Bangalore District Court
Sri. Manoj Kumar vs The Managing Director on 28 February, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, &
ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes, Mayohall Unit, Bangalore.
(SCCH.19)
Dated this the 28th day of February 2015
Present: Smt.C.G.Vishalakshi, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XV Addl. Judge
M.V.C.NO.3421/2014
Petitioners : 1. Sri. Manoj Kumar,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o. Ganjndra Jha,
2. Sri.Gajendra Jha,
Aged about 28 years,
S/o. Bhup Narayana Jha,
3. Smt. Munnidevi,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o. Gajendra Jha,
All are Residing at
Sai Krupa Elite Apartments,
Flat No.111, Block - A,
FERN CITY Road, Near Total Mall,
Doddanekkundi, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
(By Sri.M.S., Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondent : The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C. Central Office,
Shanthinagar, K.H.Road,
Bangalore-560 027.
(Bus No.KA-01/FA-743)
(By Sri.A.A., Advocate)
SCCH-19 2 MVC.No.3421/2014
JUDGMENT
The Petitioners have filed this Petition U/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the Respondents on account of the death of wife of the Petitioner namely Nivedita Jha.
2. The facts of the case in brief are thus:
On 01.08.2014, at about 5.15 p.m., the deceased Smt.Nivedita Jha was riding a Honda Activa bearing Registration No.KA-53-ED-7203 on ITPL Main Road from Hope Farm towards Hoodi on the extreme left side of the road slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations and when she reached near Big Bazar Junction, by that time all of a sudden a BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-743, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life without observing any traffic rules, came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased's Honda Activa. As a result of the forced impact, the deceased was thrown out, fell down and the said BMTC bus ran over the waist SCCH-19 3 MVC.No.3421/2014 and thighs of the deceased and the deceased succumbed to the grievous injuries on the way to Vydehi Hospital. Immediately, body was taken to Vydehi Hospital, Bangalore for postmortem.
After postmortem, the body was handed over to the petitioners, and the Petitioners have performed the funeral, obsequies for which they have spent more than Rs.2,50,000/-.
It is averred that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and she was working as Software Engineer at TCS, Whitefield, ITPB Area, Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- per month. The cause of accident in question was registered by Whitefield Traffic Police Station Bangalore in Crime No.105/2014 for the offences punishable U/s.279, 304(A) of IPC against the driver of the BMTC bus. The deceased was contributing her entire earnings to the petitioner family for maintenance and she was only the bread earner in the family.
Except the income of the deceased, the Petitioner has no source of income and they were entirely dependent on the income of the deceased and due to her death, the Petitioners are undergoing great mental shock and agony and he also SCCH-19 4 MVC.No.3421/2014 undergoing great financial difficulties and hardship. On this ground the Petitioner filed this petition for the relief sought above.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the Respondent appeared before the court through his counsel and filed their objection statement, wherein the Respondent has denied the claim of the Petitioner is false. Further they denied the name, age, address, avocation, income of the deceased and accident involving in the B.M.T.C Bus at fault of its driver and called upon the Petitioner for strict proof of the same. They also denied the relationship of the Petitioner with deceased and called upon the Petitioner for strict proof of the same and further contended that the injuries which had occurred are only due to the negligence of the deceased herself and driver of the bus is not responsible for the cause of the accident. Further the Respondent denied the nature of the accident and called upon the Petitioner for strict proof of the same and contended that the driver of the bus was assigned on the schedule route No.3055/2, on 01.08.2014 the said bus was driven by its driver SCCH-19 5 MVC.No.3421/2014 Gunderaya badge No.7311 and proceeding on the schedule trip from Nadevatti to Depot slowly and cautiously observing traffic rules and regulations at about 7.30 p.m when it proceeding on ITPL main road, when it reached Big Bazar, by that time a Motor Cycle bearing No.KA-53-ED-7203 driven it its rider in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed in the busy main road and without holding proper driving license to drive the said vehicle. In order to over take the other vehicles passing on the said road, tried to pass through in between the moving bus and other vehicles. As there was no much space, to pass through, the right side handle of the Motor Cycle came in contract with right side middle portion of the moving bus. As a result of which she lost her balance and fell on the hard surface of the road and suffered injuries. Hence contended that the alleged accident was due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the deceased only. Further contended that the petition is also liable to dismiss for non-joinder of necessary parties. With all other reasons they prays for dismissal of the claim petition. SCCH-19 6 MVC.No.3421/2014
4. In the light of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by this Tribunal:
1) Whether the Petitioner proves that they are the legal heirs of deceased Nivedita Jha?
2) Whether the petitioner proves that the accident arose on 01.08.2014 at about 5.15 p.m., on ITPL Main Road from Hope Farm towards Hoodi, near Big Bazaar, Bangalore due to the rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-
01-FA-743 and caused the death of Nivedita Jha?
3) Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, how much and from whom ?
4) What award/order?
5. In this case, Petitioner has got examined himself as PW1 and one HR Business process lead got examined as PW.2 and also furnished 19 documents which are respectively marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. Driver of the BMTC bus was examined as RW.1
6. Heard arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are :
Issue No.1: In Affirmative
Issue No.2: In Affirmative
Issue No.3: Yes, Rs.57,70,980/- from both the
Respondents joint and severally
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
SCCH-19 7 MVC.No.3421/2014
Issue No.4: As per final order below for
the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- The Petitioner maintained this claim
petition ascertaining that they are the legal representatives and dependents of the deceased Nivedita Jha, died in the Road Traffic Accident. To substantiate the fact that, the 1st Petitioner has deposed his evidence as PW.1, wherein he has stated in his evidence about the relationship of the Petitioner with that of the deceased Nivedita Jha and stated that he is the husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha and Petitioner No.2 and 3 are his parents. To substantiate the fact that, he has produced document like Ex.P.10 marriage registration certificate it shows that himself and deceased Nivedita Jha are the husband and wife and he also produced Ex.P.11 driving license, Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13 Secondary School Examination marks card and Senior School certificate examination marks card of deceased Nivedita Jha. On perusal of the Ex.P.10 marriage registration certificate it shows that, the Petitioner was married with Nivedita Jha on 01.02.2013. This document testifies the fact that he is the SCCH-19 8 MVC.No.3421/2014 husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha. Further during course of cross-examination, the Respondent have not seriously denied with respect to their relationship with that of deceased Nivedita Jha as they have not suggested any question except the fact that she is earning for a sum of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- p.m and with this made and attempt to say that the PW.1 is not dependent on the income of the deceased Nivedita Jha. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
9. Issue No. 2 :- In this case the Petitioner attributed negligence on the part of the driver of the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-743 in the alleged accident and death of deceased Nivedita Jha in the alleged accident.
10. Per contra the contesting Respondent denied this allegation of attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-743. On the other hand, they have admitted negligence on the part of the deceased herself stating that this accident was due to sole negligence on the part of the deceased herself as she drove her SCCH-19 9 MVC.No.3421/2014 vehicle in rash and negligent manner and attempted to over take the other vehicles and she made an attempt to pass through in between the bus and other vehicles and as such the right handle of the two wheeler in came in contact with the middle portion of the right side of the moving bus and as such she lost control over the vehicle and fell on the hard surface of the Road and sustained grievous injuries. Thus they denied the allegation of the Petitioners in attributing negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01- FA-743 in the alleged accident.
11. In view of denial burden on the Petitioner to prove the fact that the alleged accident was due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus with necessary evidence.
12. To substantiate the same PW.1 in his evidence deposed that on 01.08.2014, at about 5.15 p.m., his wife was riding a Honda Activa bearing Registration No.KA-53-ED-7203 on ITPL Main Road from Hope Farm towards Hoodi on the extreme left side of the road slowly and cautiously by observing SCCH-19 10 MVC.No.3421/2014 all traffic rules and regulations and when she reached near Big Bazar Junction, by that time all of a sudden a BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-743, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger human life without observing any traffic rules, came in a high speed and dashed against the Motor Cycle of the deceased Nivedita Jha from back side. As a result of the forced impact, she fell down and on that time the said BMTC bus ran over her waist and thighs and as such she sustained grievous injuries and she succumbed to the grievous injuries on her way to Vydehi Hospital.
13. During cross-examination, the contesting Respondent attempted to elicit that the accident was due the fault of the deceased Nivedeta Jha itself suggesting that the place of accident was with full of vehicle and public tranquility and alleged accident was occurred near bus stop, after signal light. But PW.1 denied this suggestion as false stating that the accident was after signal light, but it was occurred at distance of 15 feet away from alleged bus stop. With this Respondent SCCH-19 11 MVC.No.3421/2014 made an attempt to say that as there was bus stop, the bus was moving slowly and cautiously and there was no rash or negligence in driving the bus by its driver and as such the alleged accident was not due the fault of the driver of the bus. But, PW.1 denied it false. Further the Respondent attempted to elicit that with respect to the damages for the bike suggesting that the left portion of the mirror and frond handle of the Motor Cycle was got damaged. With this Respondent attempted to say that as she made an attempt to pass through between bus and other vehicles and the right handle of the Motor Cycle came in to contact with left side of the body of the bus and as a result she fell down and sustained injuries. But nothings has been elicited from the mouth of the PW.1, as Pw.1 denied said suggestion as false.
14. Further to substantiate the fact that the accident was due to the fault of the deceased only, the Respondent examined the driver of the bus wherein he has stated his evidence as RW.1 and deposed that on 01.08.2014 while he was proceeding on the schedule trip slowly and cautiously observing all the SCCH-19 12 MVC.No.3421/2014 traffic rules and regulations and at about 5.30 p.m., when he was proceeding on ITPL Main Road and when he reached near Big Bazar bus stop he had stopped the bus for alighting and picking of the passengers and after getting the signal from the conductor slowly he moved the bus and at that time, the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-ED-7203 by driving in rash and negligent manner in high speed on the busy main road and in order to overtake other vehicles passing on the said road tried to pass through in between the moving bus and other vehicles. As there was no much space to pass through, the handle of the said Motor Cycle came in contact with the right side hind portion of the slow moving bus and as a result she lost the balance and fell on road and suffered injuries. But during cross-examination it is elicited that the accident was occurred at distance of 10 feet from the junction and thereafter 10 feet there is bus stop. But PW.1 has denied this suggestion as false and attempted to say that the accident was near bus stop only. Further the RW.1 stated that the rider of the Motor Cycle i.e., deceased was moving in her two wheeler SCCH-19 13 MVC.No.3421/2014 on the left side of the bus, but PW.1 had denied as false stating that she was going on the right side of the bus and on that time the rear right side wheel of the bus ran over the said deceased Nivedita Jha. This contradiction the defence of the Respondent as case it is the specific defence of the Respondent that the deceased was riding her Motor Cycle on the left side of the bus and she was attempted to over take the other vehicles and she made an attempt to pass through in between the moving bus and other vehicles and on that time as there was no much space, the right handle of the Motor Cycle came into contact with the middle portion of left body of the bus and as such deceased by loosing control over her vehicle and fell on the hard surface and sustained grievous injuries. But in the cross- examination he stated that, deceased was moving on the right side of the vehicle and the right rear wheel of bus ran over the deceased Nivedita Jha.
15. Apart from this evidence, the Petitioner has produced police document like FIR, complaint and also Charge Sheet filed against the driver of the offending bus, to substantiate the SCCH-19 14 MVC.No.3421/2014 fact that the alleged accident against the deceased Nivedita Jha was due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC bus. On reading report which is marked at Ex.P.2, it is stated that on 01.08.2014 he was deputed duty of traffic police from 2.00 p.m to 10.00 p.m and accordingly he was discharging his duty. At about 5.15 p.m the BMTC bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-743 driven by its driver was coming in high speed from ITPL main road and by driving the same in rash and negligent manner, hit against the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-53-ED-7203 from back, which was going ahead of the said bus and as a result the rider of the Motor Cycle fell on the road and by that time the right rear wheel bus ran over the waist and thighs of the rider of the Motor Cycle and as such she sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the complainant sent the injured along with one P.C 9109 to the to the hospital in an auto rickshaw, but thereafter PC 9109 Sri.Ram called him over telephone and stated that the said injured was died during transit. Basing on that complaint report the police registered case against the SCCH-19 15 MVC.No.3421/2014 driver of the bus and took up investigation proceeded to the spot and conducted mahazar and prepared rough sketch at the spot. Wherein it shows that the two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-53-ED-7203 was proceeding towards Hoody on the left side of the road itself. By that time the bus which was coming on the middle of the road towards Hoodi, have taken the bus towards left side and dashed against the two wheeler which was going on its left side of the road and caused accident. This clearly goes to show that the accident was due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Ex.P.5 is the IMV report reflects that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects. Though the counsel for the Respondent attempted to take advantage of the damages on the two wheeler by referring Ex.P.5 IMV report and assigned that the said two wheeler had got damage on the left side, i.e., the rear view mirror was damaged and scratches found on head light assembly at left side, scratches found on front left side shape at the corner etc and with this, they made an attempt to say that since the right handle of the two wheeler came into SCCH-19 16 MVC.No.3421/2014 contact with left side of the body of the bus as deceased made an attempt to over take the other vehicles and made an attempt to pass through in between bus and other vehicles and by that time the right handle of the said two wheeler came into contact with bus and as a result she lost control over the said vehicle and fell on the ground and as such there was damages on the left side of the two wheeler etc. But, substantiate the said fact he has not produced any material evidence before this court nor elicited any material admission. Mere the fact that there is damages on the left side of the vehicle in which the deceased was moving, it cannot be said that the accident was due to sole negligence of the deceased Nivedita Jha. On the other hand, if any vehicle due to accident fell on the ground naturally, there will be damages on the said vehicle and with this, it cannot be said accident was due to actionable negligence on the part of the deceased herself. Hence the defence set out by the Respondent that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus in the alleged accident etc., holds no water. No doubt the learned counsel for the Respondent has cited an SCCH-19 17 MVC.No.3421/2014 authority to stating that mere involvement of the bus, it cannot be held Respondent for the accident alleging was due to the fault of the bus only. But here in the case on hand there is sufficient materials to show that the accident was due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Hence with due Respondent I beg to submit that the decision cited by the Respondent, will not help the Respondent in establishing their defence and escape from the liability to paying compensation. On the other hand, the materials placed by the Petitioner clearly shows that the alleged accident against the deceased was due to rash and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus and in that accident she succumbed to the injuries during her way to the hospital and which is evident of reading of P.M. report and inquest report, as this mentioned cause of death as per Ex.P.6 postmortem report, is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries sustained. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
SCCH-19 18 MVC.No.3421/2014
16. Issue No.3:- In view of the discussion held under Issue No.1, it is held that the Petitioner No.1 has proved that he is the husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha. Though Petitioners claims that they were dependents on the income of the deceased Nivedita Jha stating that she was also one of the earning members in the family and she use to look after her family by contributing her income. But, during cross- examination by Respondent, it is elicited that PW.1 also has income of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- p.m and he is doing business. Hence he cannot treated as dependent on the income of the deceased Nivedita Jha. Further the Petitioner No.2 and 3 are in laws of the Deceased and they cannot be treated as dependents. Hence they are not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. But Petitioner No.1 being the husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha is entitle for compensation under the following heads.
1. Loss of Estate,
2. Loss of love and affection, SCCH-19 19 MVC.No.3421/2014
3. Transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies expenses,
17. PW.1 is husband of deceased Nivedita Jha deposed in his evidence that, his wife was hale and healthy and aged about 27 years and she was working as Software Engineer at TCS company, ITPL area, Bangalore and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- p.m and she used to contribute her income towards maintenance of the family. Due to sudden demise of his wife, the family members are completely broken and life has become desolated by the grief causing lot of pain, shock, mental agony and financial difficulties.
18. To substantiate the age of his wife i.e., deceased Nivedita Jha was aged about 27 years as on the date of the accident, the Petitioner has produced document like certificate issued by the Central Board of Secondary Education which is marked at Ex.P.12 wherein the deceased's date of birth shown as 13.11.1987. Hence, Nivedita Jha was 27 years as on the date of the accident.
SCCH-19 20 MVC.No.3421/2014
19. It is the evidence of PW.1, his wife deceased Nivedita Jha was working as Software Engineer at TCS company and earning a sum of Rs.45,000/-. To substantiate the fact that she was working as Software Engineer, he produced document like Ex.P.17 issued by the TCS Ltd., and Ex.P.18 pay slips pertain to the pay details of the deceased Nivedita Jha wherein her net pay shown as Rs.39,993/-. Further to substantiate the her avocation and income of the deceased examined the one Mahesh.G.K working as HR Business Process Lead. He deposed in his evidence that the deceased Nivedita Jha was working in their company as Software Engineer and drawing salary of Rs.39,993/- and he has produced documents with appointment letter and pay slips and attendance register etc. Hence the evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the evidence of PW.2 in establishing the fact that the deceased Nivedita Jha was working as Software Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.39,993/- p.m. Further the record depicts that the deceased was aged about 27 years and she had bright future. Hence, future prospectus of 40% of the salary is added to the income of SCCH-19 21 MVC.No.3421/2014 the deceased Nivedita Jha as future prospectus. Hence her income has taken as Rs.55,990/- (Rs.39,993/- + 15,997). Out of the said amount, if 1/2 of the amount i.e., Rs.27,995/- is deducted towards her personal and living expenses, the net monthly income would come to Rs.27,995/- and her annual income would be at Rs.3,35,940/-. Since the deceased was aged about 27 years, the appropriate multiplier is taken as 17, as per the decision of Hon'ble Appex Court in Sarla Verma and others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and another. Accordingly Petitioner No.1 is entitle compensation of Rs.57,10,980/- (Rs.3,35,940/- X 17) towards loss of estate.
Loss of Love and Affection The Petitioner No.1 to 3 being the husband and Petitioner No.2 and 3 being in laws of the deceased Nivedita Jha, they have lost their wife and daughter in law respectively. Keeping the said fact in the mind, the tribunal is of the consider opinion that Petitioner No.1 to 3 are entitle for award of compensation of Rs.10,000/- each. Thus, in all the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are SCCH-19 22 MVC.No.3421/2014 entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards Loss of love and affection.
Transportation of Dead Body and Funeral and Obsequies Expenses The Petitioners have stated that they have spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies expenses. In this regard the Petitioners have not produced any documents. Mere the fact that, it cannot be said that Petitioners have not at all spent any amount for performing obsequies ceremony and funeral expenses. In the absence of documents minimum compensation of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards the transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies expenses.
Thus in all the Petitioners are entitled for compensation is under:-
Loss of estate : Rs.57,10,980/-
Loss of love & affection : Rs.30,000/-
Transportation of dead body and : Rs.30,000/-
funeral and obsequies expenses
TOTAL Rs.57,70,980/-
Thus this Tribunal finds it just and fair to award compensation of Rs.57,70,980/- with interest at 6%p.a. to the Petitioners.
SCCH-19 23 MVC.No.3421/2014
20. With regard to liability: It is the specific case of the Petitioners that the accident was due to actionable negligence on the part of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA- 743, which belongs to the Respondent corporation as the Respondent only had admitted that the said bus was belongs to their corporation and it was assigned the route, which was driven by its driver on the date of accident. Hence, the Respondent being the R.C.Owner of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-743 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the petition and till realization. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
21. Issue No.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
a) The Petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
b) Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.57,70,980/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till realization from Respondent.SCCH-19 24 MVC.No.3421/2014
c) Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days, from the date of this order.
d) After depositing the compensation amount by Respondent the Petitioner No.1 being the husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha is entitled for compensation of Rs.57,50,980/-. The Petitioner No.2 and 3 being the in laws of deceased Nivedita Jha are entitle for compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and they are at liberty to draw their entire amount of compensation.
e) Applying the principles of Susamma Thomas case reported in AIR 1994 SC P.1631, Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to draw 40% of his compensation amount and the remaining 60% shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank in F.D. in the name of Petitioner No.1 for a period of 3 years.
f) Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
g) Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized transcript thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2015).
(C.G.Vishalakshi) Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore SCCH-19 25 MVC.No.3421/2014 ANNEXURES Petitioners Witnesses:
PW.1 : Sri.Manoj Kumar PW.2 : Sri.Mahesh G.K Respondents Witnesses: RW.1 : Sri.Gunderaya Petitioners Exhibits: Ex.P.1 : C.C. of FIR Ex.P.2 : C.C. of Complaint Ex.P.3 : C.C. of Spot sketch Ex.P.4 : C.C. of Spot panchanama Ex.P.5 : C.C. of IMV report Ex.P.6 : C.C. of Postmortem report Ex.P.7 : C.C. of Notice U/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.P.8 : C.C. of reply of notice U/s 133 M.V. Act Ex.P.9 : C.C. of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.10 : Notarised copy of Marriage certificate Ex.P.11 : Notarised copy of driving license Ex.P.12 : Notarised copy of Secondary School Examination certificate Ex.P.13 : Notarized copy of Senior School certificate examination Ex.P.14 : Notarized Copy of statement of marks and Grades Ex.P.15 : Certificate issued by TATA Consultancy Service Ex.P.16 : Notarised copy of ID card Ex.P.17 : Appointment letter Ex.P.18 : Pay slip Ex.P.19 : Leave certificate Respondents Exhibits:
-Nil-
(C.G.Vishalakshi) Member SCCH 19.SCCH-19 26 MVC.No.3421/2014
AWARD BEFORE THE XV ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL: METROPOLITAN AREA(MAYO HALLL UNIT):BANGALORE (SCCH-19) M.V.C.NO.3421/2014 Petitioners : 1. Sri. Manoj Kumar, Aged about 29 years, S/o. Ganjndra Jha,
2. Sri.Gajendra Jha, Aged about 28 years, S/o. Bhup Narayana Jha,
3. Smt. Munnidevi, Aged about 51 years, S/o. Gajendra Jha, All are Residing at Sai Krupa Elite Apartments, Flat No.111, Block - A, FERN CITY Road, Near Total Mall, Doddanekkundi, Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
(By Sri.M.S., Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondent : The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C. Central Office,
Shanthinagar, K.H.Road,
Bangalore-560 027.
(Bus No.KA-01/FA-743)
(By Sri.A.A., Advocate)
SCCH-19 27 MVC.No.3421/2014
WHEREAS this petition filed on .................. by the
Petitioners above named u/s 166 of the M.V.Act praying for compensation of Rs..........................for death of.................................... in a Motor accident by ...............................
WHEREAS this claim petition coming up before Smt.C.G.Vishalakshi, B.A.L. LL.B(Spl), Member, Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore in the presence of Sri .................................Advocate for the Petitioners and Sri.............................Advocate for Respondent No.1 remained exparte and Sri....................................Advocate of Respondent No.2.
WHEREAS this Tribunal doth ordered that:
a) The Petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
b) Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.57,70,980/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till realization from Respondent.
c) Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days, from the date of this order.
d) After depositing the compensation amount by Respondent the Petitioner No.1 being the husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha is entitled for compensation SCCH-19 28 MVC.No.3421/2014 of Rs.57,50,980/-. The Petitioner No.2 and 3 being the in laws of deceased Nivedita Jha are entitle for compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and they are at liberty to draw their entire amount of compensation.
e) Applying the principles of Susamma Thomas case reported in AIR 1994 SC P.1631, Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to draw 40% of his compensation amount and the remaining 60% shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank in F.D. in the name of Petitioner No.1 for a period of 3 years.
f) Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the court this the ..........................................
Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore SCCH-19 29 MVC.No.3421/2014 By the Petitioner Respondent Court fee paid on petition: 10-00 Process Pleader's fee . ------------------
--------------
Total:
------------------
-------------
Draft award computerized By steno on 28.02.2015 SCCH-19 30 MVC.No.3421/2014 28.02.2015 (Judgment pronounced in open court(vide separate orders)
a) The Petition filed U/s.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
b) Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.57,70,980/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the petition till realization from Respondent.
c) Respondent is hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within 30 days, from the date of this order.
d) After depositing the compensation amount by Respondent the Petitioner No.1 being the husband of the deceased Nivedita Jha is entitled for compensation of Rs.57,50,980/-. The Petitioner No.2 and 3 being the in laws of deceased Nivedita Jha are entitle for compensation of Rs.10,000/- each and they are at liberty to draw their entire amount of compensation.
e) Applying the principles of Susamma Thomas case reported in AIR 1994 SC P.1631, Petitioner No.1 is at liberty to draw 40% of his compensation amount and the remaining 60% shall be kept in any Nationalized Bank in F.D. in the name of Petitioner No.1 for a period of 3 years.SCCH-19 31 MVC.No.3421/2014
f) Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-
.
g) Draw award accordingly.
Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore SCCH-19 32 MVC.No.3421/2014