Bangalore District Court
In : 1. Sri. Muniraju vs In 1. Reliance General Insurance on 26 April, 2019
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH5) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019
PRESENT: SMT. SHARMILA S. B.Com, LLB.,
VIII ADDL. SCJ & XXXIII ACMM
MEMBER MACT
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.4389/2017
c/w
M.V.C No.4390/2017, 4391/2017 & 4392/2017
PETITIONERS IN : 1. Sri. Muniraju
MVC NO. S/o. Munishamappa
4389/2017 Aged about 43 years
2. Kum. Anusha
D/o. Muniraju
Aged about 17 years
3. Master. Madhu
S/o. Muniraju
Aged about 13 years
Residing at:
Reddihalli Village,
Bidalapura Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk.
(Petitioners No.2 & 3 are minors
hence represented by their father
Muniraju as Natural Guardian)
(By Sri.M.G.Raghavendra, Adv.,)
2 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
PETITIONERS IN : 1. Sri. Munikrishna
MVC NO. S/o. Anjinappa
4390/2017 Aged about 35 years
2. Smt. Manjula M.
W/o. Munikrishan
Aged about 32 years
Residing at
No.252, Konaghatta,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri.M.G.Raghavendra, Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Smt. Muniyamma
MVC NO. W/o. Munishamappa
4391/2017 Aged about 57 years
Residing at:
No.132, Bidalapura,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri.M.G.Raghavendra, Adv.,)
PETITIONER IN : Smt. Narayanamma
MVC NO. W/o. Mininarayanappa
4392/2017 Aged about 57 years
Residing at:
No.133, Bidalapura,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri.M.G.Raghavendra, Adv.,)
V/s
3 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
RESPONDENTS IN 1. Reliance General Insurance
ALL THE CASES Co. Ltd.,
No.28, 5th Floor,
East Wing, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru.
(Maurthi Zen Estilo bearing
Reg.No.KA43M1029
Policy No.1415262311016532
Valid from 22.08.2016 to
21.08.2017)
(By Sri.M.E.Madhu Sudhan, Adv.,)
2. Sri. P. Gangaiah
S/o. Papanna
Maralubagilu Street,
Devanahalli Town,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Sri.B.M.Beerappa, Adv.,)
****
::COMMON JUDGMENT::
The petition MVC No.4389/2017 is filed by the
Petitioners under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989,
seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/
for the death of Smt.Anupama, W/o.Muniraju in road
traffic accident.
4 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
2(a). The petition MVC No.4390/2017 is filed
Petitioners under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989
seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/ for
the death of Master.Monish.M, S/o.Munikrishan, in road
traffic accident.
2(b). The petition MVC No.4391/2017 is filed
Petitioner under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989
seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ for
the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2(c). The petition MVC No.4392/2017 is filed
Petitioner under Sec.163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989
seeking compensation for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/ for
the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
3. The brief facts of the case of the Petitioners in
all the cases are as follows:
5 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
3(a). It is contended by the Petitioners in MVC
No.4389/2017 that, on 18.06.2017 at about 5.40 p.m.,
the deceased was proceeding in an Auto Rickshaw
bearing Reg.No.KA433613 along with her relatives, the
said Auto was driven by its driver slowly and cautiously
on the left side of road at DevanahalliSulibele Road,
when they reached Budihala Gate, at that time, a Maruti
Zen Car bearing Reg.No.KA43M1029, which belongs to
Respondent No.2 was coming from opposite side driven
by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed and colluded with the Auto Rickshaw in which the
deceased was proceeding. Due to the impact of the
accident both the vehicles were fully damaged and
inmates of the Auto sustained severe injuries.
Immediately after the accident, Smt.Anupama was
6 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
shifted to Devanahalli Government Hospital, before
reaching the hospital, she succumbed to the injuries.
3(b). It is the case of the Petitioners that, at the time
of accident deceased was hale and healthy and was
working as Coolie and earning a sum of Rs.40,000/ per
annum. Due to the accidental untimely death of the
deceased Petitioner No.1 has lost his wife and Petitioners
No.2 & 3 have lost their most loving mother and thereby
they are put to great financial loss and mental agony.
Hence, the Petitioners claimed compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/ against Respondents.
3(c). Petitioners in MVC No.4390/2017 have
contended that, the deceased Master Monish.M was also
proceeding in an Auto Rickshaw and sustained grievous
injuries in the accident occurred on 18.06.2017 at about
5.40 pm. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted
7 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
to Devanahalli Government Hospital and from there
shifted to Apoorva Hospital, best treatment given by the
Doctors in the hospital but he could not recovered and
succumbed to the injuries at about 11.00 p.m. on the
same day.
3(d). At the time of accident deceased was hale and
healthy and was student of 7th Standard. Due to the
accident and accidental untimely death of Monish, the
Petitioners are put to great financial loss and mental
agony. Hence, the Petitioners have claimed compensation
of Rs.7,00,000/ against Respondents.
3(e). Petitioner in MVC No.4391/2017 contended
that she was also sustained grievous injuries in the said
accident and immediately after the accident she was
shifted to Devanahalli Government Hospital and from
there shifted to Bowring Hospital, wherein she admitted
8 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
as inpatient from 18.06.2017 to till the day, during the
course of treatment she has spent a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/ towards treatment, medicines, conveyance
and nourishment she spent a sum of Rs.50,000/.
3(f). It is the case of the Petitioner that, at the time
of accident, she was a Coolie by avocation and earning a
sum of Rs.40,000/ per annum. Due to the accident and
accidental injuries Petitioner and her family is put to
great financial loss and mental agony. Hence, she
claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ from the
respondents.
3(g). Petitioner in MVC No.4392/2017 contends
that she was also sustained grievous injuries in the
accident and immediately after the accident she was
shifted to Apoorva Hospital, wherein she admitted as
inpatient from 18.06.2017 to till the day, during the
9 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
course of treatment she has spent a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/ towards treatment and medicines,
conveyance and nourishment she has spent a sum of
Rs.50,000/.
3(h). At the time of accident, Petitioner was a Coolie
by avocation, as Coolie she was earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/ per annum. Due to the accident and
accidental injuries Petitioner and her family is put to
great financial loss and mental agony. Hence, she
claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/ from the
Respondents.
4. After service of summons, Respondents No.1
and 2 have appeared through counsel and filed their
respective written statements.
5. Respondent No.1 filed its written statement by
denying the entire averments of petition and denies the
10 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
existence of the policy in respect of the vehicle bearing
No.KA43M1029 of the 2nd Respondent. Further this
Respondent seeks protection available U/Sec.134(c),
149(2) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. According to this
Respondent, the driver of the vehicle drove the same
without having driving license, at the material time of
accident, which is in contravention of the policy condition
and also M.V.Act. The 2nd Respondent owner of the
vehicle entrusted the same knowing fully well that the
driver is not having driving license. There is no permit
and FC to the 2nd Respondent to ply the vehicle on the
road at the material time of the accident. The 2 nd
Respondent took the risk in plying the vehicle without
having the permit and FC.
6. Further this Respondent contends that, the
deceased was going in the vehicle which was over loaded
11 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
with more than the seating capacity and which was
driven the vehicle by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner in the middle of the road and all of a sudden
came in front of the vehicle of the 2 nd Respondent and
contributed the accident. The entire negligence is on the
part of the deceased to cause the accident. But while
lodging the complaint the entire fact is twisted and
lodged the false complaint stating the false things and
further the Petitioners have caused to file the charge
sheet according to the same in collusion with the
concerned Police. The accident took place due to the
negligence of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA433613 and
the said vehicle is responsible for the accident. Further
this Respondent contends that the driver of the vehicle
bearing Reg. No.KA433613 is not having the driving
license and permit to drive the vehicle. The deceased took
12 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
the risk in going in the vehicle knowing fully well that he
is not having driving license. This is clear case of Valunti
non fit injuria. As such the owner of the said vehicle is
liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Except
this all other defences are formal in nature and among
other grounds prays to dismiss the petition, in all the
cases.
7. The 2nd Respondent also filed his written
statement by denying the entire averments of the petition
and contends that the petition is not maintainable either
in law or on facts and the same is deserved to be
dismissed in limine. The Petitioners cannot maintain the
present claim petition in the form as brought about by
them against these Respondents in the eye of law until
and unless they make the driver, R.C. Owner and insurer
of the Auto as parties to the claim petition. According to
13 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
this Respondent the accident took place only because of
the Auto Rickshaw driver who driven the said vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner without following any traffic
rules due to the impact of the said vehicle the 2 nd
Respondent incurred huge loss and mental agony and
also his Car was heavily damaged for his no fault in the
accident.
8. Further this Respondent contends that, on
18.06.2017 himself and his family was proceeding from
Sulibele towards Devanahalli Town to reach his home in
his own Maruthi Car driven by himself having valid and
effective driving license and having insured his Car with
the 1st Respondent and the Police was in force from
22.08.2016 to 21.08.2017. When the situation stood as
thus at about 5.30 to 5.40 p.m. on the above said date
when he was near Budihal Gate, he was observed from
14 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
far away that an Auto Rickshaw coming from opposite
direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner with an high speed from Devanahalli side
towards Sulibele. After noticing that the Auto coming
from opposite direction driving in rash, high speed and
negligent manner he slowed his Car all most when he
was stopped his Car, the Auto coming in the opposite
direction was firstly uncontrolled and immediately it was
turtled on the road and the passengers of the Auto were
also on the road and the Auto was once again turtle and
fallen on the front portion of the 2 nd Respondent's Car,
which was on the left hand side of the road.
9. Further the 2nd Respondent contends that,
after the incident this Respondent noticed that the Auto
which was held responsible for the said accident was
bearing its Reg. No.KA433613 and the driver of the said
15 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
Auto who driven the offending vehicle at the time of the
incident in a high speed and in rash and negligent
manner was one Keshava who was very familiar and
known person to the Petitioners. Due to the impact of the
above said collide, front portion of this Respondent's Car
was fully damaged, he and his family members have
sustained simple injuries, shock surprise and mental
agony. For no fault of this Respondent he and his family
under huge loss in result of the accident. Further this
Respondent admits that, as on the date of accident he
being the owner of the Car and he himself driving slowly
and cautiously by observing traffic rules. The incident in
question is occurred solely because of the rash and
negligent act of the driver who driven the above said Auto
at the time of the accident, when he was driven the said
Auto in a negligent manner with high speed without
16 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
observing any of the traffic rules. Among other grounds,
the 2nd Respondent prays to dismiss the petition.
10. On the basis of the above pleadings, I have
framed the following:
::COMMON ISSUES IN MVC NO.4389/2017 AND
4390/2017, ::
1. Whether Petitioners prove that, the
deceased Anupama, W/o.Muniraju and
Monish.M, S/o. Munikrishna, succumbed to
the injuries sustained in the vehicular
accident alleged to have occurred on
18.06.2017 due to the use of the Car
bearing Reg.No.KA43M1029?
2. Whether Petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed in the petition? If
so, from which Respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
17 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
::COMMON ISSUES IN MVC NO.4391/2017 &
4392/2017::
1. Whether Petitioners proves that, they have
sustained injuries in the road traffic
accident that occurred on 18.06.2017 due
to the use of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA43
M1029?
2. Whether Petitioners are entitled for
compensation as prayed in the petition? If
so, from which Respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
11. As these claim petitions are arising out of the
same accident, MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 are
clubbed in MVC No.4389/2017 for recording of common
evidence and for disposal.
18 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
12. In order to prove the above said issues, 1 st
Petitioner in MVC No.4389/2017 has been examined as
PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, 1 st Petitioner in
MVC No.4390/2017 has been examined as PW2 and got
marked Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12. Petitioner in MVC
No.4391/2017 examined as PW3 and got marked
Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.19. Petitioner in MVC No.4392/2017
examined as PW4 and got marked Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.26
documents. Further Dr.Ramesh.B, Orthopaedic Surgeon
at Victoria Hospital examined as PW5 and PW6 and got
marked Ex.P.27 to Ex.P.30 documents. Per contra, the
2nd Respondent himself examined as RW1 and got
marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6 documents. The
Manager(Legal), Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
examined as RW2, The ARTO, Devanahalli RTO
19 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
examined as RW3 and got marked Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.9
documents.
13. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
Petitioners and Respondents. The learned counsel for the
Petitioner has relied on following decisions;
i) LAWS (SC) 2017 11 44 in between United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. Sunil Kumar and Anr.
ii) AIR 2017 SC 5710 in between United India
Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s. SunilKumar and Anr.
14. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issues No.1 in : In the Affirmative
all the cases
Issue No.2 in : Partly in the affirmative
all the cases
Issue No.3 in : As per final order for the
all the cases following:
20 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
::REASONS::
15. Issue No.1 and 2 in all the cases: As these
issues are interlinked with each other, they are taken
together for common discussion in order to avoid
repetition of facts and evidence.
16. In order to prove Issue No.1, PW1 to 4 have
stated that deceased Anupama and Monish were died
and other Petitioners were sustained injuries in the
alleged accident.
17. As per the legislative requirement U/s.163A,
Petitioners if they chooses to contest the petition
U/s.163A is not required to plead or establish death
injury in respect of which a claim has been made was
due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of owner of the
vehicle or of any other person. Under the circumstances
there is no need to discharge the burden shifted on the
21 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
Petitioners to prove Issue No.1 since the statute
U/s.163A sub clause II does not demand the Petitioner.
18. The contention of the Respondents No.1 and 2
is that, the petition was not maintainable that the driver
of the Auto was solely responsible for the accident and
not on account of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.
KA43M1029 and the Police have filed the charge sheet
against the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA433613.
19. In order to prove these issues, the husband of
the deceased i.e., Petitioner No.1 Muniraju in MVC
No.4389/2017 has been examined himself as PW1 and
got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and the 1 st
petitioner in MVC.No.4390/2017, father of the deceased
examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P8 to Ex.P12
documents. Other two petitioners were examined
22 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
themselves as PW3 and PW4 and got marked Ex.P13 to
26 documents.
20. If we carefully peruse the oral evidence of PW1
& 2, admittedly they were not an eyewitnesses to the
alleged accident. PW3 and PW4 are the injured and eye
witnesses. PW1 to 4 have been crossexamined by the
Respondents counsel which consists of bear suggestions
and denials.
21. The alleged fact has been corroborated by the
contents of the Police documents which are marked as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 which are FIR with Complaint, Sketch,
Mahazar, P.M. Report, Inquest Report and Charge Sheet.
On perusal of the Ex.P.1 it reveals that, one Muniyamma,
W/o.Munishamappa lodged the complaint and based on
the complaint, FIR came to be registered by BIAL Police
Station in Cr.No.562/2017 for the offences punishable
23 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
U/s.279, 337 and 304A of IPC. On perusal of the Ex.P.6
Charge Sheet it reveals that I.O. has charge sheeted
against the driver of the Auto Rickshaw in which the
deceased persons and also other Petitioners were
travelling for the offences punishable U/s.279, 337 and
304A of IPC.
22. The counsel for the 1 st and 2nd Respondents
have argued that the accident occurred due to the
negligence of the driver of the Auto Rickshaw and the
Police have filed charge sheet against the Auto Driver. So,
the driver of the Car is noway responsible for the cause of
accident. The Respondents have examined the 2 nd
Respondent as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6
documents i.e., FIR with Complaint, Requisition, Case
Diary, Insurance of the Car, RC and DL. In the chief
examination RW1 reiterated the written statement
24 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
averments. During the course of his crossexamination
he admitted that, this accident took place between Car
and Auto and in the accident both Auto and Car were
involved. The Police have prepared IMV Report for his
vehicle and he has taken the custody of his vehicle.
23. Further the Manager(Legal) of 1st Respondent
examined as RW2 and she has also reiterated the
similar facts as stated by the Respondent No.1 in her
chiefexamination. This witness has been crossexamined
by the counsel for the Petitioner and she deposed that all
the four Petitions are filed U/Sec.163A of M.V.Act. As per
documents in this case both vehicles are involved in the
accident.
24. Further the ARTO, Devanahalli RTO examined
as RW3 and got marked Ex.R.7 to Ex.R.9 documents
25 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
i.e., Authorization Letter, Copy of the Permit and Copy of
F.C.
25. In order to disprove the contentions of the
Respondents No.1 and 2, the counsel for the Petitioner
has argued that since the petition is filed U/s.163A of the
M.V.Act, the Petitioners need not prove the negligence of
the deceased and only involvement of the vehicle is
sufficient to claim for compensation U/s.163A of the
M.V.Act.
26. At this stage it is useful to refer a latest
decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1 in between United
India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sunil Kumar and
another wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held
that:
"Motor vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163A (1)...
Claim application...Negligence of victim..whether in
26 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
a claim proceedings U/s 163A is it open to the
insurance company to raise the defence/plea of
negligence of victim...Held: No; permitting the
insurance company to raise defence of negligence
would bring proceedings under Sec.163A at par with
proceedings under Section 166 which would not only
be self contradictory but also defeat the very
legislative intention."
27. On perusal of the said decision it is observed
that Sec.163A(2) of the Act, does not specifically exclude
a possible defence of the insurer based on negligence of
the claimant as contemplated by Sec.140(4) to permit
such defence to be introduced by the insurer and or to
understand the provisions of the Section 163A of the Act
to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary
27 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
to the very legislative object behind introduction of
Section 163A of the Act viz., final compensation within a
limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula
to overcome situations where the claims of compensation
on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long
time. For the said reasons, in a proceeding under Section
163A of the Act it is not open for the insurer to raise any
defence of negligence on the part of the victim.
28. In the instant case, though the FIR registered
against the driver of the Auto in which the deceased
persons and other two passengers were travelling, even if
the charge sheet is also filed against him U/s.163A of the
Act, rash and negligent need not be proved, the
Petitioners have to prove only involvement of the vehicle.
So, as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India reported in 2018 ACJ 1, grant of
28 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
compensation under Section 163A of the Act on the basis
of structured formula is in the nature of a final ward and
the adjudication thereunder is required to be made
without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the
driver/owner of the vehicles involved in the accident and
U/s.163A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise
any defence of negligence on the part of the owner of the
vehicle as the legislature has intention to provide
compensation to the dependants of the person who dies
and who sustained injuries in an accident without
making the question of negligence an issue and that is
why Section 163A of the Act has been introduced. It is no
doubt that, the accident occurred due to the involvement
of both the vehicles, the Respondent need not raise any
defence of negligence on the part of the vehicle in which
the deceased persons and the Petitioners were travelling.
29 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
Looking to the evidence of both the sides and the
documents placed before the Court it is clear that the
accident occurred due to the involvement of both the
vehicles. Hence, the petitions is maintainable U/s.163A
of M.V.Act.
29. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioners;
In MVC No.4389/2017:
PW1 i.e., 1st Petitioner Sri.Muniraju, S/o.
Munishamappa, in MVC No.4389/2017 contends that
he is the husband, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the minor
children of the deceased. In order to prove the
relationship they have produced the Ex.P.7 Ration Card,
which clearly reveals the relationship of the Petitioners
with the deceased Anupama.
30 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
30. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW1 it
reveals that, the deceased was Coolie and earning
Rs.40,000/ per annum. They are depending on the
income of the deceased. To compute the quantum of
compensation, this Court has relied on the Gazette
Notification of The Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways Notification, New Delhi, 22nd May, 2018
S.O.2022(E)In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub section(3) of section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, (59 of 1988) the Central
Government, keeping in view the cost of living,
hereby makes the following amendment to the
Second Schedule to the said Act viz.,.
31 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
31. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the Second
Schedule, the following Schedule shall be substituted
viz.,
"The SECOND SCHEDULE OF S.163A SCHEDULE
FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE THIRD PARTY FATAL,
ACCIDENT/INJURY CASES CLAIMS
1)(a) Fatal accidents:
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be
five lakhs Rupees.
On and from the date of 1st day of January 2019,
the amount of compensation specified in the clauses
of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent
annually."
The notifications shall come into form on the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette".
32 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
32. On applying the principles of Gazette
Notification, it is just and proper to award Rs.5,25,000/
towards loss of dependency. Further the Petitioners are
entitled for compensation of Rs.2,500/ under the head
of loss of estate and Rs.2,000/ under the head of funeral
and obsequies ceremony expenses.
33. Considering the above facts and for the above
reason, I am of the opinion that, the Petitioners in MVC
No.4389/2017 are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.5,29,500/ under the following heads.
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 5,25,00000
2. Loss of estate 2,50000
4. Funeral & Obsequies 2,00000
ceremony expenses
Total 5,29,50000
33 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
34. In all, Petitioners in MVC No.4389/2017 are
entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,29,500/ with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
its realization, for the death of Anupama.
35. Out of compensation awarded under the head
of loss of dependency, Petitioner No.1 being the husband
entitled for Rs.3,15,000/ i.e., 60% of 5,25,000/ and
Petitioners No.2 & 3 are being minor children are entitled
for Rs.2,10,000/ i.e., 40% of Rs.5,25,000/.
36. The total amount of compensation are
apportioned as follows;
Heads Petitioner Petitioners
No.1 No.2 & 3
Loss of 3,15,000/ 1,05,000/
dependency each
(50% each of
Rs.2,10,000/)
Loss of 2,500/
estate
34 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
Funeral 2,000/
expenses
Total 3,19,500/ 1,05,000/ each
37. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioners;
In MVC No.4390/2017:
PW2 i.e., 1st Petitioner Sri.Munikrishna, S/o.
Anjinappa in MVC No.4390/2017 contends that, he is
the father and Petitioner No.2 is the mother of the
deceased. In order to prove the relationship they have
produced the Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.12 i.e., P.M.Report, Inquest
Report and Adhaar Cards, which clearly reveals the
relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased Monish.
38. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW1 it
reveals that, the deceased was studying in 7 th Standard
at the time of accident. To compute the quantum of
35 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
compensation, this Court has relied on the Gazette
Notification of The Ministry of Road Transport and
Highways Notification, New Delhi, 22nd May, 2018
S.O.2022(E)In exercise of the powers conferred
by sub section(3) of section 163A of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, (59 of 1988) the Central
Government , keeping in view the cost of living,
hereby makes the following amendment to the
Second Schedule to the said Act viz.,.
39. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the Second
Schedule, the following Schedule shall be substituted
viz.,
"The SECOND SCHEDULE OF S.163A SCHEDULE
FOR COMPENSATION FOR THE THIRD PARTY FATAL,
ACCIDENT/INJURY CASES CLAIMS
36 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
1)(a) Fatal accidents:
Compensation payable in case of Death shall be
five lakhs Rupees.
On and from the date of 1st day of January 2019,
the amount of compensation specified in the clauses
of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent
annually."
The notifications shall come into form on the
date of its publication in the Official Gazette".
40. On applying the principles of Gazette
Notification, it is just and proper to award Rs.5,25,000/
towards loss of dependency. Further the Petitioners are
entitled for compensation of Rs.2,500/ under the head
of loss of estate and Rs.2,000/ under the head of funeral
and obsequies ceremony expenses.
37 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
41. Considering the above facts and for the above
reason, I am of the opinion that, the Petitioners in MVC
No.4390/2017 are entitled for total compensation of
Rs.5,29,500/ under the following heads.
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 5,25,00000
2. Loss of estate 2,50000
4. Funeral & Obsequies 2,00000
ceremony expenses
Total 5,29,50000
42. In all, Petitioners in MVC NO.4390/2017 are
entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,29,500/ with
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till
its realization, for the death of Monish M. Out of
compensation awarded Petitioners No.1 & 2 are being
the parents of the deceased are equally entitled for
Rs.2,64,750/ each in the ratio of 50:50.
38 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
43. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
In MVC No.4391/2017
PW3 i.e., Petitioner Smt.Muniyamma, W/o.
Munishamappa in MVC No.4391/2017 contends that,
she was aged about 57 years at the time of accident. In
order to prove the age of the Petitioner, PW3 has
produced Ex.P.16 Election ID wherein her age was
mentioned as 36 years in the year 1994 and the accident
took place in the year 2017. Hence, it is considered that,
on the basis of above document, Petitioner was aged
58 years as on the date of the accident. As per the Sarla
Varma's Case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age
group of 56 to 60 years is 9.
39 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
44. Petitioner has contended that, she was doing
Coolie by avocation and earning Rs.40,000/ per annum.
In order to prove her avocation and income, she has not
produced any documents. Hence, notional income of
the Petitioner as Rs.8,000/ would suffice for
calculating compensation.
45. Petitioner had sustained fracture medial
mallelous right, fracture of 2nd and 3rd fingers proximal
phalanx right hand, for which, she underwent ORIF with
CC Screws.
46. In order to prove injury and treatment taken,
she has produced Ex.P.13 Wound Certificate and
Discharge Summary at Ex.P.14 issued by Bowring and
Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she took
treatment from 21.06.2017 to 04.07.2017 as an
inpatient. Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.15 OPD
40 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
Card, Ex.P.17 Medical Bills to the tune of Rs.4,626/,
Ex.P.18 are Prescriptions and Ex.P.19 Xrays.
47. Further the PW3 examined Dr.Ramesh.B,
Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital as PW5 and
got marked Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 i.e., OPD Card and
Xray. PW5 has assessed disability of 11.5% of total
permanent physical impairment to the whole body.
Further in his cross examination PW5 deposed that, he
was not treated the Petitioner. Now the fractures are
united and the finger fractures are also united. If the oral
evidence of PW5 is perused, this accident was occurred
in the year 2017 and this PW5 has assessed disability in
the year 2018, that means, one year after the date of
accident and his own admissions in the chief
examination reveals that the fractures are united.
Hence, this Court considers the disability to an extent
41 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
of 8% to the whole body is sufficient for calculation of
quantum of compensation.
48. Further PW5 deposed in his chief
examination that, the Petitioner has to undergo one more
surgery for removal of implants. But he has not produced
any estimation. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for
Rs.15,000/ as future medical expenses.
49. As per the Discharge Summary, the Petitioner
was hospitalized for a period of 15 days, if one month
income is awarded under the head of loss of income
during laid up period and rest period certainly it would
meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I
deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.8,000/ under the head of loss of income during the
laid up period under rest period.
42 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
50. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1. Expenses relating to:
to treatment, hospitalization, 5,00000
medicines, transportation
(Rs.4,626/ rounded off to
Rs.5,000/)
b)nourishing food and 10,00000
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 8,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 69,00000
account of permanent disability
(Rs.8,000/x12x9x8%
= Rs.69,120/ rounded off
Rs.69,000/)
3. Future medical expenses 15,00000
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
43 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 75,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities ( and/or loss 10,00000
of prospects of marriage)
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
Total 1,92,00000
51. Accordingly, I hold that Petitioner
Smt.Muniyamma in MVC No.4391/2017 is entitled for
total compensation of Rs.1,92,000/ with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of
Rs.15,000/) from the date of petition till its realization.
52. Coming to the question regarding quantum of
compensation that has to be awarded to the Petitioner;
In MVC No.4392/2017
PW4 i.e., Petitioner Smt.Narayanamma, W/o.
Muninarayanappa in MVC No.4392/2017 contends
44 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
that, she was aged about 57 years at the time of
accident. In order to prove the age of the Petitioner, PW4
has produced Ex.P.21 Election ID wherein her age was
mentioned as 34 years in the year 1994 and the accident
took place in the year 2017. Hence, it is considered that,
on the basis of above document, Petitioner was aged
57 years as on the date of the accident. As per the Sarla
Varma's Case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age
group of 56 to 60 years is 9.
53. Petitioner has contended that, she was doing
Coolie by avocation and earning Rs.40,000/ per annum.
In order to prove her avocation and income, she has not
produced any documents. Hence, notional income of
the Petitioner as Rs.8,000/ would suffice for
calculating compensation.
45 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
54. Petitioner had sustained Grade III B fracture
both bones of right forearm, for which, she underwent
wound debridement and external fixation. In order to
prove injury and treatment taken, she has produced
Ex.P.20 Wound Certificate and Discharge Summaries at
Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.23 issued by Apruva Mother and Child
Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she took treatment from
18.06.2017 to 29.06.2017 and 08.12.2017 to 24.12.2017
as an inpatient. Petitioner has also produced Ex.P.24
Medical Bills to the tune of Rs.2,31,279/, Ex.P.25 are
Prescriptions and Ex.P.26 Xrays.
55. Further the PW4 examined Dr.Ramesh.B,
Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital as PW6 and
got marked Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 i.e., OPD Card and
Xray. PW6 has assessed disability of 24% of total
permanent physical impairment to the whole body.
46 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
Further in his crossexamination PW6 deposed that, he
was not treated the Petitioner. Now the fractures are mal
union and patient is still under treatment. Since from the
beginning there was no internal fixator applied only
external fixator was present. The Court has observed
PW5 when she appeared before the Court, the external
fixators were present. If the oral evidence of PW6 is
perused, this accident was occurred in the year 2017 and
this PW6 has assessed disability in the year 2018, that
means, one year after the date of accident and his own
admissions in the chiefexamination reveals that the
fractures are mal union. Hence, this Court considers the
disability to an extent of 18% to the whole body is
sufficient for calculation of quantum of compensation.
56. Further PW6 deposed in his chief
examination that, the Petitioner has to undergo one more
47 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
surgery for removal of implants. But he has not produced
any estimation. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for
Rs.20,000/ as future medical expenses.
57. As per the Discharge Summary, the Petitioner
was hospitalized two times, if one month income is
awarded under the head of loss of academic year during
laid up period and rest period certainly it would meet the
ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I deem it
just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.8,000/ under the head of loss of income during the
laid up period under rest period.
58. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
I. PECUNIARY DAMAGES
(Special Damages)
1. Expenses relating to:
48 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
to treatment, hospitalization, 2,31,00000
medicines, transportation
(Rs.2,31,279/ rounded off to
Rs.2,31,000/)
b)nourishing food and 15,00000
miscellaneous expenditure
2. Loss of earnings which the
injured would have made had he
not been injured, comprising:
a) Loss of earnings during period 8,00000
of treatment
b) Loss of future earnings on 1,56,00000
account of permanent disability
(Rs.8,000/x12x9x18%
= Rs.1,55,520/ rounded off
Rs.1,56,000/)
3. Future medical expenses 15,00000
II. NONPECUNIARY DAMAGES
(General Damages)
4. Damages for pain, suffering and 50,00000
trauma as a consequence of the
injuries
5. Loss of amenities ( and/or loss 10,00000
of prospects of marriage)
6. Loss of expectation of life
(shortening of normal longevity)
Total 4,85,00000
49 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
59. Accordingly, I hold that Petitioner
Smt.Narayanamma in MVC No.4392/2017 is entitled
for total compensation of Rs.4,85,000/ with interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses
of Rs.15,000/) from the date of petition till its
realization.
60. As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision
reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s.
Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA
Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2814142
of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of
9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para No.28 of
the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be
50 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
entitled to interest on the total amount of
compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on
the compensation from the date of filing of the
claim petition till date of realization" and also by
following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in
between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd.,
V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on
6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016)
at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"QuantumInterestTribunal allowed interest at the
rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court
to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per
cent per annum from the date of filing of claim
application". In view of the above judgments with regard
to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of
51 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
law that, while awarding interest on the compensation
amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of
interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest
at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher
side. Accordingly, the Petitioners in MVC No.4389/2017,
4390/2017, 4391/2017 and 4392/2017 are entitled to
interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
61. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to
pay the compensation to the Petitioners, Respondent
No.1 being the Insurance Company denied the issuance
of policy in favour of Respondent No.2 in respect of Car
bearing Reg.No.KA43M1029 and also contends that
the driver of the Auto in which the deceased persons and
other passengers were traveling has been charge sheeted
U/s.279, 337 and 304A of IPC. In this regard 1 st
Respondent has examined its Company Manager as
52 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
RW2 wherein she has reiterated the similar facts as
contended in the written statement, but she has not
produced any documents. The 2nd Respondent himself
examined as RW1 and stated that, he is the RC Owner
of the insured vehicle and having insured his Car with
the 1st Respondent vide its policy Number
1415262311016532 which was in force from 22.08.2016
to 21.08.2017. He has also produced Ex.R.4 copy of the
insurance wherein the 1st Respondent has issued the
policy in respect of the Car which is valid from
22.08.2016 to 21.08.2017 and the alleged accident
occurred on 18.06.2017 and it is valid as on the date of
the accident. Accordingly, the Respondent No.1 being the
insurer and Respondent No.2 being the R.C.Owner of the
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the Petitioners. However, Respondent
53 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017
SCCH5
No.1 has to indemnify Respondent No.2. Accordingly,
Issue No.1 in all the cases are answered in affirmative
and Issue No.2 in all the cases are answered in partly
affirmative.
62. Issue No.3 in MVC No.4389/2017 to
4392/2017 :
On the basis of above discussions, I proceed to pass
the following:
::ORDER::
Claim petition of Petitioners in MVC No.4389/2017 to 4392/2017 are partly allowed with costs.
Petitioners in MVC No.4389/2017 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,29,500/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred Only) from the date of petition till realization.54 MVC NO.4389/2017
C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 SCCH5 Out of which Petitioner's are entitled for Petitioner No.1 Rs.3,19,500/ Petitioners No.2 & 3 Rs.1,05,000/ each Petitioners are also entitled for proportionate interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner No.1 in MVC No.4389/2017, entire compensation amount to be released in his favour by way of crossed cheque, on proper identification.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioners No.2 & 3 in MVC No.4389/2017, entire amount to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, till they attaining majority. Petitioners in MVC No.4390/2017 are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,29,500/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand 55 MVC NO.4389/2017 C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 SCCH5 Five Hundred Only) from the date of petition till realization.
Out of which Petitioner's are entitled for Petitioner No.1 & 2 Rs.2,64,750/each Petitioners are also entitled for proportionate interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioners No.1 & 2 in MVC No.4390/2017, entire compensation amount to be released in their favour by way of crossed cheque, on proper identification.
Petitioner in MVC No.4391/2017 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,92,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/) from the date of petition till realization.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner in MVC 56 MVC NO.4389/2017 C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 SCCH5 No.4391/2017, entire compensation amount to be released in her favour by way of crossed cheque, on proper identification.
Petitioner in MVC No.4392/2017 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,85,000/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/) from the date of petition till realization.
On deposit of compensation amount pertaining to Petitioner in MVC No.4392/2017, 75% to be released in her favour by way of crossed cheque and remaining 25% to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in her name.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners in all the cases 57 MVC NO.4389/2017 C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 SCCH5 and shall deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Fee of counsel for Petitioners is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in all the cases.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4389/2017 and copy of the same in MVC No.4390/2017, 4391/2017 and 4392/2017. Draw award accordingly in all the claims.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 26th day of April 2019) (SHARMILA S.) VIII ADDL. SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW1 : Sri. Muniraju PW2 : Sri.Munikrishna PW3 : Smt. Muniyamma PW4 : Smt. Narayanamma 58 MVC NO.4389/2017 C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 SCCH5 PW5 : Dr. Ramesh B. PW6 : Dr. Ramesh B. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P.2 : Copy of Sketch Ex.P.3 : Copy of Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Copy of P.M. Report Ex.P.5 : Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P.6 : Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.7 : Notarized copy of Ratio Card Ex.P.8 : Copy of P.M. Report Ex.P.9 : Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P.10 : Notarized copy of Aadhar Cards to (3 in Nos.) Ex.P.12 Ex.P.13 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.14 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.15 : OPD Card Ex.P.16 : Notarized copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.17 : Medical Bills (10 in Nos.) for Rs.4,626/ Ex.P.18 : Prescriptions (10 in Nos.) Ex.P.19 : Xrays (7 in Nos.) Ex.P.20 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.21 : Notarized copy of Election ID Card Ex.P.22 & : Discharge Summaries (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.23 Ex.P.24 : Medical Bills (135 in Nos.) for Rs.2,31,279/ 59 MVC NO.4389/2017 C/w.MVC No.4390/2017 to 4392/2017 SCCH5 Ex.P.25 : Prescriptions (75 in Nos.) Ex.P.26 : Xrays (5 in Nos.) Ex.P.27 : OPD Card Ex.P.28 : Xray Ex.P.29 : OPD Card Ex.P.30 : Xray LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW1 : Sri. Gangaiah P. RW2 : Kum. M.N.Thrinethra RW3 : Sri. P. Shivakumar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Ex.R.1 : C.C. of FIR with Complaint Ex.R.2 : C.C. of Requisition Ex.R.3 : C.C of Case Diary Ex.R.4 : Copy of Insurance of the Car Ex.R.5 : Copy of RC Ex.R.6 : Copy of D.L. Ex.R.7 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.8 : Copy of Permit Ex.R.9 : Copy of FC (SHARMILA S.) VIII ADDL. SCJ & XXXIII ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.