Bangalore District Court
Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed vs The Branch Manager on 16 February, 2021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH13
Dated this the 16th day of February 2021
Present: Smt.Parveen A Bankapur,
B.Com.LL.B.(Spl),
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Holding concurrent charge of
II ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.3556 of 2018
Petitioners: 1. Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed, 46 years,
S/o Aluddeen Mohammed,
2. Khursida, 40 years,
W/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
3. Anam Naz, 9 years,
D/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
4. Gayyoor Allam, 24 years,
S/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
5. Numan Ilahi, 12 years,
S/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
All are r/a Mohammad Ibrahimpur,
Thawla, Moradabad,
Uttar Pradesh202 411.
(By Sri.Devaraja Naik.G., Advocate)
vs.
Respondents: 1. The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.31, TBR Tower, 1st Cross,
New Mission Road,
Adjacent to Jain College,
Bengaluru560 002.
(By Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate)
2. R.Punith Kumar,
S/o Ramachandrappa,
No.308, Raghavendraswamy Layout,
Guestline, Yadavanahalli Post,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru562 107.
(Certificate/Policy No.OG18
1707181100000022, valid
from 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2018)
(Exparte)
o0o
:JUDGMENT:
The petitioners have filed this claim petition under Sec.166 of M.V. Act for awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/ in view of death of Mohd. Rihan @ Ryan in a road traffic accident.
2. In brief, the case of the petitioners is as under:
It is alleged that, on 2.5.2018 at about 9.50 p.m., the deceased was a pedestrian on the side of the road on DunnasandraAnugondanahalli NH.207, Hosakote, Bengaluru, at that time, all of a sudden the driver of the crane bearing No.KA53MF0817 driven the crane at a very high speed, in a rash or negligent manner, so as to endangering to human life without giving any signal and dashed to the deceased. As the result, the deceased sustained fatal injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Anugondanahalli Hospital, after firstaid, he was shifted to Vaidehi Hospital when he died on the way to the hospital. After post mortem and the body was handed over to the petitioners. The petitioners have spent considerable amount for transportation of body by airplane and funeral and obsequies ceremonies.
Prior to this accident, deceased was aged 22 years, he was hale and healthy and he was working as Cleaner in Amazon Company lorry bearing No.MH04HY2008 and getting a salary of Rs.12,000/. Due to this accident, the petitioners lost the earning member of their family and they are facing much difficulties in day today life. It is stated by the petitioners that, the said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crane bearing Reg.No.KA53MF0817. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of said vehicle. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed compensation against the respondents.
3. Despite service of notice, 2nd respondent remained absent, hence, he was placed exparte. Pursuant to service of notice, the respondent No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its writtenstatement, admitting the issuance of policy in respect of crane bearing No.KA53MF0817 however, its liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, provisions of MV Act and valid and effecting driving licence held by the driver of the crane and valid RC, permit & FC and also subject to the confirmation of Sec.64VB of the Insurance Act. It is contended that, the owner of the vehicle is duty bound to submit all vehicular documents including driving licence to this respondent as mandated under Sec.134(c) of the MV Act and there is clear violated of provision of law. Further, it is contended that the concerned Police station have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand as per Sec.158(6) of MV Act. This respondent craves leave of this court for grant of permission under Sec.170 of MV Act if the owner of the vehicle fails to contest the proceedings. It has denied the allegation with regard to the date, place, manner of accident and also the involvement of the crane bearing Reg.No.KA53 MF0817. The 1st respondent has denied the averments of the petition with regard to the manner of accident, death of deceased, his age, avocation and income and contended that the crane in question was not at all involved in the accident. It has further contended that the driver of the crane was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and respondent No.2 knowing fully well that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence and willfully entrusted the vehicle to the said driver and thereby, he had committed the breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that the compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the death of Mohammed Rihan @ Ryan on account of the road traffic accident occurred on 2.5.2018 at about 9.50 p.m., the deceased was a pedestrian on the side of the road on DunnasandraAnugondanahalli NH.207, Hosakote, Bengaluru due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crane bearing No.KA53MF817 as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Mohammed Rihan @ Ryan?
3. Whether the Petitioners prove that they are entitled for compensation as claimed? If so, to what extent and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examined three witnesses as RW.1 to RW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to R.5.
6. I have heard both sides and perused the material available on record and therefore my findings to above raised issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order,
for the following;
:R E A S O N S:
7. ISSUE NO.1:
Since the petitioners have filed this petition U/s.166 of M.V. Act therefore, the burden is upon them to prove the said accident and not only the said accident but also the alleged negligent driving by the driver of crane bearing Reg.
No.KA53F0871.
8. The petitioner No.1 who is the father of the deceased Mohd.Rihan entered witness box as PW1 by filing his affidavit as examinationinchief and he is not eyewitness to the said accident. Further he got marked in all 18 documents. ExP1 is copy of FIR in Anugondanahalli P.S. crime No.44/2018 registered on 02.05.2018 against the driver of crane bearing Reg.No.KA53MF817, ExP.2 is the copy of complaint, Ex.P3 is the copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.8 is the PM report, Ex.P.9 is the inquest report and Ex. P.10 is the copy of charge chargesheet filed against driver of the crane bearing Reg.No.KA53MF817 for the offences punishable U/s.279 and 304(a) IPC.
9. The said marked documents, makes it clear that the accident was taken place on 02.05.2018 at about 9.50 pm., The driver of crane bearing Reg.No.KA53MF817 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life and deceased was fell down and sustained multiple severe injuries and died on the way to hospital. The complaint was lodged on 02.05.2018. On 03.05.2018 the police have conducted the spot mahazer and conducted the inquest panchanama of the deceased body. After detailed investigation I.O. has filed chargesheet against the driver of crane bearing Reg.No.KA53MF817, these documents would support the case madeout by the petitioners in respect of alleged negligent driving by the driver of the said offending crane.
10. The counsel for the respondent subjected PW1 to the crossexamination and suggested PW1 that they have falsely got implicated the said crane in this case and no negligent on the part of the crane driver, which is denied by the PW1, further nothing has been elicited in his cross examination.
11. Besides, as has been stated above, the jurisdictional police have investigated the accident in question and filed the charge sheet at Ex.P10 wherein the police have made specific allegation that the accident in question had taken place because of the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Besides, the respondents has not produced anything to show that he have challenged the correctness of the 'A' charge sheet filed by the jurisdictional police; hence, it is sufficient to conclude that the materials available on record are sufficient to conclude that the accident in question had taken place because of the actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
12. Besides, it is well settled that in motor vehicle accident compensation cases the strict proof of negligence is not required. This view of this court receives support from the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2009 (13)SCCpage530 in the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs Himachalapradesh Road Transport Corporation and another and another decision reported in AIR 2011SC1504 in the case of Paraeshwari Vs Amir Chand and others. Thus, even this ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is also sufficient to conclude that this court is not supported to look for strict proof of negligence on the part of the driver of crane.
13. The next question would be, whether the son of the petitioner No.1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No.3 to 5 was sustained grievous injuries in the accident and died. It is relevant to note that the petitioners have produced the Ex.P8 and 9 are the PM report and Inquest report of deceased Mohd,Rihan. Therefore, after considering all the police documents and evidence of PW1 in my opinion, the petitioners have proved that the said accident was only because of actionable negligence on the part of the driver of offending vehicle and deceased was sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and died. With these observations, I have answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2:
In this case, the petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents, petitioner No.3 is sister and petitioner No.4 and 5 are the brothers of deceased Mohd.Rihan @ Ryan, S/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed. In order to prove that, petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased, the PW.1 has produced the notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioners and deceased at Ex.P.12 to 14 and Ex.P.16 to 18. Admittedly on perusal of these documents it is clear that, petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents, petitioner No.3 is sister and petitioner No.4 and 5 are brothers of the deceased Mohd. Rihan. On careful scrutiny of cross examination of PW.1 it is clear that, counsel for respondent No.1 has not at all denied the relationship between the deceased with petitioners. Admittedly, Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the sister and petitioner No.4 and 5 are brothers of the the deceased and they ares legal heirs of the deceased Mohd.Rihan. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, the Petitioners No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased. Hence, I answer the Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE No.3: The petitioners have proved the Issue No.1 and the Issue No.2. Therefore, under these circumstances, petitioners being the legal heirs of the deceased Mohammed Rihan @ Ryan are entitled for compensation.
16. The contentions of the petitioners that deceased was a cleaner in Amazan company lorry, and getting salary of Rs.12,000/ per month. But the petitioners have produced salary certificate issued by Tanishq Logistics with respect that deceased was a codriver/cleaner and getting salary of Rs.12,000/ per month, But they have examined employer of the deceased neither they have examined author of the Ex.P
11. Therefore, only oral evidence of the PW1 and on the basis of bare salary certificate issued by on private company is not sufficient to hold that deceased had monthly income of Rs.12,000/ p.m. Therefore, this tribunal has to assess the notional income of the deceased by taking into consideration his age, his occupation, his place of residence and minimum wages and date of accident etc. After considering all these aspects, I am inclined to take notional income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/ p.m.
17. Petitioner No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased, petitioner No.3 is sister and petitioner No.4 and 5 are brothers of the deceased. Petitioner No.4 is elder of the of the deceased and he is major, hence he is not dependent on the income of the deceased. Under these circumstances, petitioners No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are dependents on the income of the deceased. Therefore, there are 4 dependents on the income of deceased.
18. As per Ex.P8 and 9 PM report and Inquest Panchanama the age of the deceased at the time of accident was '22'. The petitioners have produced Driving Licence of the deceased at Ex.P15, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 08051996. Hence, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was just 22 years old at the time of the accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier for the age group from 15 to 25 years is "18".
Besides, so far as adding of future prospects to the income of deceased is concerned, however, I have relied upon the ruling reported in 2018 ACJ 5(SC) (Hemraj Vs Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., & Ors) wherein it is held as under:
"QuantumFatal accident Principles of assessmentFuture prospectsDeceased aged 40Upholding objection of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High court disallowed the addition of 50 percent made by the tribunal for future prospects while computing compensationWhether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the absence of proof of income Held: yes; there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork; executing court directed to recompute entitlement of claimants by addition 40 percent of income for future prospects and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses."
And also considering recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special Leave Petition(Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31102016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., VS Pranay Sethi and others). Wherein it is held that, the person who is self employed and his age is below 40 years at the time of accident, future prospects has to be added to the income of the deceased.
19. In this case, the deceased was aged about 22 years as on the date of accident. Considering the same, if 40% future prospects is added to the income of the deceased, it would out at Rs.12,600/ per month.
As per Sarala Verma's case, out of the said income, 1/4th is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,41,200/ under the head of loss of dependency. [Rs.12,600/ 1/4 X 12 X 18= Rs.20,41,200/].
20. Further, so far as awarding compensation under other conventional heads are concerned, the petitioner has stated that, they have spent huge amount towards shifting of dead body and performing of funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the Honble Supreme Court judgment passed in Civil Special Leave Petition(Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31102016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., VS Pranay Sethi and others). Wherein it is held that, as far as conventional heads are concerned the petitioner is entitled funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/ and the petitioner No.1 and 2 being father and mother of the deceased is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/ under the head consortium and petitioner No.1 to 5 are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
21. Therefore, on all possible heads, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of a sum of Rs.21,11,200/. The headwise of compensation is as under:
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 20,41,200/
2. Medical expenses
3. Transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/ body and Funeral Expenses
4. Filial consortium Rs. 40,000/
5. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/ Total Rs. 21,11,200/ So, petitioners are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.21,11,200/ only.
22. Liability: The petitioners have proved that said accident occurred because of negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle and there was no any dispute about insurance coverage to the said vehicle as on the date of accident.
The counsel for respondent No.1 vehemently argued that, the driver of the offending vehicle crane Reg.No.KA53 MF817 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the particular class of vehicle as on the date of accident. Further he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such driving licence. In this regard the respondent No.1 has examined RW1 who is Superintendent RTO, he deposed that offending vehicle was Hydraulic Mobile Crane and he has placed B extract of th offending vehicle. Further further stated in the crossexamination that the laden weight and unladen weight is 10,750 kg.
RW2 is the RTO, he deposed that, the driver of the offending vehicle in this case having driving licence of Transport and non transport vehicle. But for driving the crane specific endorsement is required. In the cross examination he admits that the driver of the offending vehicle is having LMV, Transport vehicle and commercial vehicle driving licence along with badge. He further admits that, the driver of the offending vehicle was taken training to run the crane. Further, RW2 stated in his evidence that offending vehicle driver was holding transport and non transport licence. Ex.R4 is discloses that the driver of offending vehicle is holding MCWG, LMV, TRANS, PSVBUS and transport and non transport driving licence.
As per types of motor vehicles table produced by the counsel for respondent, the crane is comes under non transport vehicle.
The counsel for petitioner has relied, 2017 ACJ 2011 in between Mukund Dewangan Vs Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., It is held that:
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 3 and 10(2) (d), driving licence, light motor vehicle Whether a person holding driving licence to drive 'light motor vehicle's is competent to drive transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7,500 kg Held; yes; no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class; a licence issued under Sec.10(2) (d) continues to be valid after amendment vide Act 54 of 1994 in MV Act and in Form 4 under rule 14 (1) of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, w.e.f. 28.3.2001 [2000 ACJ 319 (SC) 2001 ACJ 1441 (SC), 2013 ACJ 1944 (SC), 2014 ACJ 2873 (SC) confirmed:
2008 ACJ 721 (SC) partially overruled]. 2008 ACJ 627 (SC), 2009 ACJ 1411 (SC) overruled].
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Action 2 (21) read with sections 2 (15), and 2 (48) Light Motor Vehicle - Whether a light motor vehicle as defined n section 2 (21) would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2 (21) read with sections 2 (15) and 2 (48) Held: yes; such transport vehicles are not excluded by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 10 (2) (e) - Transport vehicle Whether expression transport vehicle as substituted in section 10 (2) (e) by virtue of Act 54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 relate to medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle as per section 10 (2) (e) to (h) [prior to amendment of 1994 of Motor vehicles Act, 1988 - Held; yes; it does not exclude transport vehicle from purview of section 10 (2) 9d) and section 2 (21) of the Act.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 3 and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, rule 14 (1) read with Form 4 - Driving licence - Light motor vehicle Insertion of expression ' transport vehicle' in Form 4 w.e.f. 28.3.2001 relates only to medium goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle which were substituted as transport vehicle in 1994Whether procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicles of class of light motor vehicle continue to be the same and has not been changedHeld: yes; driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive transport; vehicle of that class without any endorsement to that effect".
It is not disputed that accident was caused by crane. It is admitted by the RTO that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding transport and nontransport driving licence.
Further, in 2017 Kant M.A.C.752 (Kant) in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Anitha and another, it is held that;
"On the ground that no specific endorsement was made in the driving licence of the driver of offending vehicle Held that since Apex Court clearly opined in case of Mukund Dewan Vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., that in case the driver does have an LMV driving licence and unladen weight of the vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. No Specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle required in the driving licence. Hence plea of insurance company rejected and appeal filed by it against impugned judgement and award dismissed".
Further, 2014 Kant M.A.C.382 (Kant) in between Smt.Savakka Vs Vithal S//o Maruti Bagale and another, wherein it is held that;
"Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 173(1): compensation liability to pay quantum. Driving licence, Driver of offending vehicle had driving licence in drive light motor vehicle on date of accident. Vehicle involved in accident is a commercial vehicle. Tribunal not justified in fasting liability on owner.
Compensation of Rs. 84800/ as award by Tribunal by taking into consideration of evidence on record, not on lower side. Impugned judgment and award dated 29 92010 of tribunal is modified. Liability to satisfy award fasted on insurer".
Further another decision in 2018 Kant M.A.C. 40 (Kant) in between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Sri.C.K. Subramanyam and another, it is held that;
"Motor Vehicle Act, Section 17 and 173(1); liability of insurance company to pay compensation awarded.
Determination, of - Herein Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.80000/ with 6% interest from the dae of the petition till date of deposit payable by insurance company - Being aggrieved by the award appellant Insurance Company filed an appeal against impugned judgment and award on the ground that the driver of offending vehicle had no transport endorsement Held that since vehicle in question found to be a light motor vehicle and Supreme Court in case of Mukund Dewagan Vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in Civil Appeal No.5826/2011 disposed of on 372017 held that insurer cannot escape the liability on the ground that driver of light vehicle did not have transport endorsement Appeal in instant case dismissed".
By careful reading of above decisions and principles laid down in above decisions, in the present case also the driver of the offending vehicle having driving licence for run all type of vehicles. More over the said driver was obtained training to run the crane. Only had not taken endorsement for run the crane the insurer cannot escape from his liability.
In this case, as already discussed in the Issue No.1 that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of crane bearing reg.KA53MF0817. It is an admitted fact that, the Respondent No.1 is insurer and Respondent no.2 is owner of offending crane. The respondent No.1 has admitted the issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on the date of accident. From above discussion in liability, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. So, when the policy was in force, the respondent No.1 being insurer, respondent No.2 being RC owner of the offending crane are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. However, respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation.
By considering the present days FD rate of interest in the nationalized bank it is just and necessary to direct the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.3 Partly in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.4: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of M.V.Act is hereby allowed partly with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.21,11,200/ along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay said compensation amount to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 being insurer, shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, 30% each share is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1 and 2, 20% each is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.3 and 5.
Out of compensation amount apportioned to petitioner No.1 and 2, a sum 50% shall be kept in F.D. in any nationalized or schedule bank initially for a period of 3 years with a liberty to draw periodical interest and with a direction to the bank authority not to create any charge and not to allow any premature withdrawals. Out of compensation amount apportioned to the minor petitioner No.3 and 5, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank until they attain age of majority and the remaining balance amount of petitioner No.1 and 2 with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2 through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, corrected, signed & then pronounced by me in open court on this 16th day of February, 2021) (Smt.Parveen A Bankapur,) C/c II ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bengaluru ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the petitioners PW.1 : Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed Documsents marked for the petitioners Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : True copy of complaint Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 : True copy of 133 notice Ex.P.5 : True copy of reply to 133 notice Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P.7 : True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.8 : True copy of PM Report Ex.P.9 : True copy of Inquest report Ex.P.10 : True copy Charge sheet Ex.P.11 : Salary certificate Ex.P.12 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 (Original Perused & returned back) Ex.P.13 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.4 (Original Perused & returned back) Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of deceased (Original Perused & returned back) Ex.P.15 : Notarized copy of driving licence of deceased (Original Perused & returned back) Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 (Original Perused & returned back) Ex.P.17 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.3 (Original Perused & returned back) Ex.P.18 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner No.5 (Original Perused & returned back) Witnesses examined for the respondents: RW.1 : K.Shreedharappa RW.2 : Akshaya.C.L. RW.3 : Prerana.V.N. Documents marked for the respondents Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter Ex.R.2 : B Extract Ex.R.3 : Authorization letter Ex.R.4 : Driving licence extract Ex.R.5 : Copy of Insurance policy (Smt.Parveen A Bankapur,) C/c II ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
(Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment) ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of M.V.Act is hereby allowed partly with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.21,11,200/ along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay said compensation amount to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 being insurer, shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, 30% each share is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1 and 2, 20% each is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.3 and 5.
Out of compensation amount apportioned to petitioner No.1 and 2, a sum 50% shall be kept in F.D. in any nationalized or schedule bank initially for a period of 3 years with a liberty to draw periodical interest and with a direction to the bank authority not to create any charge and not to allow any premature withdrawals. Out of compensation amount apportioned to the minor petitioner No.3 and 5, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank until they attain age of majority and the remaining balance amount of petitioner No.1 and 2 with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2 through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(Smt.Parveen A Bankapur,) C/c II ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT.,Bengaluru.
AWARD SCCH NO.13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BENGALURU CITY MVC No.3556 of 2018 Petitioners: 1. Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed, 46 years, S/o Aluddeen Mohammed,
2. Khursida, 40 years, W/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
3. Anam Naz, 9 years, D/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
4. Gayyoor Allam, 24 years, S/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed
5. Numan Ilahi, 12 years, S/o Jarif @ Jarif Ahamed All are r/a Mohammad Ibrahimpur, Thawla, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh202 411.
(By Sri.Devaraja Naik.G., Advocate) vs. Respondents: 1. The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., No.31, TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Adjacent to Jain College, Bengaluru560 002.
(By Sri.S.Maheswara, Advocate)
2. R.Punith Kumar, S/o Ramachandrappa, No.308, Raghavendraswamy Layout, Guestline, Yadavanahalli Post, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru562 107.
(Certificate/Policy No.OG18 1707181100000022, valid from 14.12.2018 to 13.12.2018) (Exparte) o0o WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named under Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt. Parveen A Bankapur, C/c II Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of M.V.Act is hereby allowed partly with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.21,11,200/ along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay said compensation amount to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 being insurer, shall deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, 30% each share is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1 and 2, 20% each is apportioned in favour of petitioner No.3 and 5.
Out of compensation amount apportioned to petitioner No.1 and 2, a sum 50% shall be kept in F.D. in any nationalized or schedule bank initially for a period of 3 years with a liberty to draw periodical interest and with a direction to the bank authority not to create any charge and not to allow any premature withdrawals. Out of compensation amount apportioned to the minor petitioner No.3 and 5, entire amount shall be deposited as F.D. in their names in any nationalized or schedule bank until they attain age of majority and the remaining balance amount of petitioner No.1 and 2 with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2 through RTGS/NEFT by way of Epayment.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day
of 2021.
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
METROPOLITAN AREA: Bengaluru.
By the
____________________________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _____________________________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Process Pleaders Fee ________________________________________________ Total Rs.
______________________________________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR.
MEMBER MACT.,BENGALURU.