petitioner shall be deposited in her name in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank of the choice of natural guardian/1st petitioner until 2nd Petitioner attains majority and interest drawn at the time of maturity.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/- .
Draw award accordingly.
V Addl. Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20 35 MVC No.1275/2017 AWARD BEFORE THE V ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: METROPOLITAN AREA(MAYO HALL UNIT):
BANGALORE.
(SCCH.No.20) MVC. No.1275/2017 PETITIONER: 1. Shri.Nanda Kumar S/o Bhupathi Aged 28 years
2. Kum.Deepthi, D/o Nanda Kumar Aged 1-1/2 years (represented by her natural guardian and her father) All are residing at # 32, 100 feet main road, 5th cross, Bhavaninagar Banashankari 2nd stage, Bidarahalli, Bangalore - 560070 Presently residing at No.109, Mukuntamma Nagar, 2nd cross Dodda Banasawadi 2nd cross, Dodda Banasawadi Kalyanangar post Bangalore - 560043 (By Pleader Sri.Muniyappa D.Naveen)
-V/s-SCCH-20 36 MVC No.1275/2017
RESPONDENTS: 1.R.Venkatareddy
S/o P.Ramappa,
203, shop No.13, II floor,
80 feet road, Kaqlyananagar,
Opp. St. Geroge,
College of Nursing,
Near Sub Registrar office,
Banaswadi, Bangalore 560043.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd.,
Shopping complex, 44/45
Residence Road,
New Mayo Hall,
Bangalore - 560001.
(R1-By Pleader Sri.KS Babu)
(R2- By Pleader Sri.M.Ramesha)
*****
WHEREAS this Petition filed on ----------------- by the
Petitioner above named u/s 110-A/166 of the M.V. Act praying for the compensation of Rs.---------------------- (Rupees------------
-------------------------------------------only) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner / Due to death of Sri.____________________________ in a Motor accident by ----------
---------- bearing No.-------------------- ---------------------------------
------------------------------------. SCCH-20 37 MVC No.1275/2017
WHEREAS this claim Petition coming up before Sri....................... V Addl.Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M, Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore in the presence of Sri.------------------, Advocate for Petitioner/s and Sri.-------------------, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri.-
------------------, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
WHEREAS this Tribunal doth ordered that:
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,03,000/- with interest @ 9% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The 2nd Respondent shall deposit the award amount together with 9% interest to the petitioners within TWO months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioner No: 1 & 2 shall equal share the compensation, interest and cost. SCCH-20 38 MVC No.1275/2017 Out of the share of 1st Petitioner, he is entitled for release of 40% amount and remaining 60% shall be deposited in his name in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank for a period of THREE years and interest drawn quarterly.
The share of 2nd Petitioner shall be deposited in her name in any Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank of the choice of natural guardian/1st petitioner until 2nd Petitioner attains majority and interest drawn at the time of maturity.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the ---------- day of -------------- 2017.
(......................) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
SCCH-20 39 MVC No.1275/2017
By the
Petitioner/ s Respondent/s
Court fee paid on
Petition :
Process
Pleaders fee
Total Rs.
(Rupees_____________________________________________________ ________________) Draft award Draft award Scrutinized by: MEMBER prepared by computerized MOTOR ACCIDENT Decree clerk by Stenographer SHERISTEDAR CLAIMS TRIBUNAL:
on 00-00-2017. MAYO HALL UNIT:
BENGALURU.SCCH-20 40 MVC No.1275/2017