Bangalore District Court
Ramesh P.N vs Icici Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd on 6 April, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.6290/2013
Dated this the 6th day of April 20015
Petitioner/s : Ramesh P.N.
S/o Bangera P.N.
Aged about 41 years,
R/o No.6, 1st main,
Cavery Layout,
Nagarabhavi Road,
Vijayanagar Bangalore.
V/s (By pleader Sri
MGR)
Respondent/s 1.ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.
SVR Complex, No.89, 2nd floor,
Madiwala, Hosur Road,
Bangalore.
2. Mr.Sandeep Sharma,
No.375, Maysield Gardens
Sector-51. Gurgaon.
Haryana - 122011.
3.Royal Sundaram Alliance General
Insurance Co.Ltd.
1st floor, Mangalapunarbhava,
Next to Brigade Towers,
Brigade road, Bangalore.
4. Sri.Venkataramareddy,
S/o Ramappa,
No.22 ward, Bagepalli Town,
Chikkaballapura District.
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.6290/2013
(R1-BCS, R2-HKG,
R3-RSS, R4-DVG)
JUDGMENT
This petition U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is filed by the petitioner for grant of compensation for damages caused to his vehicle in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioner is the registered owner of Honda city car bearing No.KA-01-MA-4127. On 05.10.2013, the petitioner was driving his Honda city car from Bangalore to Mangalore. At about
03.00 pm, the petitioner reached near Donigal Village, on NH-48, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District and at that time, the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came with high speed and dashed against the car of the petitioner. At the same time, Trax toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came with high speed and dashed against the car of the petitioner from behind. Due to the impact, the car of the petitioner was fully damaged and the petitioner along with his wife sustained injuries. The vehicle was shifted to SLV Mangalore Motor Works, situated at 5 th cross, Karekal, Kamakshipalya Main Road, Bangalore for repairs. The same was repaired after 56 days and the petitioner has incurred Rs.3,25,000/-. During the said period, the petitioner was using a private taxi to go to his work by paying Rs.2,000/- per day. Due to the accident, the petitioner and his family put to great financial loss and mental agony. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057 and Trax SCCH-14 3 MVC No.6290/2013 Toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522. The respondent No.1 and 2 are the insurer and owner of the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057, whereas the respondent No.3 and 4 are the insurer and owner of Trax Toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522. Sakaleshpura police have registered Cr.No.245/2013 against the drivers of both the vehicles. The respondents being the insurers and owners of the offending vehicles, are liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have appeared before Court through their respective counsel. The respondent No.1, 3 and 4 have filed their written statement separately. The respondent No.2 has failed to file his written statement. The contesting respondents have denied the averments of the petition as false. The respondent No.1 has contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the respondent No.2 has not submitted the claim form and other relevant documents, that the driver of lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, that the owner of the lorry has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that the Honda City Car of the petitioner was not damaged in the alleged accident and the petitioner has not spent Rs.3,25,000/- towards repair charges, that the accident was due to negligence on the part of petitioner and on the part of driver of trax toofan, that claim of the petitioner his highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate to the simple damages caused to the Honda City Car. He has denied the issuance policy in favour of the SCCH-14 4 MVC No.6290/2013 respondent No.2 in respect of the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with exemplary cost.
The respondent No.3 has contended that the owner of Trax Toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522 and concerned police have not complied their mandatory duties and the accident was not due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Trax Toofan, that the accident has not taken place in the manner as stated in the petition, that it has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057, that the petitioner had insured his car with M/s New India Assurance Co.Ltd., and had preferred OD claim, that the said Insurance Company has settled the claim of the petitioner towards full and final settlement and therefore, the petitioner is estopped from making further claim, that the claim of the petitioner his highly excessive, exorbitant, arbitrary and speculative. However, he has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent No.4 in respect of the Trax Toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost.
The respondent No.4 has admitted that he is owner of the Trax Toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522 which met with an accident, but he has contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant, fanciful and without any basis, that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. UP-82-T-0057, that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner for occurrence of the accident, but he being SCCH-14 5 MVC No.6290/2013 an influential person, he has managed to lodge false case against him, that his vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3 and if Court comes to conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for compensation, then the respondent No.3 is made liable to indemnify him. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that his Honda City car bearing KA-01-MA-4127 was damaged on 05.10.2013 at about 3.00 p.m on Donigal Village, No. 48, BM Road, Sakaleshpura, Hassan District, in the accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No. UP-
82-T-0057 and Toofan Trax bearing No. KA-
40-M-2522?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or award ?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 10. The respondent No.3 and 1 have examined RW-1 and 2 respectively. Ex.R1 to 3 are marked for the respondent No.1 and 3. The respondent No.2 and 4 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.6290/20136. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent No.3 has relied upon ruling reported in ILR 2000 KAR 2009 (). The counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of license of the driver of lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057. I have perused the records.
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.6290/20137. My findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In Affirmative. For Rs.2,01,000/- from the respondent no.1 and 3 in the ratio of 70:30.
Issue No.3: As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The admitted facts of the case are that the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057 is owned by the respondent No.2 and was insured with the respondent No.1, that Trax toofan bearing No. KA-40-M-2522 was owned by the respondent No.4 and was insured with the respondent No.3 and both the policies were in force on the date of accident. Ex.R2 and 3 establish the said fact. RW-1 Sandeep and RW-2 K.L.Venu have admitted the same. Evidence of PW-1 Ramesh and contents of Ex.P10 RC card reveal that the petitioner is the owner of Honda City car bearing No.KA-01- MA-4127. Ex.P8 discloses that the petitioner was having valid driving licence to drive Honda City Car on the date of accident. Copy of policy of Honda City Car is at Ex.P9 which reveals that the said car was having an Act policy covering the risk of third parties. This falsifies the contention of the respondents that the petitioner has made OD claim from his insurer who paid the amount towards full and final settlement.
9. There was no delay in lodging FIR. The police have detained all the three vehicles from the place of accident and subjected to IMV inspection. It is reported that the brake system of SCCH-14 8 MVC No.6290/2013 the vehicles was in order and the accident was not due to mechanical defects of the vehicles. PW-1 Ramesh stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of Lorry and Trax toofan. Chargesheet filed by the police supports his evidence. RW-1 Sandeep has stated that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry, whereas PW-2 K.L.Venu has stated that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry, but the petitioner himself was solely responsible for the accident. Evidence of RW-1 and 2 as to manner of accident is uncorroborated and contrary to the final report filed by the police. They are not the eyewitnesses and have deposed on the basis of records. Hence, evidence of RW-1 and 2 as to manner of accident is hearsay and inadmissible. On the contrary, evidence of PW-1 is direct and believable. The respondents have not made any efforts to examine the drivers of insured vehicles. They have not produced best evidence before the court. Hence, defence put forward by the respondents is liable to be rejected.
10. Ex.P2 and 7 are copies of Crime Details Form which disclose that on 05.10.2013, near Donigal village, BM Road, Sakaleshpura Taluk, the accident has occurred, that there was head on collusion between Honda City car bearing No.No.KA-01-MA-4127 and Lorry bearing No. UP-82-T-0057, that Trax bearing No. KA-40-M- 2522 dashed against the car from behind. The sketch shown therein clearly reveals that the car and trax toofan were going towards Mangalore and the lorry was coming from opposite direction. It was a 24' wide road running east to west. Mangalore is towards west and Sakaleshpura is towards east from the place of SCCH-14 9 MVC No.6290/2013 accident. Southern portion of the road was correct side for the car and trax toofan. The northern portion was correct side for the lorry. The sketch makes it clear that the accident has occurred on the southern portion of the road from a distance of 10' from southern edge. This means the lorry was driven on the wrong side before the accident. This evidence falsifies the pleading of the respondent No.1 that petitioner drove his car on the wrong side and dashed against the lorry. RW-2 Venu has not stated about the said fact. Driver of lorry is not examined. There is no evidence either oral or documentary on behalf of the respondents to prove that the evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P2 and 7 are false. IO has filed charge sheet against the driver of lorry and Trax toofan for the offence punishable U/s 279 and 337 of IPC. Nothing is elicited from PW-1 to disbelieve his oral and documentary evidence. The driver of lorry should have driven his vehicle on the northern portion of the road, but he drove it on the wrong side and hence, he should be held responsible for the accident. There is no evidence to believe that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Thus, it is evident that the driver of lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057 drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Honda City Car of the petitioner by going to the wrong side of the road, that at the same time, the Trax toofan which was coming from behind has dashed the car. The driver of Trax toofan did not forecast the accident between the vehicles ahead of him. The accident between the lorry and car was so sudden, the driver of Trax toofan could not control his vehicle, but brake system of the said vehicle was in order. If he was driving the vehicle by keeping safe distance, carefully and cautiously, he could have avoided the SCCH-14 10 MVC No.6290/2013 accident. However, the primary negligence was of the driver of lorry. If he had driven his lorry on correct side of the road, then the total accident would not have occurred. Therefore, I am of the opinion that both the drivers i.e., driver of lorry bearing No.UP-82-T- 0057 and of Trax toofan bearing No. KA-40-M-2522 are responsible for the damages caused to the Honda City Car of the petitioner. There was composite negligence on their part for the occurrence of accident. However, looking to the sequence of events, fact and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to assess the degree of negligence on the part of driver of lorry @ 70% and that the of the driver of trax toofan @ 30%.
11. Contents of FIR, Panchanama, Charge sheet, Photographs and IMV report reveal that the Honda City Car bearing No.KA-01- MA-4127 was damaged on its front and rear portion in the accident. Evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.P1 to 3, 5 to 7 as to manner of accident and its result which collectively substantiate the averments of petition. The evidence of RW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.R1 to 3 are not sufficient to establish the defence of the Respondent No.1 and 3 and to disprove the case of the petitioner. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has proved his case pertaining to this issue and I answer the same in affirmative.
12. Issue No.2: Evidence of PW-1 Ramesh and contents of Ex.P8 to 10 reveal that the petitioner was the owner of Honda City Car bearing No.KA-01-MA-4127, that the said car was of the year 2004 and was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., on the date of accident. The petitioner was having valid license to drive SCCH-14 11 MVC No.6290/2013 the said car. The policy was an Act policy covering the risk of third parties. Since, the car was not comprehensively insured, it can be held that the petitioner has not preferred OD claim from his insurer.
13. The police records and photographs disclose that the car of the petitioner was damaged in the accident. IMV report discloses that the Honda City car has sustained following damages:
" Front bumper, rear bumper, Banet, Radiator, AC, Headlamp, left front glass, dickey door, tail lamp pressed inward and damaged".
The petitioner has claimed that he spent Rs.3,25,000/- for the repair of his car which was towed from the place of accident to Bangalore. The respondents have denied the quantum of repair charges and contended that the repairs are beyond the damages caused to the car, that bills are not supported by receipts and are not proved by evidence. The counsel for the respondent No.1 pointed out that there was no damages to the wind shield of the car, but first item of the bill pertains to it. The counsel for respondent No.3 has argued that the car was 9 years old and its total value was less than Rs.3,25,000/-. The counsel of respondent No.3 has relied upon ruling reported in ILR 2000 KAR 2009 (KSRTC Vs George Ninum) wherein it is held as under:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59 of 1988)-Section 168- Claim petition of a person claiming to be the owner of the car, for compensation for repair of the car was allowed rejecting the contention of the KSRTC that claimant's ownership of the car and special damages are not proved-Held-IN the absence of any material to show that the claimant as maintainable-Mere producing of documents is SCCH-14 12 MVC No.6290/2013 not sufficient to prove special damages. Such documents have be prove. Mere production of document is not a proof of its contents".SCCH-14 13 MVC No.6290/2013
The petitioner has deposed as to incurring expenses shown in bills at Ex.P4. IMV report reveals that front left glass was damaged. The vehicle should have been brought to Bangalore by towing and not otherwise. Payment of Rs.1,50,000/- is shown in Ex.P4. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner has paid the remaining amount of bill to the garage. The repair charges mentioned in Ex.P4 are on higher side. Only on the basis of non examination of mechanic or garage owner, we can not wholly reject the bills. Car was damaged and it can be seen from photographs. It should have been got repaired. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner has paid Rs.2,16,921/- to the garage. The amount exceeding Rs.1,50,000/- may be discount as the charges are on higher side. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards repair of his car.
14. The accident has occurred on 05.10.2013. The bills at Ex.P4 are dated 27.11.2013. PW-1 has stated that the car was ready for use on 27.11.2013. It means he was unable to use his car from 05.10.2013 to 26.11.2013. The car was in the garage for 52 days. He might have hired another vehicle to go to his work place, but he has not disclosed the nature of his occupation, distance between his house and workplace. Under the circumstances, evidence of PW-1 that he spent Rs.2,000/- per day for conveyance is unbelievable. His evidence in that regard is uncorroborated. Hence, I award Rs.500/- per day as conveyance. Total conveyance expenses comes to Rs.26,000/-.
15. The petitioner might have suffered mental agony and put to inconvenience due to accident. He might have lost income for SCCH-14 14 MVC No.6290/2013 few days. Hence, I am inclined to award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income and inconvenience, mental agony. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation of Rs.2,01,000/-. He is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
LIABILITY
16. The respondent No.1 and 2 are the insurer and owner of lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057, whereas the respondent No.3 and 4 are the insurer and owner of Trax toofan bearing No.KA-40-M-2522. It is held above that the accident has occurred due to composite negligence of both the drivers. There was no contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The degree of negligence of the drivers of lorry and Trax toofan is assessed @ 70% and 30% respectively. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner to the extent of 70% of the above calculated amount and balance is payable by the respondent No.3 and 4 jointly and severally.
There is nothing on record to believe that the respondent No.2 and 4 have violated the terms and conditions of the policies and the vehicles were driven by the drivers without holding valid and effective license. Evidence of RW-2 in that regard is uncorroborated. The counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of license of the driver of the lorry bearing No.UP-82-T-0057 during the arguments which falsifies the evidence of RW-2. The charge sheet filed by police is contradictory to the defence of the SCCH-14 15 MVC No.6290/2013 respondents. Hence, I hold that the respondent No.1 and 3 are liable to deposit the compensation amount and interest in the ratio of 70:30. However, it is a case of composite negligence. The petitioner is at liberty to execute the award in entirety against any of them. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
187. ISSUE No.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner 70% of Rs.2,01,000/- i.e., Rs.1,40,700/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the said amount before the Court.
The respondent No.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner 30% of Rs.2,01,000/- i.e., Rs.60,300/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount before the Court.SCCH-14 16 MVC No.6290/2013
After deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
However, it is made clear that since, it is a case of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to enforce the award against any of the respondents in entirety.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 6th day of April 2015.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 17 MVC No.6290/2013
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Ramesh.P.N
Respondent' s
RW-1 Sandeep S.K
RW-2 K.L.Venu
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR
E.xP2 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P3 - Photographs (3 in nos) and CD
Ex.P4 - Repair bill (4 pages)
Ex.P5 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P6 - Copy of IMV report
Ex.P7 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P8 - Copy of driving licence
Ex.P9 - Copy of policy
Ex.P10 - Copy of RC
Respondent's
Ex.R1 - Authorisation Letter
Ex.R2 - Copy of policy with terms and conditions.
Ex.R3 - Insurance policy
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.6290/2013
Dt.06.04.2015
P-MGR
R1-BCS
R2-HKG
R3-RSS
R4-DVG
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner 70% of Rs.2,01,000/- i.e., Rs.1,40,700/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the said amount before the Court.
The respondent No.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner 30% of Rs.2,01,000/- i.e., Rs.60,300/- with interest. In view SCCH-14 19 MVC No.6290/2013 of the policy, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount before the Court.
After deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
However, it is made clear that since, it is a case of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to enforce the award against any of the respondents in entirety.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 20 MVC No.6290/2013 SCCH-14 21 MVC No.6290/2013
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.6290/2013 Petitioner/s : Ramesh P.N. S/o Bangera P.N. Aged about 41 years, R/o No.6, 1st main, Cavery Layout, Nagarabhavi Road, Vijayanagar Bangalore.
V/s (By pleader Sri
MGR)
Respondent/s 1.ICICI Lombard Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.
SVR Complex, No.89, 2nd floor,
Madiwala, Hosur Road,
Bangalore.
2. Mr.Sandeep Sharma,
No.375, Maysield Gardens
Sector-51. Gurgaon.
Haryana - 122011.
3.Royal Sundaram Alliance General
Insurance Co.Ltd.
1st floor, Mangalapunarbhava,
Next to Brigade Towers,
Brigade road, Bangalore.
4. Sri.Venkataramareddy,
S/o Ramappa,
No.22 ward, Bagepalli Town,
Chikkaballapura District.
(R1-BCS, R2-HKG,
R3-RSS, R4-DVG)
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the
petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH-14 22 MVC No.6290/2013 the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner 70% of Rs.2,01,000/- i.e., Rs.1,40,700/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the said amount before the Court.
The respondent No.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner 30% of Rs.2,01,000/- i.e., Rs.60,300/- with interest. In view of the policy, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount before the Court.SCCH-14 23 MVC No.6290/2013
After deposit, entire amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
However, it is made clear that since, it is a case of composite negligence, the petitioner is at liberty to enforce the award against any of the respondents in entirety.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ---------------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.6290/2013
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.6290/2013
From,
Dt.30.03.2015.
Basavaraj Chengti
XVI Addl., Judge & XL ACMM.,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes,
Bangalore.
Respected Sir,
Sub: availment of summer vacation reg., ***** With reference to the above subject, I have the honour to submit that I am intending to avail the summer vacation from 11.05.2015 to 24.05.2015. I may be permitted to leave head quarters from 11.05.2015 till office hours on 25.05.2015. I am intending to go to Chandigadh, Agra and Delhi with my family by availing LTC. I will submit separate application to Hon'ble High Court for grant of LTC. I undertake my journey by public transport.
My Cell Number is 9342356133.
Yours Sincerely, SCCH-14 26 MVC No.6290/2013 XVI Addl., Judge & XL ACMM., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore Dt.30.03.2015 Bangalore.
From :
BASAVARAJ CHENGTI XVI Addl. Judge & XL ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
To The Hon'ble Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
Respected Sir, Sub: For grant of a RHon 04.04.2015 with permission to avail general holidays on 02.04.2015, 03.04.2015 and 05.04.2015.
** *** ** With reference to the above subject, I have the honour to submit that I am intending to go to Bijapur to attend naming ceremony of my nephew's son on 03.04.2015. Hence I may be granted RH on 04.04.2015 with permission to avail general holidays on 02.04.2015, 03.04.2015 and 05.04.2015. I may be permitted to leave headquaters after office hours on 01.04.2015 till commencement of office hours on 06.04.2015.
SCCH-14 27 MVC No.6290/2013I undertake my journey by public transport. Necessary incharge arrangement may kindly be made.
Yours sincerely, XVI Addl. Judge & XL ACMM, Court of Small Causes, B'lore.