Bangalore District Court
Smt. Susmita Susarla vs Surya Sankara Rao Bothsa on 16 January, 2021
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BANGALORE (SCH-09)
Present: Abdul Khadar, B.A., LL.B.,
JUDGE, Court Of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 16th day of January 2021
MVC No.451/2010
Petitioners : 1. Smt. Susmita Susarla
W/o Late Tenneti Sasikanth
Aged about 28 years
Occ: House wife
2. Tenneti Suraj,
S/o Late Tenneti Sasikanth,
Aged about 4 years
3. Tenneti Suraj,
S/o Late Tenneti Sasikanth
Aged about 3 years,
4. Tenneti Venkata Rajanikanth
S/o Late T.Rama Murthy
Aged about 58 years,
5. Smt. Tenneti Jayalakshmi,
W/o Sri Tenneti Venkata
Rajanikanth,
Aged about 55 years
All are residing at No.Y-23,
Concords Silicon Valley,
Beside Wipro Gate # 14,
Electronic City,
Bangalore 560 100.
(By pleader Sri YLR)
SCCH-9 2 MVC 451/2010
V/s
Respondents: 1. Surya Sankara Rao Bothsa,
S/o Chandraiah,
36-20-11, Innispeta,
Rajamundry,
East Godavari District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(R.C owner of the Scorpio )
(By pleader Sri BSG)
2. The Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.
Ltd.,
No.28/5,
Centranary Building,
East Wing, M.G.Road,
Bangalore -560 001.
(Insurer of the Scorpio)
(By pleader Sri YPV)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioners under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,00,000/- with interest for the death of deceased Tenneti SasikanthGopala caused in RTA.
2. The brief facts of the petition averments that on 11.6.2009, at about 8.00 A.M., the deceased Tenneti Sasikanth along with Vasu and other were traveling from Rajamundry to Visakhapatnam in Scorpio bearing Registration No. AP-7-T T-
SCCH-9 3 MVC 451/20104889, when the vehicle reached at Nutanagunte Palyam, on NH-5 near Kasimkota Mandalam, Visakhapatnam, A.P. the driver of the Scorpio drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-01-AD-4666, which was going in front of the Scorpio. As a result, of the accident Tenneti Sasikanth suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot and other person by name Chandu suffered injuries and was admitted at Yalamanchili, Govt. Hospital.
The deceased holds Master degree in computer applications from Andhra University, he had also completed Sun Certified Enterprise Architect (SCEA) course in the year 2003, his academic performance is excellent, he was brilliant , intelligent and dynamic. He worked initially in VJIL consulting services as system executive for a grass Annual salary of Rs.1,24,080/- and later joined Bea Systems Inc. at East Havn, USA as development relations engineer for the yearly salary of USA dollars S72,000/-. Thereafter joined NISCO in USA with a salary of S 110,000/- p.a. he further continued in Indian operations of NISCO as a Managing director which was later known as Razor Sight Software India Pvt. Ltd., as senior director, Product Engineering situated at Koramangala, Bengaluru, where he earning salary of Rs.30,00,000/- p.a. Later on he joined Sun Micro Systems India Pvt. Ltd., as Staff Engineer and his salary of Rs.30,20, 876/- p.a. SCCH-9 4 MVC 451/2010 The petitioner further contended that, deceased being very creative, innovative man which is wide knowledge of software and with his vast experience and the fashion to do something new had taken a short brake and started a firm along with his friends under the name and style of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., an RFID solution company at Koramangala Industrial Layout, Bengaluru. He was holding post as consultant vice president of the firm. The petitioner contended that deceased was earning Rs.30,20,876/- p.a. upto the year 1.07.2008. Before promoting Metasparc for the establishment of the firm he had invested huge amount as the firm also had decided to pay salary of Rs.30,00,000/- p.a. excluding perks and other allowance along with profit at the end of 18 months for the date of appointment i.e., 1.07.2008. Due to his untimely death the petitioner No.1 consist the two minor children and aged in laws completely the loss main earning member of the family. They have no source of income as she is a home maker. The accident took place slowly due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the Scorpio bearing No. AP-7-TT-4889.
The Kasimkota Police have registered a case on the complaint of Kurella Srikanth in their crime No.144/2009 against the driver of the said Scorpio for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. The respondent no.1 & 2 being the R.C owner and insurer of the Scorpio are SCCH-9 5 MVC 451/2010 jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, prayed for compensation of Rs.10,00,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment.
3. The notices were duly served on both the respondents. The respondents appeared through their respective counsels, the 1st respondent filed his written statement and contended that the objection filed by the respondent No.2 are false. He contended that he is the owner of the vehicle, which met with an accident. He had valid insurance policy package with respondent No.2. He operates and manages at travel agency. The alleged vehicle was rented out to Tenneti Sasikanth with the driver name Kusuva G. He had valid DL. The policy was renewed on 06.06.2009 by paying premium of Rs.12,000/- in cash. The Respondent No.2 issued a cover note acknowledging the payment of premium and effectively renewing insurance policy package to be valid for the period starting from 08.06.2005 to 07.06.2010. The said vehicle was met with an accident on 11.06.2009 the said accident was informed to respondent No.2 and said vehicle was covered by legal and valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 was played fraud in manipulating the date of coverage of the said policy from 13.06.2009 and was issued on 15.10.2009. Liability if any is fastened on respondent No.2 and not on this respondent. Further he denied the written statement averments Para No. SCCH-9 6 MVC 451/2010 8 to 23 filed by the respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.
4. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company in its written statement denied all the material facts averred in the petition. The 2nd respondent submitted that the 1st respondent the RC owner of the vehicle bearing No. AP-7-TT-4889 had approached the Sales Manager of this respondent for the insurance coverage of vehicle in question, but after incorporating the details in the above mentioned Cover note, he expressed his inability for inspection of this vehicle. He had neither paid the premium on 6.6.2009 nor on 8.9.2010. In pursuance thereof the 2nd respondent issued a letter to the first respondent, on 13.6.2009 that the Proposal was not yet accepted on the following, grounds i.e., Cheque having no date, signature of the proposer not made in proposal cum cover note No. 109000395052, pre inspection not done (as the previous policy expired on 22.5.2009 - gap of proposal for renewal is more than 15 days). Further stated that the 1 st respondent replied to the above said letter on 20.9.2009 stating that "in this connection, it is informed that the cheque and photos are already submitted to you at the time of issuance of policy. If at all his requirements are there you may send your agent and he can collect the same from him. Therefore please do needful as early as possible". Further contended that it is pertinent to mention that the signature on the cheque bearing No. 647191, SCCH-9 7 MVC 451/2010 dated 13.6.2008 drawn on ICICI Bank, Rajahmundry branch, for a sum of Rs. 11,591/- issued on behalf of first respondent towards the premium for the aforesaid vehicle insurance with this respondent, but subsequently dishonoured and the Cover Note copy produced by him contains that the premium paid in cash for Rs. 12,000/- and with the identical signature (whereas the second respondent office copy is without signature). Further stated that 2nd respondent issued a letter stating that the policy cover note stand cancelled (since inception) hence, we will not be liable for any risk arising under the above referred document.
Further stated that the cheque is issued dated 13.6.2009. The alleged accident took place on 11.6.2009, these aspect clearly proves that no premium was paid either by cheque or cash on the date of the alleged accident. Further stated that on receipt of cheque No. 647191, dated 13.6.2009, drawn on ICIC Bank, T.Nagar, Rajamudnry for Rs. 11,591/- in favour of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., the Sales Manager of this 2nd respondent had handed over the original cover note to the first respondent without inspecting the vehicle in question, violating the company's guidelines and also without correcting the date of insurance and actual coverage dates on the said cover note. The Second respondent has clearly initiated departmental proceedings against the Sales Manager for dereliction of his duties who has already left the job of SCCH-9 8 MVC 451/2010 second Respondent and due to pending of allegation/enquiry his terminal dues are yet to be settled by the second respondent.
Further this respondent denied the date, time and place of accident as well as the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot in the alleged accident. The respondent further denied that the deceased was aged about 35 years and his occupation and earning of Rs.2,50,000/- per month and the petitioners were entirely depending upon the deceased, after his death they do not have other source of income for their livelihood and they are the legal representatives having right to claim compensation for the death of deceased. The 2 nd respondent submits that the amount of compensation claimed for a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- is exorbitant and fanciful. The 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition against its company.
5. In order to substantiate the contention of the Petition, the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW-1, and three other witnesses examined as PW-2 to PW-4 and the documents got marked ExP1 to P35. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent examined Manager legal- claims as RW-1 and documents got marked as Ex.R1 & R15 and respondent No.1 examined himself through video conference after remand as RW-2 and got marked 2 documents at Ex.R16 and 17.
SCCH-9 9 MVC 451/20106. Heard the arguments, perused the material placed on record.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings My learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the death of the deceased Tenneti Sasikanth occurred in the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Scorpio bearing registration No. AP-07-TT-489, that took place on 11.6.2009 at about 8.00 a.m., Nuthanagunta Palya, on NH-5, near Kasimkota, Mandalam, Visakapatnam, A.P.,?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? f so, how much and from whom?
3.
4. What Order?
Additional Issue:
1. Whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to try this case?
Additional Issue dated 28.05.2013
1. Whether the respondent No.2 prove that the driver of Scorpio bearing Reg. No. AP-
07-TT4889 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident as alleged?
2. Whether the respondent No.2 prove that at the time of accident the said Scoprio bearing Reg. No. AP-07-Tt-4889 was not having valid fitness certificate as alleged?
SCCH-9 10 MVC 451/20108. My findings to the above Issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative, Addl. Issue No.1 : Does not arise for consideration Addl. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Addl. Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS Issue No.1:-
9. According to the petitioner that on 11.6.2009, at about 8.00 A.M., the deceased Tenneti Sasikanth along with Vasu and other were traveling from Rajamundry to Visakhapatnam in Scorpio bearing Registration No. AP-7-T T-4889, when the vehicle reached at Nutanagunte Palyam, on NH-5 near Kasimkota Mandalam, Visakhapatnam, A.P. the driver of the Scorpio drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-01-AD-4666, which was going in front of the Scorpio. As a result of the accident Tenneti Sasikanth suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot and other person by name Chandu suffered injuries and was admitted at Yalamanchili, Govt. Hospital. The Kasimkota Police have registered a case SCCH-9 11 MVC 451/2010 on the complaint of Kurella Srikanth in their crime No.144/2009 against the driver of the said Scorpio for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337 & 304(A) of IPC. In order to substantiate their contention, they have produced documents which are FIR with complaint, PM report, IMV report, charge sheet, Inquest report, death certificate, at Ex.P1 to P5 and P25.
10. Whereas in the evidence of PW1 she has reiterated the petition averments, even during the course of cross examination also she has not turned up. On the other hand although respondent No.1 and 2 have examined as RW1 and RW2 got marked 17 documents at Ex.R1 to 17 , but they have not an eye witness to the said accident and they are hearsay witness and hence their evidence not helpful to the case of respondents. Hence considering the oral and documentary evidence I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has proved that said accident occurred due to rash or negligent of driving of the Scorpio driver.
11. The 1st petitioner examined her self as Pw-1. In the affidavit evidence she has reiterated the contentions raised in her respective pleadings. In addition to her parole evidence, the petitioner No.1 has produced 25 documents, out of which, Ex.P1 to 5 and 25 are the relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue under consideration. Ex.P1 is the FIR along with complaint. Ex.P2 is the PM report. Ex.P3 is the IMV report, SCCH-9 12 MVC 451/2010 Ex.P4 is charge sheet. Ex.P5 inquest report. Ex.P6 is the provision certificate. Ex.P7 certificate issued by Sun Micro System. Ex.P8 is the Service certificate issued by the VJIL consultant services. Ex.P9 is the Offer letter issued by Bea System. Ex.P10 is the salary certificate issued by Bea System. Ex.P11 is the offer letter issued by NISCO. Ex.P12 is the Appointment letter issued by Razorsight. Ex.P13 is the Promotion letter issued by Razorsight. EX.P14 is the Salary certificate issued by Razorsight. Ex.P15 is the Appreciation certificate issued by Razorsight. Ex.P16 Appreciation certificate issued by Sun Micro System. Ex.P17 is the Brochure of Metaspare. Ex.P18 is the Appointment letter issued by Metasparo. Ex.P19 is the Various Correspondence (6 Nos.) Ex.P20 is the Income Tax Returns for the year 2004-2008. Ex.P21 is the SSLC Marks Cards of the deceased. Ex.P22 is the Marriage certificate. Ex.P23 & 24 are the Birth certificate of Suraj. Ex.P25 is the Death certificate.
12. The contents of ExP1 corroborates the contention of the petitioner regarding the date, time and place of accident and also the manner in which the said accident took place. From the contents of charge sheet it can be gathered that after conducting due investigation. the jurisdictional police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Scorpio Car bearing Reg. No. AP-7-TT-4889 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 338 and 304-A of IPC by holding that, the accident SCCH-9 13 MVC 451/2010 in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle by the accused i.e. its driver. During the course of cross examination of PW-1 she deposed that she was not traveling with her husband in the Scorpio at the time of accident. She is not an eye witness to the accident. She deposed that 2 vehicles namely Scorpio and Lorry are involved in the accident. She has not impleaded the lorry owner and insurer as respondents in this case.
13. The witness PW-2 to 4 by name Sriramachandra Ganti, Srinivasa Rao Pilla, and Sudhakar V Damacherla have deposed that the deceased Tenneti Sasikanth was died in the accident. It is to be noted that, the respondent No.1 & 2 have not disputed the factum of accident. The contents of Ex.P.1 to 5 and 25 reveals that, the petitioner No.1 husband Tenneti Sasikanth was sustained grievous injuries due to the said accident and died at spot. Further there is nothing in the cross examination of PW-1 either to disbelieve the testimony or to ignore the evidentiary value attached to the above said police papers which clearly indicates her contention. Therefore having regard to the materials available before the tribunal, I am of the opinion that, it is not proper to disbelieve the entire case put-forth by the petitioners merely on the ground of place of jurisdiction. There is no serious dispute as such regarding the occurrence of the accident. It is also an undisputed fact that the deceased has sustained injuries and died at spot SCCH-9 14 MVC 451/2010 due to the accident. To show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of Scorpio car by its driver, the petitioners have produced the FIR registered in respect of the accident as per Ex.P1. Admittedly after investigation Kasimkota PS have filed charge sheet against the driver of car. The filing of charge sheet in the Criminal case is prima-facie evidence for this case to prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. In fact the proof of accident itself is sufficient for the purpose of this case, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2001 ACJ 1975 (Sri. Kumaresh V/s. The divisional Manager, National Insurance Com. Ltd., and another) it was held in the above decision that, in the motor accident case strict proof of rash and negligent riding need not be established, as was required in criminal cases. It is sufficient, if it is established that the claimant as sustained injuries as a result of the accident. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decision and also prima-facie evidence produced by the petitioner, it Is proved and established that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving car by respondent No.1.
14. On perusal of entire evidence it appears that the respondents have not challenged the FIR and charge sheet filed against the driver of the alleged Car Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of SCCH-9 15 MVC 451/2010 evidence of PW1 to PW-4 coupled with contents of above documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral version of the PW-1 is supported with corroborative documents and as such, the petitioners have proved that, the accident was occurred mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged Scorpio car bearing Reg. No.AP.07-TT-4889. as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
15. In addendum of this, in a claim for compensation U/S.166 of MV Act, 1988, the claimants have to proved the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and others Vs. Satbir and others).
16. Considering the above facts and on appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved that the accident in question was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
Additional Issue.
17. So far as this issue is concerned, my learned predecessor in office has considered this issue on merits and SCCH-9 16 MVC 451/2010 answered that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Thereafter the petitioner has challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by filing MFA No.4340/2014, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition vide order dated 03.02.2020 and opined that the insurance company had not raised any objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the claims Tribunal in view of Sec. 21 of the C.P.C. and the judgment and award passed by this Tribunal is set-aside and remitted the matter back to this Tribunal with a direction to deal with the matter in accordance with law expeditiously and shall conclude the proceeding with a period of 4 months the parties under take to appear before the claims Tribunal on 17.02.2020. Needless to state that the parties to the proceedings shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall co-operate with the claims Tribunal for early conclusion of the proceedings. Hence again discussion on the present issue dose not arise for my consideration. Hence, I answer the present issue accordingly.
Additional Issue No.1 & 2:
18. These issues are interlinked with each other in order to avoid repetition of facts and materials on record, these issues are discussed together.
The respondent No.2 in its written statement taken defence that the driver of the Scorpio bearing Reg. No. AP-07- SCCH-9 17 MVC 451/2010 TT-4889 did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and the above said vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate as on the date of accident. To substantiate the same produced Ex.R13 to R15 documents. On perusal of Ex.R13 DL extract it appears that the driver of respondent No.1 Keshuva G. had DL as on the date of accident. Which was issued by the RTO, Vijayawada, Andhrapradesh. The Ex.R13 also discloses the fact that the driver having valid DL to drive light motor vehicle (LMV) effect from 25.08.2006 up to 24.08.2026. Hence, very production of the Ex.R13 by the respondent No.2 they failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the DL as on the date of accident. On perusal of Ex,R14 it shows that the RTO, East Godhavari District has issued endorsement stating that on verifying the record the vehicle bearing No. AP- 07-TT 4889 Maxi cab is stands in the name of Bothsha Surya Shankar Rao and the vehicle is not having any valid permit till date and the vehicle fitness certificate is expired on 25.05.2009. He also produced Ex.R15 B Register extract of alleged Maxi cab, wherein it appears that the fitness certificate of the Maxi cab is expired on 25.05.2009. Moreover to prove the Ex.R14 and 15 the respondent has not made any effort to examine the author of the document except its production. It is well settled law that the mere producing a document and marked the same itself is not dispense with its proof for SCCH-9 18 MVC 451/2010 which they have to give suffice and sufficient and convincing evidence. On perusal of Ex.P3 IMV report it clearly shows that in the column No.14 that the alleged vehicle having permit till 11.10.2011 and the driver having driving licence till 24.08.2026 and the RTO confirm the fitness of the vehicle by inspecting the vehicle after the accident and the same was mentioned in Sl.No.9 to 11, 13 and 19 of Ex.P3. Hence, the contents of Ex.R14 and 15 produced by the respondent is not acceptable. Therefore the respondent No.2 failed to prove the additional Issues by producing convening evidence, on the other hand the respondent No,-.1 proved that the alleged vehicle having valid fitness certificate and the driver having valid DL to ply the same on public road. Hence, I answer Addl. Issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 :-
19. In view of the findings on above issues, petitioners have proved that the husband of petitioner No.1 Tenneti Sasikanth has sustained grievous injury and died at spot in the said accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1's vehicle driver. Since respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent no.2 is the insurer. It is disputed by 2 nd respondent that said Scorpio having no valid policy and hence the petition filed by petitioner for seeking compensation u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 against the respondent No.2 is not maintainable. If it is so, how much the petitioner is entitled for SCCH-9 19 MVC 451/2010 compensation with interest is to be looked into. Hence in order to determine the just and reasonable compensation on the following grounds is follows:
20. The specific contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 is the wife, the petitioner No.2 and 3 are children and petitioner No. 4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Tenneti Sasikanth and they are the legal representatives and Dependants of deceased.
21. On the other hand, the respondents have not disputed the relationship of petitioners with the deceased. To prove the relationship, the petitioners have produced the marriage certificate, birth certificate. On perusal of the contents of said documents, it reveals that, the petitioners No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children of deceased Tenneti Sasikanth and as such, they are the legal representatives of deceased. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner Nos.1to 5 are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased and they are entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency.
22. The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Tenneti Sasikanth was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 35years was working at Staff Engineer and his salary of Rs.30,20, 876/- p.a.. Further the contention of the petitioners is that, due to untimely death of SCCH-9 20 MVC 451/2010 Tenneti Sasikanth they have suffered lot and lost their bread earner. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has denied the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
23. To prove the age of deceased, the petitioners have produced SSLC marks card of deceased is shown his date of birth is 27.06.1974 age of the deceased is shown as 35years, therefore, the same has been taken into consideration. Hence, age of the deceased was 35years at the time of accident. Then the applicable proper multiplier is 16.
24. The Petitioners have stated that, Prior to the date of accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and he was working Staff Engineer and his salary of Rs.30,20,876/- p.a. and his entire income was using for the maintenance of his family. To prove the same the petitioners have produced provisional certificate at Ex.P6, Certificate issued by Sun Micro System at Ex.P7. Service certificate issued by the VJIL consultant services Ex.P8. Offer letter issued by Bea System at Ex.P9. Salary certificate issued by Bea System at Ex.P10.
Offer letter issued by NISCO at Ex.P11. Appointment letter issued by Razorsight at Ex.P12. Promotion letter issued by Razorsight at Ex.P13. Salary certificate issued by Razorsight at EX.P14. Appreciation certificate issued by Razorsight Ex.P15. Appreciation certificate issued by Sun Micro System at Ex.P16. Brochure of Metasparc at Ex.P17. Appointment letter issued by SCCH-9 21 MVC 451/2010 Metasparc at Ex.P18. Various Correspondence (6 Nos.) at Ex.P19. Income Tax Returns for the year 2004-2008 at Ex.P20.
25. The counsel for the respondent No.2 cross examined the PW-1 wherein the PW-1 stated that in para 4 line 4 of affidavit she has stated that her husband had taken a short a brake and started a firm along with his friends under the name and style of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., but she deposed that he was employee of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., Further deposed that her husband was promoter as well as consultant Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., has not paid any remuneration to her husband in the relevant period of his death. Further stated that so also in the month earlier to his death also he has not received any remuneration and the contents of para No.4 of her chief affidavit is not true and correct. She further deposed that she do not remember and in which month her husband left Sun Micro systems India Pvt. Ltd., She has not produced any documents to show that her husband was working and earning money from 01.04.2009 onward and she has not produce document to show that her husband had accepted the offer as mentioned in Ex.P18 and also having received remuneration as per Ex.P21 and she has not produced to show that her husband was promoter consultant of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd.,
26. In the further cross examination she deposed that no amount was given to her by Metasparc Software India Pvt.
SCCH-9 22 MVC 451/2010Ltd., after the death of her husband She no other documents to show with regard to remuneration and work of her husband prior to enter in to the Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd.,. She denied that as on the date of accident her husband was not an employee any where and her husband was not all earning Rs.30,00,000/- and above income as promoter or vice president in Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., She admits she has not received any Income tax refund amount after the death of her husband. She denied that, she concocted documents and produced for the purpose of this case. She denied that even prior to the death of her husband she was leaving alone and not depended upon the income of her husband. This evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that as on the date of accident the deceased was not working in any company he was started a firm along with his friend under the name and style of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., and to show that her occupation and income the documents produced at Ex.P6 to 16 are prior to the accident and not as on the date of accident.
27. To substantiate the avocation and income the petitioners examined 3 witness at PW-2 to 4 wherein PW-2 Sriramachandra Ganti knows the deceased form 1991, PW-3 Srinivasa Rao Pilla knows the deceased form 1996 and PW-4 Sudhakar V Dhamcheral know the deceased from 2007. and PW.2 deposed that the deceased was his friend and he SCCH-9 23 MVC 451/2010 worked together form 2004-2007 at Razor Sight, the deceased earned more than Rs.30,00,000/- p.a. in that company he produced his pay slip at Ex.P28.
28. This witness cross examined wherein he admits that the contents of para No.1 to 4 of his chief affidavit pertaining to his profession and personal, as on the date of accident the deceased have no income. He further produced MCA degree certificate at Ex.P30, Experience letter at Ex.P31, He deposed on 11.06.2009 deceased was working in Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., and his income was Rs.30,00,000/- p.a and same was not mentioned in the affidavit. He denied that on11.06.2009 the deceased was the promoter of the company so he was not having any income. He has not produced document to show that deceased would have earn more than Rs.30,00,000/- if he would have alive.
29. PW-3 produced one document Form No.16 at Ex.P29. He deposed that the deceased was qualified in computer. He started his career 2 years earlier than deceased. The deceased would have earned more than Rs.30,00,000/-p.a. In the cross examination he admits he has not stated in the affidavit how much year he know the deceased and they are friends. He pleads ignorance that at the time of accident the deceased was not earning by imaginary he deposed that if deceased would alive he would have earn more than Rs.30,00,000/-p.a. SCCH-9 24 MVC 451/2010
30. PW-4 deposed that the deceased was reported Regional Manager of ISV engineering Group at Sun Micro System between October 2006 and September 2007 working as staff Engineer. Unfortunately due to demise of Sasikanth the business opportunities took a severe blow and Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., could never recover. He would have earned considerable more than Rs.30,00,000/- p.a. which was his salary at Sum Micro System India Pvt. Ltd., he produced 4 documents at Ex.P32 to 35 they are degree certificate, offer letter, incorporation certificate and business agreement with Wipro.
31. This witness cross examined wherein he categorically admits that the contents of para No. 2 to 5 of his affidavit concerned to his career and his income he has not produced documents to show that he had financially associated with Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., deceasrd Sasikanth was started the company in the month of July 2007 from 2007 to 2009 Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., was running under loss. He denied that at the time of accident the deceased was not having any income. He admits that there is no income tax returns to show that deceased was the employee of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., having received any income from the company in the capacity of consultant. There is no documents to show that deceased was having any income from the year 2008 July to till his date. He SCCH-9 25 MVC 451/2010 further admits that he has not stated what was the income of the deceased at the time of death in his chief affidavit. He has not produced any document to show that he was associated with deceased as a co-employee or as a investor.
32. On perusal of entire evidence of PW-2 to 4 it clearly shows that as on the date of accident the deceased was not having income from Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P26 and 27 are the offer letters issued by Sun Micro System India Pvt. Ltd., on 12.09.2006 by offering the deceased on basic salary of Rs.11,11,111/-p.a. and also eligible to joining bonus of Rs.3,00,000/- subject to tax. The petitioners produced Ex.P17 broacher of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., and his visiting card, wherein it appears that the deceased was founder and Vice President of Technology. Ex.P18 is the offer letter, wherein it appears that on 01.07.2011 the director by name T.G.K. Murthy of Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., offered the deceased the position of consulting Vice President for annual remuneration of Rs.24 lakhs p.a., but in the said offer letter the accepted column is found blank. On perusal Ex.P19 various correspondents made by the company, wherein it appears that, the deceased was a founder of product development company and have good Java skills and he was an Ex- Sun employee. Ex.P20 is the IT returns of deceased the same has filed as a employee of Rozor sight Software Pvt. Ltd., during the year 2007-08 to SCCH-9 26 MVC 451/2010 2009-10. On perusal of the same it appears that for the financial year 2005-2006 the salary of the deceased was Rs.21,32,816.51/- and the TDS was deducted Rs.5,59,107/-. During the year 2006-07 the salary of the deceased was Rs.13,87,232/- and the TDS was deducted Rs.3,84,732/-. During the year 2007-08 the salary of the deceased was Rs.29,29,044/- and the TDS was deducted Rs.89,920/-. During the year 2008-09 the salary of the deceased was Rs.7,55,219/- and the TDS was deducted Rs.2,16,422/-. On perusal of Ex.P20 (ITR) it clearly reveals the fact that at the time of accident the deceased was working vice president in Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., and he received honorary of Rs.7,55,219/-p.a. On perusal of Ex.P18 the Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd company offered they will be pay Rs.24,00,000/- remuneration p.a. to the deceased. By taking into consideration of Ex.P20 the deceased was working staff engineer at Metasparc Software India Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs.7,55,219/-p.a. If the deceased was alive he could earn so much amount as shown in Ex.P20, even if considering recession and demand for IT tentatively he could have earn Rs,5,00,000/-. Hence, considering the year of accident, I deem it fit and proper to consider notional income of the deceased at Rs.5,00,000/-p.a.
33. With regard to the loss of future prospectus is concern, the Apex court in the earlier Judgment reported in SCCH-9 27 MVC 451/2010 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh & Ors Vs Rajbir Singh & Ors) also taken note of the fact that, self employed persons are also entitled for future prospectus and the said Judgment was referred to larger bench and the Apex court in the recent Judgment passed in 2017 ACJ 2700 SC (between National Insurance co. ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others.) "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 year. An 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"
34. Herein this case, the deceased was aged about 35 years. Hence the Petitioners are entitled to claim 40% of future prospectus as per above citation, due to death of the deceased in the road traffic accident.
35. It is pertinent to note that, the Petitioner No.1 is the wife and Petitioner Nos.2 &3 are the children and petitioner No.4 & 5 are the parents of the deceased. Petitioner No.1 to 5 are considered as dependant on the income of the deceased.
SCCH-9 28 MVC 451/2010So, relying upon the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Varma and others -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation & another).
Income of deceased is taken at Rs. 5,00,000/-p.a Addition of 40% income towards future prospectus Rs.5,00,000/- + 2,00,000/- (40%) = Rs.7,00,000/- Deduction towards personal expenses; Rs.7,00,000/- (-) 1/4th = Rs.1,75,000/-=Rs.5,25,000/-
Therefore, this tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,25,000/-, which comes as under:-
5,25,000/- x 16 = Rs.84,00,000/-
Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.84,00,000/- under the head loss of dependency.
36. In this case, petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 &3 are the minor children and petitioner No.4 & 5 are the father and mother of the deceased. They have suffered from loss of estate due to the untimely death of deceased. Taking into consideration of the said aspect, this Tribunal is of the considered view that, it would be just & proper to award a compensation of Rs.40,000/- for petitioner No.1 and Rs.40,000 each for petitioner Nos.2 to 5 towards loss of Filial consortium and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards Funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
SCCH-9 29 MVC 451/2010 Compensation heads Compensation
amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs. 84,00,000/-
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/-
Towards loss of Filial consortium Rs. 1,60,000/-
Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 15,000/-
funeral & obsequies ceremony
expenses
Total Rs. 86,15,000-00
Apportionment:
Petitioner No.1 40%
Petitioner No.2 20%
Petitioner No.3 20%
Petitioner No.4 10%
Petitioner No.5 10%
Liability:-
37. So far as the liability is concerned, as I have already concluded that the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. Further it is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the said vehicle is vicariously liable for the said tortuous act of his driver. Further, the respondent No.2 has disputed the coverage of insurance to the offending vehicle.
38. The respondent No.2 examined its legal manager by name Ramamohan as RW-1, he filed affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief he reiterated written statement SCCH-9 30 MVC 451/2010 averments in toto and produced 15 documents at Ex.R1 to R15. Ex.R1 is the original cheque dated 13.06.2009. Ex.R2 is the copy of letter issued dated 13.06.2009. Ex.R3 is the letter to insurance company by the insured dated 20.09.2009 with RPAD cover copy of cover note. Ex.R5 is the endorsement. Ex.R6 copy of policy cancellation of RTA office dated 14.10.2009. Ex.R7 is the copy of letter to insured dated 14.10.2009. Ex.R8 is the copy of reply letter dated 09.11.2009. Ex.R9 is the copy of reply notice dated 21.12.2009. Ex.R10 is the rejoinder copy dated 04.01.2010. Ex.R11 is the copy of letter to police authority dated 27.06.2009. Ex.R12 is the correspondence letter dated 17.06.2009. EX.R13 is the Original DL extract. Ex.R14 is the Original permit and FC certificate. Ex.R15 Original RC extract.
39. This witness cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner wherein he categorically admits that, since September 2009 he was working in R2 company. Generally after taking cash or cheque we will issue cover note, cheque can be by the owner or by his family members, they issue 3 cover notes to customer, one for office copy another for RTO. Ex.R4 is the office copy. He denied that Ex.R4 as created for the purpose of their convince and same was issued their Sales Manager Prasad Reddy and the same was not signed by sales manager. Witness voluntaries that Ex.R4 is an incomplete document. He do not now whether company have initiated any SCCH-9 31 MVC 451/2010 criminal procedure against Prasad Reddy, company has taken action against R1 before the police on Ex.R11 document, complaint was lodged on 27.06.2009. He denied that Ex.R11 is created by them. Ex.R4 is proposal cum cover note. He denied that the owner of the vehicle has given Rs.12,000.- in cash and after receiving a same the sale manager issued cover note to the owner. He admits that, generally they will not received the un dated cheque while issuing cover note and the insist for date on cheque. The owner of the vehicle is the father and person who signed the cheque his the son. The cheque was issued to their office on 13.06.2009 the presented the cheque for collection on 19.09.2009 for production of vehicle for inspection there is a delay of presenting the cheque for collection. He denied that the son of the owner of the vehicle had given undated cheque to us there after knowing the accident they manipulated the undated cheque due to lapses on their part.
40. The respondent No.1 examined as RW-2 filed affidavit in view of examination chief by reiterated the written statement averments in toto. He produced original cover note dated 06.06.2009 at Ex.R16, policy at Ex.R17.
41. In the cross examination of RW-2 by the petitioner counsel, he deposed that the alleged vehicle belongs to him the same was used for the purpose of taxi and said vehicle had valid insurance. He aware the accident and informed the SCCH-9 32 MVC 451/2010 same to the insurance company. This witness cross examined by the counsel the respondent No.2 in length but nothing has been elicited from the mouth of RW-2 to show that Ex.R16 is created for the purpose of this case and the alleged vehicle in question was not having valid insurance at the time of accident. He deposed that he personally gone through the company to obtain policy to his vehicle. Old policy is expired on 22.05.2009. Ex.R4 bears big seal and amount mentioned is Rs.11,591/- and Ex.P16 not bears big seal. He denied that he obtained original cover note assuring the company to produce the same along with photos and misused. He admits Ex.R4 bears code number and in Ex.R16 is there was no code number. He admits that the date of issuance of coverage and date of issuance of policy coverage are one and the same cover note and policy date will be the same . He denied that Ex.R4 and R16 are different one. Ex.R16 is manipulated by himself. He admit the policy premium amount is shown Rs.11,591/- in Ex.R17 commencing from 13.06.2009 to 12.06.2010, accident was occurred on 11.06.2009. He admits as per Ex.R17 as on the date of accident the alleged vehicle was not having valid policy. Witness voluntaries that but he had cover note as on the date of accident. He has not claimed OD claim after the accident. He denied that he has no policy hence he did not claim OD. He admits he has not approached the company for correction of date in Ex.R17 regarding SCCH-9 33 MVC 451/2010 coverage date. The Ex.R1 cheque bears signature of his elder son Krishnaprasad bothsa. The counsel for the respondent asked question when you have paid the cash towards premium what was necessity to issue cheque, witness answered that for shortage of amount if any the company was asked the cheque from his son. He admits Ex.R1 and R17 the premium amount are one and the same. He denied that the company generally not taking cash along with the cheque. He admits in Ex.R3 he has not mentioned premium paid through cash. He denied that the premium amount is Rs.11,591/- the company will not take Rs.12,000/- he denied that he did not mentioned the company has taken cash as well as cheque from him in Ex.R8 and R10 notice. He approached the company for return of cheque since he had paid premium by cash, but company not returned the cheque. He admits he did not issued notice or not taken legal action the company for non return of cheque. He denied that there was no contractual obligation between himself and company as on the date of accident and there was no valid permit and FC, at no point of time he has not paid cash and issued cheque only towards premium amount.
42. On perusal of ruling relied by the petitioner dispite the bar created by Sec. 64 -VB of Insurance Act. The respondent No.2 an authorized insurer issued a policy of insurance to cover the car without receiving the premium SCCH-9 34 MVC 451/2010 therefor. By reason of the prevision of Sec. 147(5) and 149(1) of the M.V. Act the respondent No.2 became liable to indemnified third party in respect of the which that policy covered and to satisfied award of compensation in respect there of not withstanding its entitlement to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured.
43. The contention of the respondent No.2 as on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid policy since R1 approached for policy on 06.06.2009 the cover note was partially filled as earlier policy was expired. The respondent No.2 sought vehicle for physical inspection and taking photo graphs about the physical condition of the vehicle, as the vehicle was brought on 06.06.2009, photographer was not available as R1 went back away with the original cover note and paying premium either 06.06.2009 of 08.06.2019 and left the in complete cheque leaf of his son Krishana prasad bothsa and did not come back. As the respondent issued letter on 1306.2009 calling upon him fill the date in the cheque signed the proposal cover note and produced the vehicle. The respondent No.2 presented the cheque for encashment on 14.10.2010 and the same was return unpaid for the reason funds insufficient and hence the cancelled cover note on 13.06.2009.
SCCH-9 35 MVC 451/201044. The respondent No.1 taken contention that the cover note is issued by Prasad Reddy, sales manager of Respondent No.2 he paid Rs.12,000/- cash as requested by sales manager and also handed over a cheque dated 13.06.2009. It was represented by the sales manager that cheque would be encashed only in the event of shortage of money. The above facts corroborative from Ex.P3. The respondent No.2 deliberately presented the cheque for encashment in the month of September after the accident.
45. Where the policy of insurance issued by an authorized insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque its dishonour and before the accident of the vehicle occurres such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnified the third party which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfied awards of compensation in respect thereof.
46. Having regard to the above legal position, in so for as facts of the present case is concern the owner of the Scorpio obtained policy of insurance from the insurer on 06.06.2009 for which premium was paid through cheque as well as cash the accident occurred on 11.06.2009 it was only after that insurer cancelled the insurance policy by communication dated 14.10.2009 on the ground of dishonour SCCH-9 36 MVC 451/2010 of cheque which was issued by the son of respondent No.1 . On perusal of Ex.R1 cheque it bears date on 13.06.2009 for Rs.11,591/- issued by Bothsha Krishna prasad who is the son of respondent No.1. Ex.R2 is the letter issued by the respondent No.2 company to RC owner of the vehicle, calling upon him to return the cover note within 7 days and the cover note issued by Sales manager invalid from the date of inspection. Ex.R3 is the reply given by the respondent No.1 stating that cheque and photos are already submitted to your company cover note is concerned the same is available in your office. Ex.R4 is the cover note issued by the R2 company infavour of Respondent No.1, where mode of payment and the signature of the issuing authority is blank. Ex.R5 endorsement issued by the HDFC bank stating that the cheque No 647191 is dishonoured for "funds Insufficient" on 22.09.2009. Ex.R6 is the intimation of policy cancellation dated 14.09.2009. Ex.R7 is the letter issued to R1 by the R2 stating that the payment against policy premium vide cheque No. 647191 dated 13.06.2009 has been returned unpaid by the bank for the reason insufficient fund. Ex.R8 is the reply given by the R1 stating that the he has not given cheque, he paid cash of Rs.12,000/- to your officials. As per cover note 109000395052 and the same cover note number was mentioned in the policy. Hence cancellation of policy does not arise. On perusal of Ex.R16 and R4 it appears that the Ex.R16 is the original cover SCCH-9 37 MVC 451/2010 note and Ex.R4 is the copy of the same, wherein, the mode of payment mentioned as cash and premium amount was Rs.12,000/- and the signature of proposer and authorized signatory was found in Ex.R16 and the same was issued on 06.06.2009. Based on Ex.R16 policy was issued to the alleged vehicle in question which commences form 13.06.2009 to 12.06.2010. It is sufficient to hold that the alleged vehicle in question had valid policy as on the date of accident since the cover note issued to the vehicle on 06.06.2009 in turn on the same cover note number the respondent No,2 issued policy on 13.06.2009.
47. In this regard, I relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No,31894/2012 in the case of Sudharshan V/s Subash and another wherein it is held that either of the parties have not produced receipt for payment of premium as to at what time premium was paid. Therefore, under these circumstances the provision stated in Section 64VB of the Act is to be considered vis-à-vis Ex.R17- Insurance Policy. Therefore, as per Section 64VB of the Act above stated, the provision is very clear that soon after the receipt of the payment of premium by the owner and received by the Insurance Company then the contract of insurance begins between them. Issuance of policy is consequent effect after receipt of premium. If there is a specific contract is made between the insurer and the insured that the risk is to be SCCH-9 38 MVC 451/2010 covered from that point of time itself is concerned, then that shall be specifically stated in the Insurance Policy and it is a specific contract between the insurer and insured so far as time of commencement of risk. Therefore upon considering this and applying the same in the present facts and circumstances and by following the legal provision enshrined under Section 64VB of the Act it can be safely held that from the time of making payment of premium itself covering risk starts. In the present case Ex.R16 shows that the respondent No.2 received the premium amount of Rs.12,000/- cash from the Respondent No.1 on 06-06-2009 and hence, it is clear that from the date of payment of premium itself the insurance company covers the risk of vehicle in question. Hence the defence of the respondent No.2 is not helps to prove its defence that the alleged vehicle in question as no valid insurance policy at the time of accident. The Ex.R16 and 17 itself establishes the fact that as on the date of accident the Scorpio vehicle bearing No. AP-07-TT-4889 is having valid insurance policy as on the date of accident.
48. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision reported in :
1. (2009) 6 SCC 121: Sarala Verma and other Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another wherein it is held that, where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be one-
third 1/3rd where the number of dependent family member 2 SCCH-9 39 MVC 451/2010 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th ) where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th ) where number of dependent family members exceeds six.
2. (2017) 16 SCC 680 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Paranysethi, wherein it is held that Having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are disposed to think when we accept the principle of standardization, there is really no rationale not to apply the said principle to the self- employed or a person who is on a fixed salary. To follow the doctrine of actual income at the time of death and not to add any amount with regard to future prospects to the income for the purpose of determination of multiplicand would be unjust.
3. (2018) 5 SCC 656 in the case of Mangala Ram V/s. Oriental insurance Com. Ltd., wherein it is held that, The claim of respondents 2 & 3 to the extent that they possessed a cover note issued by the then DO of insurance. But for cover note issued by the DO of R1 insurance company at a point of time when he was still working with R1, to do substantial justice, we may invoke the principles " Pay & recover"
4. (2000) 3 SCC 195 in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Rulla, wherein it is held that, if on the date of accident, there was a policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle in question, the 3rd party would have a claim of that party subsequent cancellation of the insurance policy on SCCH-9 40 MVC 451/2010 the ground of non-payment of premium would not affect the right already occurred in favour of third party.
5. (1998) 1 SCC 371 in the case of Oriental insurance Co. V/s Indrajeet Kaur, wherein it is held that, the policy of insurance that the appellant issued was a representation upon which the authorities and third parties were entitled to act. The appellant was not absolved of its obligations to third parties under the policy because it did not receive the premium.
6. (2017) 14 SCC 663 in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is held that, if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect
49. On perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the parties it is clear that, the respondent No.2 admitted that they issued policy to the offending vehicle at Ex.R17. For all the above reasons, I hold that the petitioners haves convincingly proved their entitlement for a sum of Rs86,15,000/- along with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till complete realization. The respondents 1&2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 as insurer of offending vehicle is liable to deposit the compensation. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
SCCH-9 41 MVC 451/2010Issue No.3:
50. In view of my above discussions and the reasons stated therein and my answer to above issues No.1 and 2, Addl. Issue No.1, 1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1989 is hereby partly allowed with costs The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.86,15,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay aforesaid compensation amount to the Petitioners. Further, Respondent No.2 being Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with 6% interest within 60days, from the date of this order.
After deposit out of the 40% share amount of petitioner No.1, 50% of the amount shall be disbursed in favour of petitioner No.1 directly through E-Payment by obtaining the bank account details and the remaining 50% shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of SCCH-9 42 MVC 451/2010 three years. However, petitioner No.1 is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
After deposit of 20% apportioned compensation amount with interest awarded to the petitioner No.2 &3 entire amount shall be kept in the Fixed Deposit in their names in any of the Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of the choice of petitioner No.1 till they attains the age of majority, free from encumbrance with a liberty to draw the periodical interest by the guardian/ petitioner No.1 to meet their educational and other expenses.
After deposit out of 10% apportioned compensation amount in favour of petitioner No.4 and 5, shall be disbursed in favor of petitioner No.4 &5, through E-payment by obtaining the bank details.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 16 th day of January 2021) (Abdul khadar) Judge, Court of Small Causes & MEMBER:MACT, Bengaluru.SCCH-9 43 MVC 451/2010
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the petitioners:
PW.1 Smt. Susmita Susarla, PW.2 Sri Ramachandra Ganti PW.3 Sreenivasa Rao Pilla PW.4 Sudhakar V.Damacherla
List of Documents exhibited for the petitioners:
Ex.P1 FIR along with Complaint Ex.P1 (a) Translation of FIR along with complaint Ex.P2 PM Report Ex.P3 MVI Report Ex.P4 Charge Sheet Ex.P5 Inquest Report Ex.P5 (a) Translation of Inquest Report Ex.P6 Provisional Certificate (original produced and returned) Ex.P7 Certificate issued by SUN MICRO SYSTEM Ex.P8 Service certificate issued by VJIL consulting services Ex.P9 Offer letter issued by bea system Ex.P10 Salary certificate issued by bea system Ex.P11 Offer letter issued by NISCO Ex.P12 Appointment letter issued by Razorsight Ex.P13 Promotion letter issued by Razorsight Ex.P14 Salary certificate issued by Razorsight EX.P15 Appreciation certificate issued by Razorsight Ex.P16 Appreciation certificate issued by SUN MICRO SYSTEM Ex.P17 Brochure of Metasparc Ex. P18 Appointment letter issued by Metasparc Ex.P19 Various Correspondence (6 nos.) Ex.P20 Income Tax Returns for the year 2004-2008 Ex.P21 SSLC Marks Card of the deceased (original produced and returned) Ex.P22 Marriage Certificate Ex.P23 Birth Certificate of Suraj SCCH-9 44 MVC 451/2010 Ex.P24 Birth Certificate of Suraj Ex.P25 Death Certificate Ex.P26 Appointment letter Ex.P27 Salary certificate Ex.P28 Pay Slip Ex.P29 Form No. 16 (Original Produced and returned) Ex.P30 Notarised Copy of the MCA Degree Certificate (Original Produced and returned) Ex.P31 Original Experience Letter Ex.P32 Degree Certificate (Original produced and returned) Ex.P33 Sum Micro System Offer Letter (Original produced and returned) Ex.P34 Incorporation Certificate (Original produced and returned) Ex.P35 Business Agreement with Wipro, Prosaamya and eGestalt (2 nos.) List of witness examined for the respondents RW.1 Ramamohan P.B. RW-2 Surya Sankar Rao Bothsa List of Documents exhibited for the respondents:
Ex.R 1 Original Cheque dated: 13.06.2009
Ex.R 2 Copy of letter issued dated: 13.06.2009
Ex.R 3 Letter to Insurance company by the insured
dated: 20.09.2009 with RPAD cover
Ex.R 4 Copy of Cover Note
Ex.R 5 Cheque endorsement copies (2 in nos.)
Ex.R 6 Copy of Intimation of Policy cancellation to RTA
office dated: 14.10.2009
Ex.R 7 Copy of letter to insured dated: 14.10.2009
along with carrier receipt
Ex.R 8 Copy of reply letter dated: 09.11.2009
Ex.R 9 Copy of the reply notice dated: 21.12.2009
Ex.R 10 Rejoinder copy dated: 04.01.2010
Ex.R 11 Copy of letter to police authority dated:
27.06.2009
SCCH-9 45 MVC 451/2010
Ex.R 12 Correspondence letter dated:17.06.2009 Ex.R 13 Original DRIVING LICENCE Extract Ex.R 14 Original permit & FC Certificate Ex.R15 Original RC Extract Ex.R16 Original cover note policy dated 06.06.2009 Ex.R17 Insurance policy (Abdul khadar) Judge, Court of Small Causes & MEMBER:MACT, Bengaluru.