Bangalore District Court
Smt.Sakamma vs Sri.Nayazuddin on 15 September, 2016
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.5186/2015
Dated this the 15th day of September 2016
Petitioner/s : Smt.Sakamma,
W/o Hanumanthegowda
Aged about 30 years,
R/at E-476,
Chowdeshwari Nagar,
Rajeev Gandhi Nagar
Laggere,
Bangalore-560056.
V/s (By pleader Sri AD)
Respondent/s 1. Sri.Nayazuddin
S/o Ahmad Khan,
Aged 24 years.
Residing at No.279/A,
Sobo Technology,
4th phase, 4th main road,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore-560056.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
1st 'A' cross,
Police station Road,
1st stage,
Peenya Industrial area,
Bangalore-560056.
(R1-By pleader Sri CNS
R2-By pleader Sri TSC)
SCCH-14 2 MVC NO.5186/2015
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioner was aged 30 years, was a helper and earning Rs.7,000/- per month. On 11.08.2015 at about 08.45 am., the petitioner was crossing the road from east to west direction at Peenya 2nd stage near BMTC bus stand, opposite to Ambur Dhum Star Biriyani Hotel, Bangalore city and at that time, motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5358 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations in high speed came and dashed against to the petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, she was taken to ESI medical College and Medical hospital and Jaimaruthi hospital and private clinics. The petitioner sustained fracture of lateral malleolus of left ankle joint and injuries to other parts of the body. Due to the accidental injuries, she became permanently disabled. She is not able to stand, walk, climb steps. She is still suffering from pain. She is still under treatment. She spent Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- for conveyance, Rs.15,000/- for nourishment. Peenya Traffic police have registered Cr.No.120/2015 against the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5358 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondents are the owner and insurer of the said vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable SCCH-14 3 MVC NO.5186/2015 to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with Court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have appeared before the Court through their respective counsel and filed their objection statement separately. They have denied the averments of the petition as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondent No.1 has contended that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the petitioner and an unknown vehicle was involved in the accident, that his vehicle was not involved in the accident, but it is falsely implicated in the case by colluding with the police for getting compensation, that his vehicle was having insurance on the date of accident and he was holding a valid learners license which was valid from 01.04.2015 to 30.09.2015, that he was learning to ride the vehicle with assistance of a person having valid license, that his vehicle was not damaged and he did not sustain any injury and as such, no accident was caused by him, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost.
The respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5358, but he has contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and as such, the police have filed charge SCCH-14 4 MVC NO.5186/2015 sheet against him for offences punishable U/s 3(1) R/w 181 of M.V.Act, that the petitioner has stated in her complaint that unknown vehicle has caused accident and later by colluding with the police, she has implicated the insured vehicle, that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the insured vehicle, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, unreasonable and disproportionate. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 11.08.2015 at about 08.45 a.m., opposite Sriram Delux Hotel, near Peenya 2nd stage, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent riding of rider of Motorcycle bearing No.KA-
02-HU-5358?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P9. The respondent No.2 has examined his officer as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 5. The respondent No.1 has not adduced SCCH-14 5 MVC NO.5186/2015 any evidence on his behalf. However, he has produced copy of LLR, copy of driving license, copy of registration certificate, copy of driving license of Kiran and copy of insurance policy under memo during arguments.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondents have filed written arguments also. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon following rulings;
1. 2005 ACJ 1968 (Rama Nand Pandey and Others Vs Nisha Tiwari and Ors)
2. 1996 ACJ 253 (NIACL Vs Mandar Madhav Tambe & Ors)
3. ILR 2011 KAR 2827 (Vishwanath Shetty Vs Vincent pinto & Anr )
4. MFA 820/2010 C/w MFA 382/2010 (Smt.Latha & Ors Vs Mahesha & Ors)
5. MFA 9159/2005 C/w MFA 1115/2005 (TNIACL Vs Afroz & ano) I have gone through the written arguments and rulings. I have perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.90,000/-
from the respondent No.1 Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The petitioner has pleaded that on 11.08.2015 at about 08.45 am., she was crossing the road at SCCH-14 6 MVC NO.5186/2015 Peenya 2nd stage, near BMTC bus stop, opposite Ambur Dhum Star biriyani hotel, Bangalore and at that time, motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5358 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against her, that she sustained fracture injury to left ankle and other injuries all over the body, that she sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement. The respondents are stated to be the owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5358. It is admitted that the respondent No.1 was riding the motorcycle on the date of accident. They have denied the case of the petitioner as false and contended that the motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-HU-5358 was not involved in the accident, but the petitioner met with an accident due to unknown vehicle and sustained simple injuries, that in order to get compensation, the said motorcycle is falsely implicated, that the petitioner has suffered injuries due to her own negligence.
9. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has relied upon her own oral evidence and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to
9. The respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. However, he has produced Xerox documents under memo during arguments which can not be treated as evidence. The respondent No.2 has examined his officer as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 5 which are relating to liability aspect.
10. PW.1 Sakamma is the petitioner and her evidence is as per the averments of the petition. In cross-examination, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has tried to elicit that the accident SCCH-14 7 MVC NO.5186/2015 has occurred due to her sole negligence and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-02- HU-5358, that the said motorcycle was not involved in the alleged accident, but it is falsely implicated in the case for getting compensation. PW-1 has denied the suggestions in that regard as false. Only on the basis of said suggestions and denials, the respondents can not establish their defence. RW-1:Rajalakshmi is the officer of the respondent No.2 and her evidence is regarding liability of the insurance company. She has deposed that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and as such the respondent no.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 and to compensate the petitioner. Her evidence is not regarding negligence aspect. She has not deposed about the manner of accident. Thus, there is no evidence to prove the defence of the respondents that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1, that the said motorcycle was not involved in the accident and the petitioner sustained injuries due to involvement of an unknown vehicle. On the contrary, the evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by the Ex.P1 to 9 which establish the case of the petitioner.
11. Copies of police records namely FIR. Sketch, panchanama, IMV report and charge sheet are at Ex.P1 to 5 which reveal that Peenya traffic police have registered Cr.No.120/2015 on 11.08.2015 at 08.30 pm., on the basis of information given by the petitioner, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against SCCH-14 8 MVC NO.5186/2015 the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC and U/s 3(1) R/w Sec.181 and 134 R/w Sec.187 of M.V.Act. There was no delay in lodging complaint. The sketch at Ex.P2 reveals that the petitioner was crossing the road from east to west and motorcycle came from south to north and caused accident on the western edge of the road. IMV report reveals that there were no damages on the motorcycle which was detained about 1½ month after the accident. Only on the basis that there were no damages on the motorcycle, it can not be held that the said motorcycle was not involved in the accident. The sketch and panchanama were drawn on 12.08.2015 in which the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident is mentioned. The police have registered Cr.No.120/15 against the respondent No.1 for causing of accident which remained unchallenged. The respondent No.1 has contended about false implication of his motorcycle, but he has not taken any action against police in that regard. Brake system of the vehicle was in order and the accident was not due to mechanical defects of the vehicle. Therefore, the accident should have occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner or of the respondent No.1 or of the both. PW-1 Sakamma has stated about the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the respondent No.1 and about causing of accident. There is no oral and documentary evidence regarding sole or contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has contested the matter, but he has failed to give evidence regarding manner of accident. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of charge sheet. Thus, the police records at Ex.P1 to 5 supports the SCCH-14 9 MVC NO.5186/2015 version of PW-1 regarding manner of accident and negligence of the respondent No.1 for the occurrence of accident.
12. Copy of wound certificate and discharge summary are Ex.P6 and 7 which reveal that the petitioner has sustained fracture injury in the accident. She was treated in ESI hospital, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. She underwent ORIF with wound debridement. There was no delay in admitting the petitioner to hospital. History of injury is mentioned as road traffic accident in medical records. X-rays at Ex.P9 confirms the causing of fracture injury to the petitioner. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P1 to 9 substantiate the averments of the petition. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. The respondents have examined RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1 to 5. The said evidence is not sufficient to prove the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The respondent no.1 has no evidence. Thus, the respondents have failed to prove their defence regarding manner of accident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has succeeded to prove this issue and I answer the issue in affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.2: PW.1:Sakamma has deposed about the injury caused to her in the accident, about treatment given to her in hospital, about amount spent by her for such treatment, about effect of injury. Hence, she has sought for awarding compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. There is nothing on record to disbelieve her evidence. However, corroboration is required to prove the facts under dispute. RW.1:Rajalakshmi has deposed that the respondent SCCH-14 10 MVC NO.5186/2015 no.1 was not holding a valid licence to ride the motorcycle and as such, the respondent no.2 is not liable to pay compensation. She has not deposed about injury and its effect on the petitioner.
14. Copy of charge sheet reveals that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury in the accident. Copy of wound certificate and discharge summary at Ex.P6 and 7 coupled with x-rays at Ex.P9 reveal that the petitioner has sustained following injury in the accident:
Fracture of lateral malleolus with ankle subluxation on left side (type-1).
The petitioner was admitted in ESIC hospital from 11.08.2015 to 20.08.2015 and underwent following course:
ORIF with 1/3rd tubular plate and wound Debridement.
She was an impatient for 10 days. The injury caused to her is of nature which requires follow up treatment and rest for a period of 2-3 months. Total laid up period comes to 3 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart from incurring medical expenses. The petitioner has not produced medical bills. PW.1 has admitted that treatment in ESIC hospital was free. Since, she was covered under ESI Act, she would have received ½ pay during laid period. Wage slips at Ex.P8 reveal that the petitioner was drawing a salary of Rs.6,350/- as on 31.01.2015. The second pay slip is of January-2016. It means, the petitioner has continued the same job in the same company and SCCH-14 11 MVC NO.5186/2015 she has drawn a salary of Rs.6,860/- for the month of January-2016. There is nothing on records to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P8 which reveal that the petitioner was a helper and was earning income. In view of pay slips of January-2015 and of January-2016, I am inclined to hold that the petitioner was getting a salary of Rs.6,500/- as on the date of accident. She has lost ½ pay for 3 months which comes to Rs.9,750/- and it can be rounded to Rs.10,000/-.
15. The petitioner has not examined any doctor and not produced any medical certificate as to causing of disability due to accidental injury. In the absence of medical evidence, oral evidence of PW.1 as to disability can not be believed. However, the injury might have caused certain difficulties leading to loss of amenities. 2nd pay slip of the petitioner at Ex.P8 falsifies the evidence of PW.1 that she lost her job after the accident. There is no evidence as to requirement of treatment in future, but the petitioner underwent ORIF with tubular plate which means implants are in situ. The petitioner will be treated at free of cost in ESIC. However, we have to consider the expenses towards nourishment, conveyance, attendant charges and loss of income after future surgery. Hence, reasonable amount may be granted towards future medical expenses. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
SCCH-14 12 MVC NO.5186/20151. Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2 Nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
3 Loss of income during Rs.10,000/-
laid of period
4 Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/-
5 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.90,000/-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015 (arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs. Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
LIABILITY
16. The petitioner has proved that the accident was due to negligence of the rider of motorcycle bearing no.KA-02-HU-5358 i.e., the respondent no.1. There is no dispute that the said motorcycle was duly insured with the respondent no.2. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. However, the respondent no.2 has denied his liability on the ground that the respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of policy. He has examined RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 to 5 to prove his defence. The respondent no.1 has contented that he has not violated any condition of policy and as such, the respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. He SCCH-14 13 MVC NO.5186/2015 has not produced any evidence on his behalf. He has produced Xerox documents during arguments which remained unmarked and the said documents can not be considered as evidence.
17. RW.1:Rajalakshmi has stated that the respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, that the police have filed charge sheet against the respondent no.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC and U/s 181 and 187 of M.V. Act, that the respondent no.1 has violated policy conditions and hence, the respondent no.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.1. Nothing is elicited from her to disbelieve her evidence.
18. Ex.R2 is copy of policy which reveals that the respondent no.2 has issued policy in favour of the respondent no.1 in respect of Motorcycle bearing no. KA-02-HU-5358 and the policy was in force on the date of accident. Ex.R3 is postal cover and it discloses that the respondent no.2 has issued letter to the respondent no.1 and it was not served upon him. Ex.R5 is copy of notice issued by I.O on 29.09.2015 to the respondent no.1 which confirms that the respondent no.1 is the owner of the Motorcycle involved in the accident. There is no dispute in that regard. Ex.R4 is copy of charge sheet which goes to show that the police have filed charge sheet against the respondent no.1 for causing grievous injury to the petitioner by riding his Motorcycle in rash and negligent manner without holding valid and effective driving licence and failed to take care of the injured and to inform the police SCCH-14 14 MVC NO.5186/2015 regarding accident. It is settled law that charge sheet is not a conclusive proof of allegations made therein, but in this case, the respondent no.1 has categorically admitted that he was holding learners licence on the date of accident. Driver clause in the policy at Ex.R2 reads as under:
"Any person including the insured, provided that a persons driving holds an driving license at the time of accident and is not disputed from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person stratifies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.1989".
The above clause makes it clear that a person holding learner's licence is also authorized to ride the Motorcycle, but he has to comply the provisions of rule 3 of CMV Rules which read as under:
3.General : The provisions of sub-section (1) of section 3 shall not apply to a person while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving with the object of presenting himself for a test of competence to drive, so long as:
(a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle:
(b) such person is a accompanied by an instructor holding an effective driving licence, to drive the vehicle and such instructor is sitting in such a position to control or stop the vehicle:and
(c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front and the SCCH-14 15 MVC NO.5186/2015 rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background as under:
L Note: The painting on the vehicle or on the pate or card shall not be less than 18 centimeters squares and the letter "L" shall not be less than 10 centimetres high, 2 centimetres wide at the bottom:
Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other person on the motorcycle except for the purpose and in the manner referred to in clause (b)".
The respondent no.1 has contended that he has complied the provisions of Rule 3 of CMV Rules, that one Kiran who was holding driving licence was with him on the Motorcycle at the time of accident. His contention is denied by the respondent no.2. Then, it was the duty of the respondent no.1 to prove his contention by producing evidence, either oral or documentary. But, the respondent no.1 has not adduced any evidence to prove that Kiran was holding driving licence to ride a Motorcycle and he was with him on his Motorcycle at the time of accident. In the absence of evidence, contention of the respondent no.1 is unacceptable and unbelievable. The respondent no.1 himself has stated that he was learning to ride motorcycle. It means, he was not knowing the skill of riding a motorcycle. He was riding motorcycle bearing no.KA-02- HU-5358 without complying the provisions of Rule 3 of CMV Rules. I am of the opinion that the respondent no.1 has committed breach of policy condition regarding driving licence. Hence, the respondent SCCH-14 16 MVC NO.5186/2015 no.2 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.1. The burden to pay compensation to the petitioner is upon the respondent no.1. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
19. 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.90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.SCCH-14 17 MVC NO.5186/2015
The claim petition as against the respondent no.2 is dismissed without cost.
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 15th day of September 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 18 MVC NO.5186/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Sakamma
Respondent' s
RW.1 Rajalakshmi
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 - Copy of Sketch
Ex.P3 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P4 - Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P5 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P6 - Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P7 - Discharge Summary
Ex.P8 - Wage slips (2 in nos.)
Ex.P9 - X-rays (6 in nos.)
Respondent's
Ex.R1 - Authorization Letter
Ex.R2 - Copy of Policy
ExR3 - RPAD Cover
Ex.R4 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.R5 - Copy of 133 notice
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 19 MVC NO.5186/2015
Dt.15.09.2016
P-AD
R1-CNS
R2 -TSC
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.SCCH-14 20 MVC NO.5186/2015
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition as against the respondent no.2 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 21 MVC NO.5186/2015
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.5186/2015 Petitioner/s : Smt.Sakamma, W/o Hanumanthegowda Aged about 30 years, R/at Evidence-476, Chowdeshwari Nagar, Rajeev Gandhi Nagar Laggere, Bangalore-560056.
V/s (By pleader Sri AD)
Respondent/s 1. Sri.Nayazuddin
S/o Ahmad Khan,
Aged 24 years.
Residing at No.279/A,
Sobo Technology,
4th phase, 4th main road,
Peenya Industrial Area,
Bangalore-560056.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
1st 'A' cross,
Police station Road,
1st stage,
Peenya Industrial area,
Bangalore-560056.
(R1-By pleader Sri CNS
R2-By pleader Sri TSC)
SCCH-14 22 MVC NO.5186/2015
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the
petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for 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, 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.90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.SCCH-14 23 MVC NO.5186/2015
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition as against the respondent no.2 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.SCCH-14 24 MVC NO.5186/2015
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
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 25 MVC NO.5186/2015
SCCH-14 26 MVC NO.5186/2015