Bangalore District Court
No.1 And 3 Is Only Pending For ... vs The Insurance Policy Was In Force As On ... on 25 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 25th day of October, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.2255/2013
1. Veena Sinha @ Vina Sinha, ..... PETITIONERS
W/o. Krishna Mohan,
Aged about 53 years.
2. Krishna Mohan,
S/o. T.P. Sinha,
Aged about 56 years.
Native of;
A-122, Dayal Sadan,
No.18, Rajivnagar,
Patna-800024.
Presently R/at;
C/o. Ankith,
No.B-303,
Vesions Lansdale,
Opp. Sigma Techpark,
Near Forum Value Mall,
Next to Prestige Ozon Villa,
Whitefield,
Bangalore.
3. Sonal Sinha,
2 MVC No.2255/2013
SCCH-7
D/o. Krishna Mohan,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Flat No. B-402,
Spendid Squre,
S.No.277, Dhanoti,
Lothegaon Road,
Pune- 411047,
Maharashtra.
(P-1 and P-3 By Sri. P. Suresh, Adv.,)
(P-3 Deleted)
V/s
..... RESPONDENTS
1. The New India Assurance
Co. Ltd.,
Bangalore Regional Office,
T.P. HUB, No.9/2,
Mahalkshmi Chambers,
M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
(Rept. By its Incharge Manager),
(Policy issued at Vijayawada DO-2,
Insurer of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.AP-16-
TX-3349,
Policy No: 62080031110100010095,
Validity: 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2013)
2. Johnlagadda Venkatappaiah,
@ Venkatappaiah Jonnalagadda,
S/o. Tirupathaiah,
Major in Age,
R/at: 5-92/A, Indiranagar,
Mulapadu-Post,
Ibrahimpatna-Mandal,
Krishna-Dist.,
Vijayawada Thermal Station,
3 MVC No.2255/2013
SCCH-7
Andhrapradesh-521456.
(Owner of the Vehicle)
(R-1 By Sri. B.R. Venkatesh Kamath, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. Ravi Kumar Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
It is pertinent to note here that, initially, the Petitioners No.1 and 2 had filed the present petition and later, as per the Order dated 12.05.2015 passed on I.A.No.III, the Petitioner No.3 is impleaded as party to the present petition.
2. It is further pertinent to note here that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the Petitioner No.2 is died on 13.02.2016 and as such, as per the Order dated 28.06.2016 passed on memo, the name of the Petitioner No.2 is deleted from the cause title of the petition. Hence, the petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 3 is only pending for consideration and disposal.
3. The Petitioners No.1 and 3 have filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award compensation of Rupees 90,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till deposit, in respect of death of Saurab Sinah S/o. Krishna Mohan.
4. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;
4 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
a) On 30.11.2012 at about 5.13 p.m., the deceased was trying for taking right turn in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614, to move towards Prashanth Layout, ITPL Main Road, Bangalore City, very carefully, cautiously and observing traffic rules, at that time, all of a sudden, a Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, driving by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger to human life and dashed against to the deceased and his Motor Cycle and he fell down and then Lorry wheel ran over the head of the deceased. Due to impact, the deceased was died at the spot due to severe grievous head injuries and other injuries all over the Body. Then the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Centre, Bangalore, wherein, the Post-Mortem was conducted. After the Post-Mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to them. Thereafter, they performed the funeral, last rites and death ceremony. They incurred Rupees 1,50,000/- towards transportation, funeral, last rites and death ceremony expenses.
b) The deceased was working as an Asst. System Engineer, at TCS, Whitefield, Bangalore and drawing Rupees 28,000/- P.M. He was contributing his entire income for the maintenance of them. They were depending on the income of the deceased for their livelihood.
c) Due to sudden accidental death of the deceased, they are facing lot of mental agony and shock, financial difficulties and discomfort. They have lost the love and affection of the deceased 5 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 and also lost the estate and expectation of the life of the deceased and the deceased only the main earning member in the family and the deceased was only the son of the parents.
d) The Whitefield Traffic Police, Bangalore City, have registered a case in Crime No.176/2012, against the driver of the Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, for the offences under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Therefore, this accident was occurred due to sole rash and negligent high speed driving of the said offending Trailer Lorry by its driver.
e) The 2nd Respondent is the owner of the said offending Trailer Lorry and the same has been insured with the 1st Respondent, the insurance policy was in force as on date of accident. Therefore, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this petition.
5. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, it was remained absent and hence, it was placed as exparte on 26.06.2013. Later, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and as per the Order dated 26.06.2014, the exparte order is set-aside and the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 11.10.2013 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file. Later, as per the Order dated 11.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the additional written statement filed by the 6 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Respondent No.1 is taken on file. Later, as per the Order dated 19.12.2015 passed on I.A.No.VII, the additional written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
6. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and has filed the written statement.
7. The Respondent No1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, have further contended in its written statement as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The vehicle in question namely, the Tata/4018 Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, was covered by "Commercial Vehicle Package" Policy No.62080031110100010095, valid for the period from 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2013.
c) The liability of it, if any, is subject to verifying of vehicle documents, terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of policy of insurance validly subsisting as on the date of the alleged accident and relevant provisions and exceptions of the M.V. Act.
d) It seeks protection under the Section 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act.
7 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
e) The concerned Police Station have not forwarded copy nor intimated regarding the said accident. This is violation of statutory provisions U/s 158 (6) of the M.V. Act.
f) The Petitioners, if file any claim petition or double petition, before any other Hon'ble Court/Tribunal, against it regarding the same cause of action in respect of the said accident, the claim petition as against it, is liable to be dismissed with cost.
g) It prays to reserve its right to amend its statement of objections, in view of the fact that, the Respondent No.2, the owner of Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, has failed to extend co-operation to it, in contesting the present matter. The Respondent No.2, has not furnished any particulars of the alleged accident or about the insurance policy issued by it, which amounts to breach of terms and conditions of policy and violation of statutory provisions of the U/s 134(c) of M.V. Act and also it is obvious that, the 2nd Respondent has colluded with the Petitioners in conducting the present matter. As such, it seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to contest the claim of the Petitioners on all grounds including actionable negligence and quantum of compensation among other grounds. This plea is supported in terms of Condition No.2 of the policy as well as provided under Section 170 of M.V. Act. Hence, it prays leave of the Hon'ble Court to file additional objections as and when the documents are submitted by the Respondent No.2.
8 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
h) The person, who was driving Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 in question had no valid and effective driving license as on the date of the alleged accident or prior to that, permitting the said person to drive that particular class of vehicle involved in the accident. Hence, as there was breach of promise, it is not liable.
i) The Respondent No.2, being the owner of Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, had no valid certificate of fitness and permit at the time of the accident. The Respondent No.2 had violated the condition of the Insurance Policy. Hence, as there was breach of promise, it is not liable.
j) It is learnt that, the accident occurred on account of actionable negligence of two drivers, namely, the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614, which the deceased was riding and the other vehicle, namely, Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 and the accident occurred on account of use of two vehicles. As such, both the vehicles involved in the accident must be held to be guilty of composite negligence. The owner and insurer of the other vehicle, i.e., the Motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614, which was also involved in the accident, are not impleaded, hence, the present case is not maintainable and be pleased to dismiss the claim petition as against it.
k) The accident said to have occurred on 30.11.12 at around 5.15.p.m., while the deceased Sri. Saurabh Sinha, was so 9 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 proceeding riding Motor Cycle No.KA-03/HK-7614 at a prime and busy traffic area during peak evening traffic hours and when was proceeding riding Motor Cycle from ITPL, Dinnur Cross, towards Prashanth Layout, at which time, the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No. AP-16-TX-3349, proceeding on opposite direction, is said to have dashed against the Motor Cycle, which the deceased was riding. This fact is further confirmed as per the complaint dated 30.11.12 lodged by one Mr. Narayana, Police Head Constable 4666, being attached to Whitefield Traffic Police Station, had so reached the accident spot after hearing the screaming voice of the public, at which time, the driver of the Lorry had stopped the Lorry and fled the scene of occurrence of the accident.
l) The mahazar prepared by the Police, the next day after accident, after a span of almost 15 hours after the accident and after the Complaint being lodged by the PC, does depicts/provide a clear picture/fact perspective. Whereas, as per the Mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer on the very next day of accident, the narration does depict that, the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No. AP-16-TX-3349, was in fact in the right course of direction and the injured/deceased was so riding the Motor Cycle almost in the middle of the road, a busy traffic area during peak evening traffic hours, as well, unmindful of the flow of traffic without observing traffic rules and regulations. Further, the accident had so occurred at the middle of the road, while the deceased Motor Cycle and the Lorry bearing Registration No.AP- 16-TX-3349, were so negotiating a right turn at an intersection of 10 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 road. This fact clearly goes to prove that, injured/deceased had failed to take reasonable care while riding the Motor Cycle on a busy traffic area during peak evening traffic hours, as well, was riding the Motor Cycle without wearing helmet, resulting in causing head injury and that was solely reasonable for causing the unfortunate accident, thus, confirming or betraying deceased's total guilt of culpable negligence in having caused the accident. In addition, the mahazar drawn and sketch prepared the next day after the accident in the presence of the Complainant/Informant so also confirms that, the accident had so occurred while the deceased was riding the Motor Cycle in the middle of busy traffic area during peak evening traffic hours.
m) The Complaint having been lodged by one Police Constable on very same day of accident, i.e., on 30.11.12, the mahazar is drawn at around 9.00 to 10.00 a.m., on the next day after 15 hours after the accident and the Police Authorities after due investigation, have in fact filed charge sheet against the driver of Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, at the instance of Petitioners and Informant/Complainant, wherein, the Informant/Complainant had in fact not witnessed the accident. Hence, on the said aspect, it clearly goes to prove the bonafide of the Petitioners and the concerned in having filed a false case against the driver of vehicle Lorry belonging to Respondent No.2, wherein, the accident had occurred due to sole and negligent act of the deceased while riding the Motor Cycle in the middle of the road on a busy traffic area during peak evening traffic hours as 11 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 well at an intersection of four roads, unmindful of flow of traffic on a busy traffic area.
n) As per the complaint being lodged, on 30.11.12, the Complainant/Informant in fact had not witnessed the occurrence of the accident and in fact, Mr. Narayana Head Constable 4666, had so reached the accident spot after hearing the screaming voice of the public, at which time, the driver of the Lorry had stopped the Lorry and fled the scene of occurrence of the accident. Further, the Police Authorities in the presence of the Informant/Complainant, had so drawn the mahazar and sketch in between 9.00 a.m., to 10.00.a.m., on the next day of complaint and the said informant/Complainant had so not witnessed the accident. This fact would as well goes to prove the bonafides of the Petitioners and the Informant/Complainant in so manipulating/creating the Police documents to suit their requirements with the assistance of the concerned. As well as, as per the Mahazar drawn by the Investigating Officer, on the next day of accident, the narration does depicts that, the driver of the Lorry, which was in fact on the right course of direction and the accident had so occurred in the middle of road, on a busy traffic area during peak evening traffic hours as well at an intersection of four roads, the deceased/rider of Motor Cycle ought to have driven the Motor Cycle observing traffic rules and regulations, thus keeping to the left side of the road, thus not obstructing the movement of traffic on a busy traffic area.
12 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
(o) The Lorry involved in the accident was being driven slowly, carefully and cautiously on the correct side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulations by sounding horn. But, the unfortunate accident occurred only on account of the carelessness on the part of the deceased proceeding Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-03-HK-7614. The deceased's vehicle, was suddenly swerved to his right and came in the line of motion of the Lorry, this rash act of the deceased's Motor Cycle, was too sudden and without any warning or signal. Since the Motor Cycle changed its lane or traffic and switched over to the lane of traffic of Lorry, the accident was inevitable and beyond the control of anybody. The rider/deceased of the Motor cycle has contributed cause of accident 75%, was take responsibility for the same. Alternatively, the driver of the Motor Cycle/deceased was equally negligent and the negligence is to be apportioned against him also. The manner, in which, the accident occurred as a result of collision between the two vehicles. The accident occurred in the middle of the road. The Police sketch and Mahazar indicate the positive negligence of the rider of the Motor Cycle. Therefore, its Company is not liable to pay any compensation and claim petition as against it is liable to be dismissed.
(p) The amount of compensation claimed is highly exaggerated, illegal and fanciful and have claimed highly disproportionate amount having no regard to truth. It is obvious that, the Petitioners are trying to convert an unfortunate incident into a windfall and they are not liable to pay Rupees 90,00,000/-.
13 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
q) As per the TATA Consultancy Services Ltd, Company Mumbai Office Letter dated 02.09.2013, the said Company insured all their employers under Group Insurance Policy and deceased Mr. Saurabh Sinha was also covered under the said policy and the Insurance Company settled the claim and the Petitioners were received a sum of Rupees 18,90,864, i.e., as per accidental insurance claim in the said alleged road traffic accident from deceased working/Employer. Hence, in the above case, its liability if any, the said amount has to be deducted in the award amount.
r) The age of the deceased at the time of accident was 25 years two months and five days.
s) In the event of this Hon'ble Court passing an award for compensation, the rate of interest shall not exceed 6% in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Geetha's case. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
8. The Respondent No1 has further taken contentions in its additional written statement, which are as follows;
a) The present claim petition filed by the Petitioners for claiming compensation for the death of their deceased son and third Petitioner is sister f the deceased and she is not having any dependency on deceased and the Petitioner No.3 having d3ependency on her husband only, hence, the Petitioner No.3 is not entitled any compensation.
14 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
b) The present claim petition filed by the Petitioners for claiming compensation for the death of their deceased son and the second Petitioner Sri. Krishna Mohan is father of the deceased and he is not having any dependency on deceased and the Petitioner No.2 is the one of the IAS Officer and presently, he is working as a Joint Secretary at Co-operation Department, Patna, Government of Bihar and second Petitioner having good salary and he is not a depending on deceased income, even the Petitioner No.1 also having dependency on her husband only, hence, the Petitioner No.2 is not entitled any compensation on the head of loss of dependency. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
9. The Respondent No1 has taken the same contentions of written statement, in its additional written statement filed on 18.11.2015.
10. The Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement by contending as follows;
a) It is true that, he is the owner of the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident. Further, it possesses a valid permit to run the vehicle and the vehicle is insured with the 1st Respondent and the insurance of the vehicle was in force as on the date of alleged accident. Further, the driver of the vehicle possesses a valid license as on the date of the alleged accident.
b) The claim of the Petitioners is false and highly excessive. In case, this Hon'ble Court comes to conclusion that, 15 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 the Petitioners are entitled to claim compensation, their liability of paying compensation shall by the 1st Respondent for the said reasons and facts. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
11. Based on the above said pleadings, my Learned Predecessor-in-Office has framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents and legal representatives of deceased Sri. Saurabh Sinha?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-16-TX-3349 by its driver and in the said accident, Sri. Saurabh Sinha died?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
12. In order to prove their case, the Petitioners have examined the Petitioner No.3 as P.W.1 and have also examined one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination- in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.25. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has examined five witnesses as R.W.1 to R.W.5 and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.44.
16 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7 On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
13. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has filed the written arguments.
14. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners Sri. P. Suresh has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 2012 ACJ 2002 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others V/s. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 (1) (c) Claim application-Legal representative-Married sister-whether married sister of the deceased is entitled to any share in compensation along with her parents-Held: no.
Quantum-Fatal accident- Principles of assessment-Multiplier-Choice of-Deceased aged 26 and claimants are father, mother and sister who got married during pendency of claim application-Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17-High Court reduced multiplier to 13-Whether multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased be applied- Held; yes; the age of dependants has no nexus with computation of compensation.
17 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
ii) 2004 ACJ 368 High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (Mallamma V/s. Balaji and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Negligence- Res ipsa loquitur-Milk van driven at high speed dashed against a pedestrian on extreme left side of the road resulting in his death-Defendants admitted involvement of the vehicle but, they neither examined the driver nor any other independent witness to rebut the evidence of the claimant-Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver-
Accident occurred on the highway in the early morning, it would not be proper to expect any eyewitness-Tribunal held that, claimant failed to prove rash and negligent act of the driver-Tribunal's finding reversed in appeal and held that, principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable and the Defendants failed to disprove that, driver of van was not rash and negligent.
iii) ILR 2008 KAR 433 (The Managing Director NWKRTC Central Offices V/s. Smt. B. Manjula and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173(1)-Award-Appealed against-Accident- Claim petition by the widow and children- Finding of MACT-Driver of the vehicle was negligent and that, the claimants were the legal heirs of deceased and they are entitled for compensation-Grievance of the appellant-Driver of the bus, acquitted by the order of the JMFC and as such the award passed by the MACT was not justified-
18 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7 HELD, The mere acquittal by the Magistrate, that, too on technicalities, more so due to lack of evidence, it cannot per say be inferred that, the motor vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and it was not driven in a rash and negligent manner-ON FACTS, FURTHER HELD, Material on record discloses that, the claimants are the legal heirs of deceased- Award of the MACT is justified.
Appeal is dismissed.
iv) 2013 ACJ 1403 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 168 (1)-Just compensation-Whether Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the amount claimed, to award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation
-Held: yes.
Quantum-Fatal accident- Principles of assessment-Future prospects-Whether formula for increase of income for future prospects adopted for persons with permanent jobs in Sarla Verma's case, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), may also be applied to persons who were self-employed or were engaged on fixed wages-Held: yes; 50 percent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30 percent for age group of 40 to 50 years; 15 percent for age group of 50 to 60 years; but, no addition thereafter.
19 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
v) 2014 ACJ 526 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Puttamma and Others V/s. K.L.Narayana Reddy and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-Fatal accident -Principles of assessment-Multiplier-Split multiplier should not be applied in routine in the absence of any specific reason and evidence on record-Multiplier as per decision in Sarla Verma 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) and affirmed in Reshma Kumari, 2013 ACJ 1253 (SC) should be applied.
Quantum-Fatal accident -Deceased aged 48, employed in a limited Company, drawing Rupees 13,331/- p.m.,-Claimants; widow and 3 children-Tribunal awarded Rupees 9,03,600-High Court allowed Rupees 11,25,000-Apex Court deducted Rupees 889 for income tax and professional tax, added 50 per cent for future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, assessed dependency at Rupees 13,998/- p.m., adopted multiplier of 13 and allowed Rupees 21,83,688 plus Rupees 1,00,000/- for loss of love and affection and deprivation of protection to children, Rupees 50,000/- to widow for loss of consortium and deprivation of protection and Rupees 10,000/- for funeral expenses. Award of Rupees 11,25,000/- enhanced to Rupees 23,43,688/-.
vi) 2014 ACJ 402 High Court at Bangalore (H.D.Chandrappa V/s. Hanumakka and Others), wherein, it is observed that, 20 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Quantum-Fatal accident- Deceased a bachelor employed in wine shop, drawing Rupees 5,000/- p.m.-Claimants: parents-
Tribunal awarded Rupees 2,55,000/-
Appellate Court assessed salary at Rupees 3,000/- per month, added 50 percent for future prospects, made deduction of 50 percent for personal expenses of the deceased, assessed dependency at Rupees 2,250/- per month, adopted multiplier of 13 relevant to mother's age and allowed Rupees 3,51,000/- plus Rupees 10,000/- towards loss of expectancy of life, Rupees 5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rupees 10,000/-
towards loss of filial love and affection- Award of Rupees 2,55,000/- enhanced to Rupees 3,76,000/-.
vii) 2015 AIR SCW 3105 (Munna Lal Jain and Another V/s. Vipin Kumar Sharma and Others), wherein, it is observed that, (C) Motor Vehicle Act (59 of 1988), S.168-Compensation- Computation of-
multiplier-Depend on age of deceased alone- Age of deceased was between 26 to 30 years at the time of accident-Proper multiplier is
17.
viii) AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma and Others V/s. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another), wherein, it is observed that, (F) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S, 171-Interest on compensation -Rate -
fixation-Facts such as inflation, change in economy, Policy adopted by the Reserve 21 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Bank of India from time to time and period since when case is pending, ought to be considered.
12. Indian Fatal accidents Act, 1855 followed the principles in English Fatal Accident Act, 1896 with regard to payment of compensation. Thus, compensation/damages proportionate to the loss resulting from such death was payable.
13. Under Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 all rights for claiming damages after the death of a person survive and legal representative could claim damages. Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:
"306. Demands and rights of action of or against deceased survive to and against executor or administrator-All demands whatsoever all rights to prosecute or defend any action or special proceedings existing in favour of or against a person at the time of his decease, survive to and against his executors or administrators; except causes of action for defamation, assault, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) or other personal injuries not causing the death of the party; and except also cases where, after the death of the party, the relief sought could not be enjoyed or granting it would be nugatory".
14. Motor Vehicles Act was enacted in 1939.Later, by Act No.100 of 1956 with effect from 16th February, 1957 Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was amended and Claims Tribunals were constituted under Section 110.Section 110 to Section 110F of 22 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were brought. Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as amended reads as under:-
"110 B. Award of the Claims Tribunal-
On rece9pt of an application for compensation made under Section 110A, the Claims Tribunal shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard (hold an inquiry into the claim or as the case may be, each of the claims and subject to the provisions of Section 109B, may make an award) determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just and specifying the person or persons to whom compensation shall be aid and in making the award the claims Tribunal shall specify the amount which shall be paid by the insurer (or owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident or by all or any of then, as the case may be).
15. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 Sri. B.R. Venkatesh Kamath has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) M.F.A.No.8587 of 2012 (MV) High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (Baji Sab and Others V/s. Sri. H.D. Chandra Kumar and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Material placed before us, it is seen that, occurrence of accident on 19.08.2010 at about 2.48 p.m. and the resultant death of deceased Shahid are not in dispute.
Further, after Respondent-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and also going through the 23 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 original records available on file, it emerges that, the deceased rider of the motor bike was going from Kaimara to Yedehalli and the driver of bus came from opposite direction, i.e., from Channagiri to Shivamogga at high speed and dashed against the deceased rider of motor bike, resulting in a head on collision between the two vehicles. Further, after re-appreciation of documentary evidence at Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar, Ex.P.5 Spot Sketch and Ex.P.7 IMV report, it emerges that, there is some negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the motor bike, but, not to the extent of negligence fixed by the Tribunal. The driver of the Bus being the driver of a heavy vehicle ought to have taken due care and caution to avoid the accident and he contributed more to the cause of accident then the rider of the motor bike. The reasoning given by Tribunal for fixing contributory negligence at 50% on the part of the deceased rider of the motor bike cannot be accepted and the contributory negligence fixed is liable to be modified, considering the nature of damage caused to both the vehicles the impact of accident, resulting in death of deceased rider.
Accordingly, we refix the contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus at 70% and on the part of the rider of the motor bike at 30% to meet the ends of justice and answer the point No.1 I negligence the 'Negative'.
11. Re-point No.2: The undisputed facts of the case are the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased Shahid. It is also not in dispute that, the deceased was aged about 24 years. It is stated that he was working at Tawoos 24 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Industrial Services Company, LLC at Oman, earning not less than, 55,000/-per month. But, to substantiate the same, the appellants have not produced any credible documentary evidence, except making oral submission. But,, it can be seen that, the Tribunal is also not justified in assessing the income of the deceased at only 9,000/- per month. The same is on the lower side and needs to be reassessed. The accident is of the year 2010. Therefore, having regard to the age, avocation, number of dependents and also the year of accident, we are reassess the income of the deceased at 10,000/- per month, to meet the ends of justice. Further, the Tribunal has rightly deducted 50% towards the personal and living expenses of deceased, as the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are his parents and minor sister. Therefore, having regard to the fact that, the deceased was a bachelor, we deduct 50% towards personal expenses of the decease, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's Case ( 2009 ACJ 1298).
Accordingly, if 50% (i.e., 5,000)/ is deducted from 10,000/- towards his personal expenses, the near income would be 5,000/- per month. The deceased was a bachelor and therefore the age of the younger parent is to be taken into consideration. In the case, the younger parent, mother is stated to be aged about 45 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable is 14 is rightly adopted by Tribunal. Thus, the compensation towards loss of dependency would work out to 8,40,000/- ( i.e., 5,000 X 12 X 14 ) as against 4,86,000/- awarded by Tribunal.
25 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
ii) 2016 (1) AKR 178 (The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Basappa and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, (59 of 1988), S.168- Assessment of compensation -Deceased alleged to be working as cleaner in Lorry and getting salary of Rupees 6,000/- per month-No evidence produced to prove his income-Considering year of accident i.e., 2011, income of deceased assessed at Rupees 5,250/- per month-50% of deduction made towards personal expenses- Multiplier of 14 applied taking into consideration age of mother of deceased i.e., 45 years-Adding compensation under conventional heads, claimants entitled to total compensation of Rupees 5,23,056/- instead of Rupees 6,06,100/- with 6% p.a., interest.
iii) 2010 ACJ 2742 High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (Binup Kumar. R. V/s. Prabhakar, H.G. and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-Injury-Principles of assessment-Medi claim Policy-injured claimant received Rupees 50,000 under Mediclaim Policy-Tribunal deducted amount received under Mediclaim Policy and awarded compensation-Whether the Tribunal was justified in deducting amount received under Mediclaim Policy-Held: yes; no person can be allowed to reap the same advantage twice; amount actually spent for treatment by injured-claimant alone will have to be awarded by the Tribunal and 26 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 whatever amount claimant gets from any scheme like Mediclaim, etc, will have to be deducted while assessing the amount payable to the claimant.
iv) 1999 ACJ 10 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Helen C. Rebello and Others V/s. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-Deductions-Life insurance-
Whether amount received by the claimants under life Insurance Policy of the deceased is deductible from the compensation computed under the Motor Vehicles Act-
Held; no; compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount receivable under the life insurance policy is contractual; amount under life insurance is received either by the insured after maturity or by his heirs after his death which may be accidental or otherwise on account of the contract for which insured contributes in the form of premium; any amount received or receivable not only on account of the accidental death but, that, which would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be construed to be pecuniary advantage liable for deduction; but, whether the employer insures his employee any amount received out of such insurance is labile for deduction.
v) Civil Appeal No.3784/ 2015 with Civil Appeal No.3778/2015 Supreme Court of India, (Mamatha and Others V/s. R. Ranganatha and Others and The New India Assurance 27 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Co. Ltd., V/s. Mamatha and Others), wherein, it is observed that, In our consideration opinion, the High Court has erroneously calculated the amount. On a proper calculation, the salary on which the compensation should be computed would be Rupees 5,44,393/-. The deceased was thirty years old and left behind his wife, one child and his father.
Mr. Agarwal, Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also added future prospects, but, as advised at present, we are not inclined to include the future prospects. As the multiplier of seventeen would apply, the amount of compensation would come to Rupees 61,69, 776/-
(5,44,393 X 17 X 2 /3). We have been appraised that, a sum of Rupees 27,21,960 has already been paid to the claimant-wife under the Group Personal Accident Claim policy.
In our considered opinion, the amount of Rupees 25,00,000/- along with interest and the amount that, has already been deposited and paid should be included. The balance amount should be deposited before the Tribunal within eight weeks hence along with the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of application preferred before the Tribunal.
vi) M.F.A.No.705/2015 (MV) High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s. Smt. Shanthamma and Another), wherein, it is observed that, 28 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7
6. Having heard the Learned Counsel for parties, perused pleadings and evidence, both oral and , there is no more doubt that, the claimants were unable to establish the avocation of the deceased as driver of Auto Rickshaw or that, his earning was Rupees 6,000/- per month. If regard is had to the fact that, deceased aged 24 was an able bodied young man, during the year 2011, it cannot but, be said that, he would have earned at least Rupees 6,000/- per month. It is no doubt true that, addition of future prospects to determine loss of dependency arises only in case where the deceased was in a stable employment and was drawing a regular income and not otherwise. In the instant case, neither stable employment nor regular income is established so as to call for addition of future prospects as done by the MACT.
7. In the circumstances, reckoning Rupees 6,000/- per month as income of the deceased, a bachelor and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, monthly loss of dependency is Rupees 3,000/- and applying multiplier 18 as applicable to age 24 of the deceased to the annual loss, the total loss of dependency is Rupees 6,48,000/-.
16. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners No.1 and
29 MVC No.2255/2013
SCCH-7
3 are entitled for
compensation of Rupees
41,22,566/- with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a. from
the date of the petition till
the date of payment, from
the Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
17. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.3 has stated in her examination-in-chief that, she is the sister and the Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Saurabh Sinha, who died on the accidental place itself in the road traffic accident, which was taken place on 30.11.2012 at about 5.13 p.m., when he was proceeding on Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 at Prashanth Layout, ITPL Main Road, Bangalore City, against which, the Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 dashed. She has further stated in her cross-examination that, she is married and her husband is working in private shop. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Inquest Report, Ex.P.8 Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.9 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.12 Genealogical Tree, Ex.P.12(a) English Translation copy of Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13 Driving Licence relating to deceased, Ex.P.14 Employer Identity Card relating to deceased, Ex.P.15 Pan Card relating to deceased and Ex.P.16 Pan Card relating to the Petitioner No.3. On perusal of the contents of the said material documents as well as the oral 30 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 evidence of P.W.1, it clearly goes to show that, the Petitioner No.1 is a mother, the Petitioner No.2 is a father and the Petitioner No.3 is a married sister of Sourabh Sinha S/o. Krishna Mohan, who died on the accidental spot itself in the road traffic accident, which was taken place on 30.11.2012 at 5.13 p.m.. It is not in dispute that, the deceased Sourabh Sinha S/o. Krishna Mohan was a bachelor. It is pertinent to note here that, during the pendency of the proceedings of this petition, the Petitioner No.2, who is a father of the said deceased died on 13.02.2016 and as per the Order dated 28.06.2016 passed on memo, his name is deleted from the cause title of the petition. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 being a mother and the Petitioner No.3 being a sister are the legal representatives of the said Sourabh Sinha S/o. Krishna Mohan. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that, both the Petitioners No.1 and 3 were the dependants upon the said deceased, as, admittedly, the Petitioner No.3 is a married sister of the deceased and she has clearly stated in her cross-examination that, her husband is working in a private shop. Further, she has clearly stated in her cross-examination that, her marriage was performed before the accident and after the accident, she is residing at her in-laws house and after the marriage, most of the time she spent her time in her parents' house and presently, she is residing separately and her parents are residing separately. Hence, the Petitioner No.3, who is a married sister of the deceased, cannot be considered as a dependent upon the said deceased Sourabh Sinha S/o. Krishna Mohan. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 partly in the Affirmative.
31 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
18. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, on 30.11.2012 at about 5.13 p.m., the deceased was trying for taking right turn in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK- 7614, to move towards Prashanth Layout, ITPL Main Road, Bangalore City, very carefully, cautiously and observing traffic rules and at that time, all of a sudden, a Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, driving by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and his vehicle and due to the impact, the deceased fell down and then, the Lorry wheels ran over the head of the deceased and due to the impact, the deceased died at the spot due to severe grievous head injuries to brain and other injuries to all over the body. She has further stated that, the dead body of the deceased was shifted to Vydehi Institute of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Bangalore, wherein, post mortem was conducted and after post mortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to them. She has further stated that, the Whitefield Traffic Police, Bangalore City, have registered a case in Crime No.176/2012 as against the driver of the Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC and therefore, this accident was occurred due to sole rash and negligent high speed driving of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 by its driver.
19. Admittedly, the P.W.1, who is the Petitioner No.3, is not an eye witness of the accident in question. In this regard, she has stated in his cross-examination that, she has not seen the 32 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 accident. Further, the R.W.2, who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who issued Ex.P.7 MVI Report has stated that, as per Ex.P.7 MVI Report, no damages caused to the vehicle bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-334, i.e., the offending Trailer Lorry and the damages caused to Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03- HK-7614 are petrol tank damage, crash guard damage, left side foot rest damage and rear right side indicator damage. He has further stated that, if the Motor Cycle was proceeding with very high speed and skid, such kind of damages caused to the Motor Cycle and head light and front portion of the said Motor Cycle was not damaged. Further, the R.W.3, who is the Head Constable, who has lodged the complaint in respect of the accident in question has stated that, the place of accident was a turning place and since other persons had informed him about the accident was taken place due to negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry, he has mentioned the same in his complaint and the contents of Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch are true and correct and as per the said sketch, the rider of the Motor Cycle came from ITPL and the Lorry came from opposite direction and since the Motor Cycle rider was riding the same with very high speed and took right turn, due to which, the accident was taken place and as per Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch, the Lorry almost all reached 80% at junction place. Further the R.W.4, who is the Assistant Manager of the Respondent No.1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, their insured vehicle was not at all rash and negligent driving and was being driven slowly, carefully and cautiously on the correct side of the road by observing traffic rules and regulation by sounding horn and on 30.11.2012 at 5.15 p.m., when the driver 33 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Mr. Thirupati Roa S/o. Septer Poonaiah, was driving the Tata Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 on Whitefield to Hope Farm, Hoodi Main Road, at that time, the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 its rider deceased Mr. Sourabh Sinha, came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed while taking 'U' turn and dashed against the Lorry and the Police documents indicate the positive negligence of the deceased. The Respondent No.4 has produced Ex.R.13 Deposition of P.W.4 recorded in C.C.No.4741/2013, Ex.R.14 Deposition of P.W.1 recorded in C.C.No.4741/2013, Ex.R.15 Order Sheet of C.C.No.4741/2013, Ex.R.16 Judgment of C.C.No.4741/2013, Ex.R.17 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.R.18 Spot Panchanama. Further, the Petitioners have not examined the eye witness of the accident in question to consider their case.
20. But, based on the said evidence of P.W.1, which has been elicited from her mouth during the course of cross- examination by the Respondent No.1, the evidence of R.W.2 to R.W.4, the contents of Ex.R.13 to Ex.R.18 and the non- examination of the eye witness by the Petitioners, it cannot be thrown away, the above said oral evidence of P.W.1, which has been stated by her in her examination-in-chief as well as the case made out by the Petitioners as against the Respondents in the present petition and it cannot be said that, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 in the commission of the said road traffic accident, but, the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03- 34 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 HK-7614, as, the Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Inquest Report, Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch, Ex.P.7 MVI Report, Ex.P.8 PM Report and Ex.P.9 Charge Sheet, which clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16- TX-3349 in the commission of the said road traffic accident and there was no negligence or contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 03-HK-7614 and if the driver of the offending Trailer Lorry could have taken a little care while driving it in a curving place, i.e., the accidental place, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident, which caused to the deceased and he could have saved the valuable life of the deceased and due to the accidental injuries itself, the deceased died on the accidental spot itself, which is clear from the following discussion. Furthermore, though the P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the Respondent No.1, nothing has been elicited from her mouth to consider its specific defence. Further, though the Respondent No.2, who is the R.C. Owner of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX- 3349, has filed the written statement to contest the case of the Petitioners, he has not adduced any evidence on its behalf to consider his specific defence. From this, it appears that, whatever the case made out by the Petitioners as well as the evidence of P.W.1, which has been stated by her in her examination-in-chief, are indirectly admitted by the Respondent No.2. Further, the R.W.2 in his examination-in-chief itself has clearly stated that, he is not in a position to say that, the damages caused to the Motor 35 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Cycle due to the dash of the said heavy goods vehicle. He has further stated that, the spare parts of the Lorry are stronger than the spare parts of the Motor Cycle and if the Motor Cycle hit to the Lorry, the damages caused to the Lorry may not be visible. Further, the R.W.3 is not an eye witness and has clearly stated in is his examination-in-chief that, as the public informed him about the accident, he knows about the accident. He has further clearly stated in his cross-examination that, what are all stated in the complaint relating to the road traffic accident are true and correct and when he visited the spot, the dead body of the deceased was under wheel of the Lorry and the Motor Cycle was at the accidental spot in a little distance and as per Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch, it is found that, the Lorry driver took the Lorry suddenly on right turn. He has further clearly admitted that, in a turning place, the vehicles are moving slowly and the Motor Cycle was in a entrance place of road median as per the sketch and there is more space available to the Lorry on its left side. Further, whatever the evidence and findings given in the criminal case relating to the road traffic accident cannot be binding on the Tribunal. Further, the R.W.4 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that, as per FIR and Complaint, the accident in question was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of insured Lorry and the Police Head Constable has lodged a complaint about the accident in question and after the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of their insured Lorry and their Company has not challenged the said charge sheet before the Hon'ble Appellate Court or the Higher Authority of the Police. If really, there was no negligence on the part of the driver 36 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX- 3349 and the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 in the accidental place, the driver of the said offending Trailer Lorry could have definitely lodged a complaint immediately after the accident, which caused to the deceased, before the jurisdictional Police and he could have definitely challenged the very registration of the criminal case by the Police as against him based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, by preferring an appeal or revision before the Hon'ble Appellate Court and also challenged the very filing of the charge sheet as against him. But, no such attempt has been made either by the driver of the offending Trailer Lorry or its owner, i.e., the Respondent No.2. Further, the Respondent No.1 has examined the driver of the offending Trailer Lorry as R.W.5, who, though has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the place of accident is a junction place, wherein, speed brakes were there and at the time of accident, he has passed 3/4th junction place and the rider of the Motor Cycle came with very high speed and dashed to the Trailer Lorry on its right back side and the rider of the Motor Cycle was not wearing helmet and the wheel of his Lorry Trailer was not passed on the body of the said rider and he has surrendered before the Police and the said accident was taken place due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle and he is acquitted in the criminal case relating to the said road traffic accident, the said evidence stated by the R.W.5 is in contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Further, he has stated in his cross-examination that, no speed brakes is mentioned in Ex.P.6 Spot Sketch and after the accident, the Police have visited the 37 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 accidental spot and the public were gathered on the accidental spot and he went to the Police Station by stopping the Lorry on the accidental spot and the Police have registered a criminal case as against him in respect of the accident and further, the Police have filed a charge sheet as against him. He has further clearly stated that, he has not lodged a complaint before the Police in respect of the said accident by stating that, the said accident was not taken place due to his own negligence. He has further clearly stated in his examination-in-chief itself that, the Police have arrested him in respect of the said accident. From the said evidence of R.W.5, it is further made crystal clear that, since, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.5, the Police have registered a criminal case as against him in respect of the accident in question, which caused to the deceased and after thorough investigation, they have filed a charge sheet as against him and since the entire negligence is on his part, the R.W.5 has not taken any legal steps as against the deceased in respect of the accident in question and even, has not challenged the very registration of the criminal case as against him as well as the very filing of the charge sheet as against him by the Investigating Officer, by preferring an appeal or revision before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. Further, the Judgment passed in the criminal case is not binding on the M.V.C. proceedings.
21. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint clearly disclosed that, the R.W.3, who is a Head Constable has lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Whitefield Traffic Police as against the driver of the Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-
38 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7 16-TX-3349 by alleging that, on 30.11.2012 at 5.15 p.m., when he was visited the accidental spot, which was taken place near Corporation Bank, he saw that, the accident was taken place in between Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 and Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 and the back right wheel of the said Trailer Lorry was ran over on the rider of the Motor Cycle and due to which, his head was crushed and the brain has come out and he took photographs and when he enquired with the public, who were present on the accidental spot, they informed him that, at 5.13 p.m., the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 came from ITPL towards Hope Farm and he took right turn to go to Prashanth Layout, at that time, the Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX- 3349 came from Hope Farm towards ITPL with very high speed with rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed to the Motor Cycle and due to the said impact, the Motor Cycle fell down on the right side of the said Trailer and when its rider fell down on the road, the back right wheel of the Trailer Lorry ran over on his head and due to which, his head crushed and brain has come out and died on the accidental spot itself and hence, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the driver of the offending Lorry and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the offending Lorry, i.e., the R.W.5, for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC under Crime No.176/2012. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there was no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the R.W.3 in respect of the accident in question, which caused to the deceased.
39 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
22. The contents of Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Seizure Panchanama, Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch and Ex.P.7 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, there was no negligence on the part of the deceased in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 in the commission of the said road traffic accident, but, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.5 in driving the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349, which came with very high speed, rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said Motor Cycle, when it was taken right turn on the accidental spot and if the R.W.5 could have taken a little care while driving it in the accidental spot, he could have avoided the said road traffic accident and he could have saved the valuable life of the said deceased. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch that, the accident was taken place in the junction place, wherein, the deceased almost all crossed the junction place and the offending Trailer Lorry came on the opposite direction towards junction place and took right side and dashed to the said Motor Cycle without observing it. No doubt, as per Ex.P.7 MVI Report, no damages caused to the offending Trailer Lorry and the petrol Tank, crash guard, left side foot rest and rear right side indicator of the Motor Cycle caused damages in the said road traffic accident. Based on the said damages caused to the Motor Cycle, it cannot be said that, the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased in riding the said Motor Cycle and there was no negligence on the part of the R.W.5 in driving the offending Trailer Lorry, as, it is clear from the contents of Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch that, the Motor Cycle almost crossed in the junction place by 40 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 taking right turn and on left side, the offending Trailer Lorry came and dashed to the Motor Cycle and due to the said impact itself, the said damages caused to the Motor Cycle. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicles.
23. The contents of Ex.P.3 Inquest and Ex.P.8 P.M Report further clearly disclosed that, the deceased died due to the accidental injuries itself on the accidental spot and the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage consequent upon crush injury sustained.
24. The contents of Ex.P.9 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, during the course of investigation, it is found that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 by its driver itself, i.e., the R.W.5, the said road traffic accident was taken place on 30.11.2012 at 5.30 p.m. near Prashanth Layout Cross ITPL Main Road, which came from Hope Farm towards ITPL and dashed to the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614, wherein, the deceased was proceeding as a rider from ITPL towards Prashanth layout through median opening by taking right turn and due to the said impact, the deceased fell down along with his Motor Cycle on the road and at that time, the back right wheel of the offending Trailer Lorry ran over on the head of the deceased and due to the said impact, brain come out and thereafter, the R.W.5 has left the offending Trailer Lorry little away from the accidental spot and surrendered before 41 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 the Police and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the R.W.5 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer in Ex.P.9 Charge Sheet as against the deceased about his negligence in the commission of the said road traffic accident while riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 at the accidental spot. The contents of Ex.P.8 Charge Sheet are clearly corroborated with the contents of Ex.P.6 Spot Hand Sketch.
25. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.5 in driving the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 and there was no negligence or contributory negligence attributed on the part of the deceased in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 and the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX- 3349 as well as its driver, i.e., the R.W.5, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased Sourabh Sinha succumbed to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.3 :- The R.W.4 has stated that, the age of the deceased at the time of accident was 25 years, two months and five days. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.10 Pass Certificate, Ex.P.13 Driving Licence relating to deceased and Ex.P.15 PAN Card relating to the deceased Sourabh Sinha, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 25.09.1989. The date of 42 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 accident is on 30.11.2012. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was 26 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 26 years at the time of accident.
27. The P.W.1 has stated that, the deceased was working as a Assistant System Engineer at TATA Consultancy Services (TCS), Whitefield, Bangalore and drawing Rupees 28,000/- per month. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.10 Pass Certificate, Ex.P.11 Provisional Degree Certificate along with Statement of Marks of B.Tech relating to the deceased, Ex.P.14 Employer Identity Card, Ex.P.15 PAN Card, Ex.P.17 Appointment Letter dated 11.04.2011 with Annexure and Ex.P.18 Letter dated 10.01.2011. The Petitioners have also examined H.R. Manager, who is the Employer of the deceased, as P.W.2, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, Late Sourabh Sinha was working as a Assistant System Engineer in their Organization from 09.03.2011 and till his accidental death and drawing average Gross Salary of Rupees 28,000/- as monthly emoluments. The P.W.2 has also produced Ex.P.20 Attendance Leave Extract, Ex.P.21 Appointment Offer Letter dated 11.04.2011, Ex.P.22 Confirmation Letter dated 24.04.2012 along with Annexure, Ex.P.23 Monthly Gross Salary Statement and Annual Income Statement, Ex.P.24 Pay Slips from April 2012 to November 2012, 8 in numbers and Ex.P.25 Salary Disbursement Statement dated 30.06.2015. He has further stated in his cross-examination that, the last Net Salary of Saurabh Sinha was Rupees 26,422/- per month, which includes 50% allowances. The Respondent No.1 has 43 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 also examined the same P.W.2 as R.W.1, who has also produced Ex.R.2 Account Settlement Details Letter dated 25.08.2015. Ex.R.3 Leave Detail Letter dated 25.08.2015, Ex.R.4 Personal Accident Settlement Letter dated 02.09.2013, Ex.R.5 Insurance Policy Details with Personal Accident Details and Medical Cover Details dated 19.04.2012, Ex.R.6 PF Settlement Details dated 05.07.2013, Ex.R.7 PF Statement and Settlement Letter dated 28.05.2012 and Ex.R.8 Form No.16 along with Annexure for the Assessment Year 2013-2014. He has clearly stated in his cross- examination that, at the time of accident, the Gross Salary of the deceased was Rupees 28,447/- and Net Salary of the deceased was Rupees 26,422/-. On perusal of the said oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and R.W.1 as well as the contents of the said material documents, it is clearly proved that, the deceased was a 'B' Tech Electronics and Communication Engineering holder and he was working as an Assistant System Engineer at TATA Consultancy Services (TCS), Whitefield, Bangalore and he was an Income Tax Assessee and his last drawn Gross Salary was of Rupees 28,447/- and Net Salary was of Rupees 26,422/-. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.24 Pay Slips and Ex.P.25 Salary Disbursement Statement dated 30.06.2015 that, out of the Gross Salary, i.e., monthly earnings relating to November 2012, which is of Rupees 28,477/-, the total deduction was of Rupees 2,025/-, which includes deduction of Income Tax of Rupees 564/-, Rupees 200/- as Professional Tax and Rupees 1,260/- as P.F. and as such, he received Net Salary of Rupees 26,422/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 26,422/- per month, which is a last drawn net salary of the said deceased, i.e., 44 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 November 2012. Hence, the income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 25,422/- per month at the time of accident.
28. The P.W.1 has stated that, the deceased was contributing his entire income for the maintenance of their family and she and other Petitioners are depending on the income of the deceased for livelihood and due to the said accidental death of the deceased, they are facing lot of mental shock and agony, financial difficulties and discomfort and lost the love and affection of the deceased and also lost the estate and expectation of life of the deceased and the deceased was the only brother to her and only son to their parents and he was main earning member in the family and deceased lost future prosperous and they have lost the deceased at an early young age.
29. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner No.1, who is a mother and the Petitioner No.2, who is a married sister of the said deceased are the legal representatives of the said deceased and the Petitioner No.1, who is a mother of the said deceased is only a dependent of the said deceased Mr. Saurabh Sinha S/o. Krishna Mohan. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, due to the accidental injuries, which caused in the road traffic accident, the deceased succumbed at the accidental spot itself. Hence, the Petitioners No.1 and 3 being the legal representatives and the Petitioner No.1 being a dependant of the said deceased are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
45 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
30. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of accident, towards future prospects 50% of the income has to be added. So, 50% of Rupees 26,422/- comes to Rupees 13,211/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rupees 39,633/- p.m. (Rs.26,422/- + 13,211/-).
31. The Petitioner No.1 is considered as a dependent of the deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind one dependent. As per the principles laid down in ILR 2012 KAR 2859 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by Senior Division Manager V/s Sri.David. T. and Another), whenever there is a sole claimant, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is proper. Therefore, considering the number of the dependent, i.e., 1, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 19,816-50 (50% of Rs.39,633/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 19,816-50 (Rupees 39,633/- (-) Rupees 19,816-50). The multiplier corresponding to the age of the deceased, i.e., 26 years, is 17 as per Sarala Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees 40,42,566/- (Rs.19,816-50 x 12 x 17). Therefore, the Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rupees 40,42,566/- towards loss of dependency due to death of Saurabh Sinha S/o. Krishna Mohan.
32. The P.W.1 has stated that, after the postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over to them and thereafter, they performed the funeral, last rites and death 46 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 ceremony and they incurred Rupees 1,50,000/- towards transportation by Airways, funeral, last rites, death ceremony expenses, etc. In this regard, the Petitioners have not produced any scrap of paper.
33. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), loss of love and affection has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the Petitioner No.1 is a mother and the Petitioner No.3 is a married elder sister of the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners No.1 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and the Petitioner No.1 is entitled for Rupees 25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
34. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 10,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate.
35. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 40,42,566-00 47 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
4. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000-00 of dead body
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00 TOTAL Rs. 41,22,566-00
36. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 41,22,566/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
37. The Respondent No.4 has stated that, the TATA Consultancy Services Ltd., Company, Mumbai Office Letter dated 02.09.2013 and the said Company insured all their employees under personal accident group insurance policy and deceased Mr. Saurabh Sinha was also covered under the said policy and the Insurance Company has settled the claim and the Petitioners were received a sum of Rupees 18,90,864, i.e., as personal accident insurance claim in respect of the said alleged road traffic accident from deceased working/Employer and hence, their liability if any, the said amount is to be deducted in the award amount. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, after the death of her deceased brother, her mother has received compensation from the employer of his deceased brother regarding personal accident insurance claim. Further, the P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that, according to him, health insurance 48 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 shown in the salary slips for the month of April and May 2012, includes personal accident scheme and the said deducted premium amount relating to insurance was paid to Medi Assist India Rupees 18,90,864/- is paid to the parents of the deceased Saurabh Sinha as accidental benefits from their Company. Further, the R.W.1, who is the same P.W.2, by producing Ex.R.2 Account Settlement Details Letter dated 25.08.2015, Ex.R.4 Personal Accident Settlement Letter dated 02.09.2013, Ex.R.5 Insurance Policy Details with Personal Accident Details and Medical Cover Details dated 19.04.2012, Ex.R.6 PF Settlement Details dated 05.07.2013 and Ex.R.7 PF Statement and Settlement Letter dated 28.05.2013, has stated that, as per their documents, a sum of Rupees 18,90,864/- is settled as personal accident insurance cover of the deceased Sourabh Sinha and as per Ex.R.4 Personal Accident Settlement Letter dated 02.09.2013, the Insurance Company has directly paid Rupees 18,90,864/- to the family members of the deceased and they have settled the amount P.F. and gratuity to the family members of the deceased.
38. But, based on the said evidence, it cannot be deduct the said insurance claim amount of Rupees 18,90,864/- in the compensation amount, which awarded by this Tribunal, as, Ex.P.24 Pay Slips for the months from April 2012 to November 2012 and Ex.P.25 Salary Disbursement Statement Dated 30.06.2015 clearly disclosed that, the amount of P.F., P.T. and Income Tax are deducted from the gross salary of the deceased, which clarify the fact that, the deceased had contributed his salary to P.F., P.T. and Income Tax. Furthermore, in the decision 49 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 reported in 2013 ACJ 1441 Supreme Court of India at New Delhi (Vimal Kanwar and Others V/s. Kishore Dan and Others), it is clearly held that;
"P.F., pension and insurance and similarly any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., are all a pecuniary advantage' receivable by the heirs on account of one's death, but, all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. Such an amount will not come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction.
The receipt of the provident fund, which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service, such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event, viz., accident, which may not take place at all. Similarly, family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of their service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. Negligence correlation between the two. Similarly, life Insurance Policy amount is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of 50 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums. In the case of death, the insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contract of the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly, any cash, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc., though all are pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death, but, all these have no correlation with the amount receivable under a statue occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction? When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on a similar and same plane having nexus, interse between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any correlation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money, for which, he receives the amount which has no correlation to the compensation computed as against the tortfeasor for his negligence on account of the accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the accident is on account of the injury or death without making any contribution towards it, then, how can the fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act? The amount under this Act, he received without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount 51 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 receivable under the life Insurance Policy is contractual."
39. Therefore, the amount of Rupees 18,90,864/- received by the Petitioners in respect of insurance claim settlement from the employer of the deceased cannot be deducted in the compensation amount, which awarded by this Tribunal.
40. The P.W.1 has stated that, the Respondent No.2 is the owner of the said offending Trailer Lorry and the same has been insured with the Respondent No.1 and the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of accident and therefore, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as claimed by them in the claim petition.
41. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of the R.W.5 in driving the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 and there was no negligence or contributory negligence attributed on the part of the deceased in riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-03-HK-7614 and the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX- 3349 as well as its driver, i.e., the R.W.5, are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased Mr. Sourabh Sinha succumbed to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself.
52 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
42. The Petitioners in the cause title of the petition has clearly mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 is an Owner of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 and its Policy No.62080031110100010095, validity from 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2013.
43. The Respondent No.1 in its written statement has stated that, the vehicle in question, namely, Tata/4018 Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 was covered by "Commerical Vehicle Package" Policy No.62080031110100010095, valid for the period from 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2013. The R.W.4 has stated that, the vehicle Tata-4018 Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 was covered by "Commercial Vehicle Package" Policy No.6208003111010010095, valid for the period from 10.02.2012 to 09.02.2013. The Respondent No.1 has produced Ex.R.5 Insurance Policy along with the terms and conditions relating to the said offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX- 3349. The R.W.4 has further clearly stated in his cross- examination that, as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy relating to their insured Lorry was valid and the owner of their insured Lorry has not violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
44. From the said material evidence, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a R.C. Owner of the 53 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. There is no allegation leveled by the Investigating Officer as against the driver of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 in Ex.P.9 Charge Sheet, i.e., R.W.5 that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of offending Trailer Lorry. The violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not proved by the Respondent No.1 Furthermore, the R.W.4 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, the owner of their insured Lorry has not violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being an Insurer and the Respondent No.2 being a R.C. Owner of the offending Trailer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP-16-TX-3349 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioners. Since the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.2. In view of the findings on the Issues and the above said reasons, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. On the other hand, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1 are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.
54 MVC No.2255/2013SCCH-7
45. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is hereby allowed with costs.
The Petitioners No.1 and 3 are entitled for compensation of Rupees 41,22,566/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners No.1 and 3 shall share the compensation and interest amount in the ratio of 90:10.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation and interest, 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.1 and the 55 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 entire share relating to the Petitioner No.3 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.1 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of three years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 25th day of October, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Sonal Sinha
56 MVC No.2255/2013
SCCH-7
P.W.2 : Sri. Saifullah Raichur
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True copy of Inquest Report
Ex.P.4 : True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P.6 : True copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.7 : True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P.8 : True copy of PM Report
Ex.P.9 : True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.10 : Notarised xerox copy of Pass Certificate
Ex.P.11 : Notarised xerox copies of Provisional Degree
Certificate along with Statement of Marks of B.Tech relating to Sourabh Sinha (8 in nos.) Ex.P.12 : Notarised xerox copy of Genealogical Tree in Hindi Language Ex.P.12 : English Translation copy of Ex.P12
(a) Ex.P.13 : Notarised xerox copy of Driving Licence relating to Sourabh Sinha Ex.P.14 : Notarised xerox copy of Employer Identity Card relating to Sourabh Sinha Ex.P.15 : Notarised xerox copy of PAN Card relating to Sourabh Sinha Ex.P.16 : Notarised xerox copy of PAN Card relating to Sonal Sinha Ex.P.17 : Appointment Letter dated 11.04.2011 with Annexure Ex.P.18 : Letter dated 10.01.2011 Ex.P.19 : Notarised xerox copy of Employer ID Card relating to Saifullah Ex.P.20 : Attendance Leave Extract Ex.P.21 : True copy of Appointment Offer Letter dated 11.04.2011 Ex.P.22 : True copy of Confirmation Letter dated 24.04.2012 along with Annexure Ex.P.23 : Monthly Gross Salary Statement and Annual Income Statement 57 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Ex.P.24 : Pay slips from April-2012 to November-2012 (8 in nos.) Ex.P.25 : Salary Disbursement Statement dated 30.06.2015
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Sri. Saifullah Raichur
R.W.2 : G.B. Sudhir
R.W.3 : Narayana
R.W.4 : C.K. Surya Prakash
R.W.5 : Thirupath Rao
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
.....
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letter dated 25.08.2015 Ex.R.2 : Account Settlement Details Letter dated 25.08.2015 Ex.R.3 : Leave Detail Letter dated 25.08.2015 Ex.R.4 : True copy of Personal Accident Settlement Letter dated 02.09.2013 Ex.R.5 : True copy of Insurance Policy details with Personal Accident Details and Medical Cover Details dated 05.07.2013 Ex.R.6 : True copy of PF Settlement Details dated
05.07.2013 Ex.R.7 : True copy of PF Statement and Settlement Letter dated 28.05.2013 Ex.R.8 : True Copy Of Form No.16 Along With Annexure for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 Ex.R.9 : Authorization Letter dated 10.02.2016 Ex.R.10 : True copy of Insurance Policy along with Terms and Conditions Ex.R.11 : Office copy of Letter dated 06.05.2013 Ex.R.12 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.R.13 : Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.4 recorded in C.C.No.4741/2013 Ex.R.14 : Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.1 recorded in C.C.No.4741/2013 Ex.R.15 : Certified copy of Order Sheet of C.C.No.4741/2013 58 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Ex.R.16 : Certified copy of Judgment of C.C.No.4741/2013 Ex.R.17 : Certified copy of Spot Hand Sketch Ex.R.18 : Certified copy of Spot Panchanama Ex.R.19 : Office copy of Letter dated 03.10.2013 Ex.R.20 : Returned Unserved Postal Cover along with Postal Acknowledgment Ex.R.20 : Letter kept in Ex.R.20 Postal Cover
(a) Ex.R.21 : Personal Accident Claim Settlement Records relating to deceased Sourabh Sinha Ex.R.21 : Postal Cover, wherein, Ex.R21 Records sent
(a) Ex.R.22 : Postal Order Counter Foil Ex.R.23 : Office copy of Letter dated 19.03.2014 Ex.R.24 : Letter dated 24.03.2014 issued by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Ex.R.25 : Letter dated 02.04.2014 issued by CPIO-Cum-
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Ex.R.26 : Opened Postal Cover Ex.R.27 : Office copy of Letter dated 28.09.2015 along with Postal Receipt Ex.R.28 : Letter dated.27.10.2015 issued by CPIO-Cum-
Income Tax Officer Ex.R.29 : Opened Postal Cover Ex.R.30 : Office copy of Letter dated 09.11.2015 along with Postal Receipt Ex.R.31 : Office copy of Letter dated 31.12.2015 along with Postal Receipt Ex.R.32 : Office copy of Letter dated 31.12.2015 along with Postal Receipt Ex.R.33 : Office copy of Letter dated 31.12.2015 along with Postal Receipt Ex.R.34 : Office copy of Letter dated 31.12.2015 along with Postal Receipt Ex.R.35 : Returned Unserved Postal Cover along with Postal Acknowledgment Ex.R.35 : Letter kept in Ex.R.35 Postal Cover
(a) Ex.R.36 : Letter dated 18.01.2016 Ex.R.37 : Opened Postal Cover Ex.R.38 : Office copy of Letter dated 04.02.2016 59 MVC No.2255/2013 SCCH-7 Ex.R.39 : Self attested downloaded hard copy of IAS Officers List of Bihar State Ex.R.40 : English Translation copy of Ex.R.36 Ex.R.41 : Reply Letter dated 18.02.2016 issued by Postal Authority Ex.R.42 : Postal Order Counter foil along with copy of Letter dated 31.12.2015 Ex.R.43 : Postal Order Counter foil along with copy of Letter dated 31.12.2015 Ex.R.44 : True copy of Adjustment Voucher (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.