Bangalore District Court
Sri.Rangaswamy vs M/S Future General India on 23 November, 2022
SCCH-20 1 MVC No.1924/2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
V ADDL. JUDGE SCCH20, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2022
Present: Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC. No.1924/2021
PETITIONER: 1. Sri.Rangaswamy
S/o Late Thimmegowda
Aged about 53 years,
2. Mr.Puneethkumar
S/o Rangaswamy,
Aged about 32 years,
3. Smt.Asha.C.R.
D/o Rangaswamy
W/o Chandrashekar
Aged about 28 years,
4. Smt.Hemalatha
D/o Rangaswamy
W/o Chandrashekar
Aged about 26 years,
All the petitioner R/at;
Chamanahalli,
Maliyur post, Bannur Hobli,
T.Narasipura Taluk,
Mysore District - 571101
(By Pleader Sri.B.S.Devaraju)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s Future General India
SCCH-20 2 MVC No.1924/2021
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
T.P.Claims hub, 3rd and 4th floor,
Shravanee Krishna Mansion
100 feet road, 2nd block,
Jayanagara (East Jayanagara)
Bangalore - 560011
2. Smt.Girijamma
W/o Dasaiah
R/at ; Voddarakoppalu Village
Bannur Hobli,
T.Narasipura Taluk,
Mysore District
PIN 571101
(R1 By Pleader Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu
R2By Pleader Sri.Nagaraju.V.N)
JUDGMENT
This present petition is filed by petitioners seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/ for the death of one Smt.Prema.
2. Petition averments in brief are as follows; That on 06.12.2020 at about 07.15 pm., the deceased Prema was standing at the left side of the footpath, while the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.KA09JB0802, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said prema who felldown and sustained grievous injuries and later she SCCH-20 3 MVC No.1924/2021 succumbed on 29.12.2020. That the petitioners are the husband and children of the deceased and prays to grant compensation.
3. Per contra, the respondent No.1 filed written statement and submits that the petition is collusive since the driver of the alleged offending vehicle was not at all having driving license. Thus has sought for dismissal of the petition. The owner of the offending vehicle in the written statement denied the negligence on the part of the driver and admits that the vehicle was insured with the 1st respondent.
4. On basis of the Pleadings and materials, the following issues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 06.12.2020 at about 07.15 PM, the deceased was standing on extreme left side footpath on Mysore Malavalli main road, Bannur hobli, T.Narasipura taluk, while a new motor cycle bearing No.KA09JB0802 (Chassis No.MBLHAW128LH37549 and Engine NO.HA11EYLHJ37415) SCCH-20 4 MVC No.1924/2021 came in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the motor cycle and dashed against the deceased, as a result of forced impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the hospital?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner no.2 got examined as P.W.1 and other 5 witness as PW2 to PW6 and has produced 35 documents on his behalf. The respondent did not lead any evidence.
6. Heard the arguments from the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the materials placed before me.
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Point No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.3 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: According to the petitioner, on
SCCH-20 5 MVC No.1924/2021
06.12.2020 at about 07.15 pm., the deceased Prema was standing at the left side of the footpath at MysoreMalavalli main road,Chamanahalli, Bannur Hobli. That the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.KA09JB0802, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the said Prema, who felldown and sustained grievous injuries. That she was immediately taken to Government hospital , Bannur and later to JSS hospital Mysore. That she was discharged from the hospital on 23.12.20. That the pilliion rider of the offending vehicle also sustained injuries in the accident. That the said Prema, suffered breathing problems and later she succumbed to injuries on 29.12.2020, while she was taken to hospital. That the petitioners are the husband and children of the petitioner and prays to grant compensation.
9. In order to substantiate the allegation, the 2 nd petitioner got examined himself as PW1, who has reiterated the entire averments of the petition and also submits that his mother was agriculturist, milk vendor and was earning SCCH-20 6 MVC No.1924/2021 Rs.30,000/per month. That due to the accident, they are suffering very loss. To further substantiate the allegation, he also got produced 24 documents on his behalf and examined 5 witnesses as PW3 to 6 and produced total 35 documents.
10. The FIS is lodged by the PW1 himself on 08.12.2020, at about 11.30 A.M. As per Ex.P.2, he has submitted that on 06.11.2020, while he was in home at 07.30 P.M., he was informed by one Sri.Shanthi Bushan, that his mother met with any accident near Hut of Sri.Thimmaiah. That he immediately rushed to the spot and found his mother was injured at the head and leg and alleged motor cycle was found on the spot. That the pillion rider of the motor cycle was also injured and therefore both of them were sent to the hospital for treatment. That he came to know that the rider of the offending vehicle was chandraiah and another pillion rider was by name Arjun. That the said motor cycle which was found on the spot did not bear the registration number, since it was new vehicle. That he took his mother first to SCCH-20 7 MVC No.1924/2021 Bannur First aid hospital and then to JSS hospital of Mysore and therefore has sought for action against the rider of the motor cycle. Ex.P.2(a), is the further statement of PW1, who has submitted that his mother was discharged on 23.12.2020 and she sustained some breathing problem and succumbed to the injuries on 29.12.2020 while she was taken to the hospital. The FIR is lodged based upon Ex.P.2, alleging offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 187 of IMV Act, where it is very much clear that since the deceased was under treatment, there is delay in lodging the FIS. The spot panchanama and the sketch are produced as Ex.P.3 and 3(a) showing the place of accident. Inquest report conducted on 29.12.2020 is produced as Ex.P.4. The Post Morterm report is produced as Ex.P.5, reporting cause of death as 'due to head injury and its related complications as a result of road traffic accident'.
11. The IMV report produced as Ex.P.6, shows the damages to the front portion of the motor cycle and report is SCCH-20 8 MVC No.1924/2021 given that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the motor cycle. The final report is against the driver of the offending vehicle by name Chandraiah and also against the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., by name Girijamma, who is none other than the respondent No.2 in the above case, alleging offence punishable under section 279, 337, 304(a) of IPC along with section 39, 187, 192 of IMV Act.
12. The defence was taken by the respondent No.1 that there is negligence on the part of the deceased herself, who has failed to observe the traffic rules. The further main defence was taken up that since the rider of the motor cycle I.e, offending vehicle was a minor and having no driving license, the name of one Chandraiah has been implicated in the charge sheet in order to enable the petitioners to get compensation from the Insurer. In this regard, the respondent has not lead any evidence. But relies on the complaint that was lodged after 2 days of the accident. SCCH-20 9 MVC No.1924/2021 However the PW1 was cross examined in this regard.
13. During the course of the said cross examination, this PW1 submits that he is a resident of T.Narasipura, the complaint was lodged at T.Narasipura, the accident occurred in T.Narasipura and the address of the deceased is also of T.Narisipura. Therefore a suggestion was made by the counsel for the respondent that there is also a court in T.Narasipura, where he could have approached the counsel and file a petition in T.Narasipura itself. Thus, the counsel for the respondent argues that if the petition was filed inT.Narasipura, the true fact that the offending vehicle was driven by the minor, Arjun, who was not having the driving license, could have been brought out before the court and thus submits that petition is collusive in nature. Admittedly there is no jurisdiction for the petitioners to claim compensation in any of the courts. It is also true that the petitioners could have filed the petition in T.Narasipura itself. But have filed case before this court for best known reasons SCCH-20 10 MVC No.1924/2021 to them. Only based upon this fact that this petition is filed in Bangalore, when cause of action arises in T.Narasipura, court cannot assume that the accused has been implicated to get compensation and the court cannot dismiss the petition.
14. Next questions were regard to the verocity of the PW1, where he submits that he took his mother to Bannur Hospital and later to JSS hospital. However he denies that his mother's sister by name Manjula whose name is noted in Ex.P.27 has taken to the hospital, which is inpatient record pertaining to the JSS hospital Bangalore. He further submits that he does not know either one Arjun or one Chandraiah who were alleged rider and pillion rider of the offending vehicle. He further submits that he found the offending vehicle on the spot and denies that in order to get compensation, they have falsely alleged the accident against the offending vehicle. He also denies that minor by name Arjun was riding the vehicle and denies further that since the said minor had no driving license, he has lodged complaint SCCH-20 11 MVC No.1924/2021 against Mr.Chandraiah. He also further denies that if the petition was filed in T.Narasipura, the true facts would have been brought out and therefore he has lodged petition at Bangalore.
15. The PW2 is the MRD of JSS hospital, who has deposed that the patient by name Prema aged about 45 years was brought to their hospital at about 07.15. pm., with the alleged history of RTA and discharged on 23.12.2020. He has produced inpatient records as Ex.P.26 and MLC as Ex.P.27, which shows that the deceased was accompanied by one Smt.Manjula with history of accident of the pedestrian Vs 2 wheeler. As per final report produced, marked as Ex.P.7, the accused No.1 Chandraiah is shown to be resident of Ramanagara Taluk and District, but as per the other records, including the FIR, the said Chandraiah is shown to be resident of T. Narasipura. Thus submits that the said chandraiah who is only alleged to be the rider was not present at the place of the accident. Further, in this regard, SCCH-20 12 MVC No.1924/2021 he relies upon the MLC of the said injured Arjun of Bannur hospital, Ex.P.27 produced by the PW5, which shows that the injured Arjun was taken to the hospital by his mother, the respondent no.2. Thus counsel for the respondent submits that the said chandraiah, if was along with the injured Arjun, would have immediately accompanied the said Arjun and the hospital authorities would have noted the name of Chandraiah itself, which is not done so. But in this regard, the respondent did not try to examine any witness. The PW5, the MRD of the Bannur hospital was summoned by the petitioner, who produced only the documents and submits that they are not aware of the details of the said documents. No reason is there for the court to disbelieve the statement made in the MLCs.
16. Further in this regard, the alleged eye witness by name Mr.C.M.Shanthi Bhushan was examined as PW3. He submits that on 06.12.2020 at about 07.30 P.M., he was sitting near provision store, Chamanahalli, Bannur, where SCCH-20 13 MVC No.1924/2021 the lady was standing on the extreme left side footpath of Mysore. That suddenly, a new motor cycle ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner from Malavalli to Mysore took sudden extreme left side of the footpath and lost control and dashed against the said Prema, where she felldown and sustained grievous injuries. That she was immediately shifted to Government Hospital Bannur by him, along with other villagers. On his cross examination, he submits that the petitioners and he belongs to the same village. He further submits that he has seen the offending vehicle coming in a rash and negligent manner from about 20 feet distance. That he was very much present during time of panchanama and he has informed the PW1 regarding the accident. He further submits that immediately after the accident, the petitioner No.1 brother's son took the deceased to the hospital. He submits that he has not aware of the details of the 2 nd respondent in this case.
17 Further the PSI of T.Narasipura, who was the SCCH-20 14 MVC No.1924/2021 Investigating officer with respect to the said crime No.219/2020 was examined as PW4, where he submits that he obtained file from ASI.Rangaswamy, visited the spot, conducted the panchanama and since the said vehicle was a new one, the engine and Chassis number were provided. That the driver of the vehicle was one Chandraiah and the pillion rider was Arjun. A copy of notice issued to the owner of the vehicle as contemplated under section 133 of IMV Act is produced as Ex.P.28 and reply is given by the said owner as per Ex.P.29. He further submits that the vehicle was released by way of indemnity bond. The detailed cross examination of the PW3 was made by recalling him. He submits as per investigation , MLC was not done in Bannur hospital, where the MLC was done at JSS Hospital of Mysore. He further admits that the complaint was lodged after 3 days of the accident and he has not recorded the statement of said Manjula, who is alleged to be accompanying the deceased while was taken to JSS hospital as per Ex.P.27. Therefore he admits that in order to conduct proper investigation of the SCCH-20 15 MVC No.1924/2021 offence, the MLC has a very important role to play, which he has not collected from the concerned hospital. He further submits that he collected MLC pertaining to the said Arjun. Denies that the said Arjun was minor and also denies that the said Arjun was driving the vehicle.
18. Though the respondent has taken up the said defence that the Arjun was minor and he was riding the vehicle causing the accident, he has not lead any evidence in this regard. The investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer with regard to the accident cannot be doubted for not procuring the copy of MLC pertaining to the said Arjun. Though the material on record are very much clear to the fact that the said Chandraiah was driving the vehicle, in order to further clarify regarding doubt which might arise to this court, the petitioner themselves have summoned the records pertaining to the said Arjun from Bannur Community health center and KR Hospital, Mysore. Witness from respective hospitals were examined as PW5 and 6. As per the PW5,the SCCH-20 16 MVC No.1924/2021 FDA of the community health center, Bannur, a patient by name Arjun aged 19 years was brought to the hospital on 06.12.2020, with alleged history of road traffic accident on 06.12.2020 and produced MLC extract pertaining to the hospital as Ex.P.32. As per Ex.P.32, it is only noted that the said Arjun of OddaraKoppa, was brought to the hospital on 07.30 pm with history of RTA. Nothing is noted regarding how the accident has occurred and when the accident has occurred. Further, the MRT/MRO of K.R.hospital, examined as PW6, has produced out patient records and MLC pertaining to the said Arjun as Ex.P.34 and 35, where it is noted that the said Arjun was refereed from Bannur CMC, with alleged history of RTA at 7.pm., on Chammanahalli and that the said Arjun was a pillion rider in two wheeler. That the Arjun was admitted to the KR Hospital Mysore at about 11.10 P.M. in night.
19. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle, who is also the mother of the said Arjun. She has given SCCH-20 17 MVC No.1924/2021 details at KR hospital Mysore that the said Arjun was pillion rider of the said vehicle. The counsel for the respondent argues that there is no admitted relationship in between the rider of the vehicle and owner of the vehicle and therefore argues that a person will not handover the vehicle to some unknown, who are no way relative to the owner of the vehicle. In this regard, the entire burden to show that the said Chandraiah or the pillion rider Arjun and respondent No.2 are not relatives, was upon the respondent themselves who could have called for the evidence of the said Chandraiah or even summon the said Arjun. The oral and documentary evidence lead by the petitioners which are including the documents i.e., MLC pertaining to the said Arjun, clearly shows that the Arjun was aged about 19 years and Ex.P.35 is very much clear that the said Arjun was the pillion rider. The Ex.P.35 is also drawn on the same day of the accident. Apart from Ex.P.2, there is no other complaint lodged before the concerned police station with respect to the said accident. Whenever any injured is admitted to the hospital, the MLC SCCH-20 18 MVC No.1924/2021 are prepared and intimation is sent to jurisdictional police, who are under liability to secure the statement of victim in the said hospital and lodged FIR in this regard. In the instant case, such efforts are not made by the concerned police station who have received the MLC pertaining to the deceased or pertaining to the said Arjun. However, the fact that both the deceased and the Arjun were shifted to different hospitals at Mysore immediately after the first aid, is also to be considered for not recording the statement of the victims by the police. However, there is lacuna on the part of the investigation officer for not properly investigating the matter. The MLC prepared at K.R.Hospital on the same day clearly shows that the Arjun was the pillion rider. Therefore the entire burden which was on the respondent to show that the said Arjun was not pillion rider, was clarified completely by the petitioners themselves, by summoning the MRD of the concerned Bannur hospital and K.R.Hospital.
20. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon only SCCH-20 19 MVC No.1924/2021 presumption on the basis of delay of 2 days in lodging the complaint. Admittedly the deceased was taken to Mysore hospital immediately after first aid at Bannur Hospital, where one MLC was prepared. Therefore the PW1, who was getting treated his mother cannot be expected to leave her alone in Mysore hospital and rush to jurisdictional police for lodging proper complaint immediately. Therefore in this situation delay in lodging of FIS before concerned police can be condoned, only for the purpose of this case.
21. As stated earlier the respondent has not lead any evidence to show that offending vehicle was driven by the said Arjun. This court cannot base its judgment only on the assumption and presumption without any proof. However the documentary evidence are very much clear that the said Arjun was the pillion rider and driven by Chandraiah. The documentary evidence always prevails over the oral assumptions or the oral evidence of the parties. Thus, the preponderance of probabilities tilts in favour of the petitioners SCCH-20 20 MVC No.1924/2021 in the instant case, who have substantiated their allegation by the calling for proper records from the concerned hospitals.
22. As per Ex.P.3 and P.3(a), the accident has occurred at left side of the road, which runs from Malavalli to Mysore. There is divider noted in the said road as per the sketch. It is not in dispute that the deceased suffered grievous injuries in the accident committed by the 2 wheeler, while the deceased was the pedestrian, for which support, the alleged eye witness PWe is examined. Even the alleged motor cycle, without registration number was also found on the spot and pillion rider has sustained injuries. It was argued by the counsel for the respondent that the pedestrian/ deceased tried to cross the road without any signal and there is negligence on the part of the deceased in the said accident and therefore prays to contribute some negligence on the part of the deceased. In this regard, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of division bench of our Hon'ble SCCH-20 21 MVC No.1924/2021 High court of Karnataka in MFA No.2591/2001 in 'Anandan Vs Abdul Azeez and others' reported in '2004 ACJ 1091', where the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka, has held that "neither motor cyclist examined nor any other evidence was produced by the defendant in order to show that the pedestrian was crossing the road without caring for traffic and in the such a situation, it was held that the motor cyclist was solely responsible for the accident". This judgment is aptly applicable to the instant case on hand, where the respondent though took the defence that the petitioner was not caring for traffic, but did not examine any witness on their behalf nor tried to summon the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore in the given situation this court can easily come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the motorcylist, who ought to had taken care of the persons moving in the road. Therefore in the absence of the proper evidence by the respondent, who has relied upon assumption, this court can easily come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the motor cycle SCCH-20 22 MVC No.1924/2021 chandraiah in causing the accident and thus the above issue is answered in affirmative.
23. Issue No.2: As per the petitioners, the deceased was admitted to the hospital from 06.12.2020 to 23.12.2020. She was discharged from hospital and later she suffered breathing problem on 29.12.2020, for which she was taken to hospital immediately and was reported as brought dead and submits that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Inpatient case sheet pertaining to the deceased of JSS hospital was produced by the PW2 as Ex.P.26. The discharge summary is produced as Ex.P.19. As per Ex.P.19., the petitioner was admitted in the hospital from 06.12.2020 to 23.12.2020, with history of RTA, where she was operated with right fronto parieto temporal convexity, mass effect in the form of effacement of left lateral ventriole and left ward midline shift of 2.5 mm noted. On 09.12.2020 and was managed in ICU on oxygen. That she improved neurologically and was shifted to ward on 15.12.2020 and was later SCCH-20 23 MVC No.1924/2021 discharged with advice of some tablets, bed rest for 2 weeks and her condition at the time of discharge afebrile, vitals stable with GCS E4V4M6 moving all four limbs, continent. The respondent is not disputing the fact that the deceased did not die due to the accident. However as per say of the petitioners, the deceased died while she was taking to the hospital and post mortem was conducted at Bannur hospital on 29.12.20. The Post Mortem report as discussed above i.e., Ex.P.5, clearly shows that cause of death is due to head injury and its related complications as result of RTA. Therefore in this situation this court can conclude that the deceased died due to injuries caused to her head, which was due to the alleged accident on 16.12.2020. Therefore it is clear that the deceased was in the hospital for about 18 days and has incurred medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,04,827/ which the medical bills of total 49 in no.s are produced as Ex.P.22. Thus the petitioners are entitled under the head of food and nourishment to an extent of Rs.20,000/, attendant charges for Rs.20,000/. The SCCH-20 24 MVC No.1924/2021 deceased was taken from Bannur to Mysore for treatement and again brought back to Bannur and died on the way for her treatment, for which the petitioners are entitled for the conveyance chargesto an extent of Rs.10,000/. The Adhaar card of the deceased is produced as Ex.P.8, showing her year of birth as 1976. Therefore as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 45 years and therefore appropriate multiplier for the said age is 14.
24. The petitioners submits that the deceased was doing agriculture and milk vending business for which the documents are produced where the RTCs are marked as Ex.P.13 to P.16. These RTCs are standing in the name of the petitioner No.1 i.e., husband of the deceased. Further document issued by the milk vending cooperative society shows the payment made to the petitioner No.1 and is produced as Ex.P.17. These 2 documents as stated above are standing in the name of the petitioner No.1, by which this court can infer that the petitioner No.1 is the agriculturist SCCH-20 25 MVC No.1924/2021 and doing milk vending business. Therefore the deceased being wife of the petitioner No.1 can be only expected to have assisted the petitioner No.1 for agriculture and milk vending business work. Apart from this, no other document is produced to show the individual income of the deceased. Therefore the notional income to an extent of Rs.13,750/ can be considered.
25. The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the deceased, whereas the petitioner No.2 to 4 are the major children of the deceased. The petitioner No.2 to 4 admittedly are married. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No.2 to 4 as per recent authority of the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka are entitled equally with a share in the compensation. Going to the share of the petitioner No.2 to 4, the petitioner No.2 to 4 being major and married children, admittedly have their own independent income or dependent financially on their husbands. Therefore the petitioner No.2 to 4 cannot be considered to be monetarily SCCH-20 26 MVC No.1924/2021 depending on the income of the deceased, who was housewife. The petitioner No.3 and 4 are residing along with husband at different place from that of the petitioner No.1. Therefore petitioner No.2 to 4 being major children can be held to be entitled only for loss of love and affection to the tune of Rs.40,000/ each. Therefore, the dependent being 1, 1/3rd of the salary must be deducted towards personal expenses and not having job of permanent in nature 25% of established income must be added towards future prospects, in view of the judgment in 'Sarla Verma'.
Thus Loss of dependency calculation is as follows:
Yearly income of the deceased is 13750X12=1,65,000/
1. Calculating 25% future prospects:
25% X 1,65,000 = 41,250/ Adding 25% future prospects:
1,65,000+41,250= 2,06,250/
2. calculation 1/3d income of Rs.2,06,250/ 2,06,250 X 1/3 = 68,750/
3. Deducting 1/3rd personal expenses: SCCH-20 27 MVC No.1924/2021
Rs.2,06,25068,750/ 1,37,500/
4. Calculating loss of dependency
1,37,500 X '14' 19,25,000/
26. On conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, funeral expenses, I deem it fit to grant compensation at Rs.15,000/on each head.
27. The petitioners are the wife, children and parents of the deceased and have lost their future support, love and affection. Therefore the petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/ each, totally tuning to Rs.1,60,000/. Therefore, in all the petitioners are entitled to a compensation as calculated below;
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 19,25,000/ 2 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/ 3 Towards funeral and obsequies ceremonies Rs. 15,000/
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/
5. Medical bills Rs. 2,04,827/
6. Food and nourishment Rs. 20,000/
7. Attendant charges Rs. 20,000/ SCCH-20 28 MVC No.1924/2021
8. Conveyance Charges Rs. 10,000/ Total Rs.23,69,827/
28. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.23,69,827/ which can be rounded to Rs.23,70,000/
29. Liability: In this case, there is no disputed fact that the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the said motor cycle unnumberd earlier now bearing No.KA09JB0802 which caused accident. The respondent no.1 has failed to prove that the insurance company is not liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount and as on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly burdening the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioner, along with the present Bank rate of interest at 6%.
30. Issue No.3: After having answered issue No.1 and 2 as supra, I hold that, the petition filed by the petitioner is SCCH-20 29 MVC No.1924/2021 fit to be allowed in Part. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,70,000/ with interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in his name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The petitioner No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/ each, after deposit, entire amount shall be released in SCCH-20 30 MVC No.1924/2021 their favour with proper identification. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/.
Draw the Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 23rd day of November 2022) (Sharmila C.S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 : Puneeth Kumar C.R PW.2 : Ravishankar G.V PW.3 : C.M.Shanthi Bhushan PW.4 : Krishnappa N.G PW.5 : D.Yashwanth Rao PW.6 : Saraswathi.R Documents marked for petitioner: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR, Ex.P.2 : Copy of FIS
Ex.P.2(a) : Copy of further statement Ex.P.3 : copy of spot mahazar Ex.P.3(a) : copy of spot sketch Ex.P.4 : copy of Inquest mahazar Ex.P.5 : copy of PM report Ex.P.6 : copy of MVA report Ex.P.7 : copy of charge sheet Ex.P.8 : copy of adhaar card of the deceased Ex.P.912 : copy of adhaar card of the petitioners SCCH-20 31 MVC No.1924/2021 Ex.P.1316: copy of RTCs Ex.P.17 : Milk vending transaction details Ex.P.18 : JSS hospital out patient card Ex.P.19 : Discharge summary Ex.P.20 : Medical advance bills Ex.P.21 : Medical bills for Rs.2,04,827/ Ex.P.22 : JSS hospital Medical bills Ex.P.23 : Xrays 7 in nos Ex.P.24 : Xrays Ex.P.25 : Case sheet Ex.P.26 : Inpatient records Ex.P.27 : Accident register (MLC) Ex.P.28 : 133 notice Ex.P.29 : Reply to 133 notice Ex.P.30 : Indemnity bond Ex.P.31 : ID card issued by the health dept Ex.P.32 : certificate issued by Bannur Hospital Ex.P.33 : certificate issued by KR Hospital Ex.P.3435: Out patient records Witnesses examined for respondents: NIL Documents marked for respondents: NIL (Sharmila C S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.SCCH-20 32 MVC No.1924/2021
23.11.2022 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separate Order) ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,70,000/ with interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in his name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The petitioner No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/ each, after deposit, entire amount shall be released in their favour with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/.
Draw the Award accordingly.
V Addl. Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20 33 MVC No.1924/2021 AWARD SCCH NO.20 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC. No.1924/2021 PETITIONER: 1. Sri.Rangaswamy S/o Late Thimmegowda Aged about 53 years,
2. Mr.Puneethkumar S/o Rangaswamy, Aged about 32 years,
3. Smt.Asha.C.R. D/o Rangaswamy W/o Chandrashekar Aged about 28 years,
4. Smt.Hemalatha D/o Rangaswamy W/o Chandrashekar Aged about 26 years, All the petitioner R/at;
Chamanahalli, Maliyur post, Bannur Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District - 571101 (By Pleader Sri.B.S.Devaraju) V/s RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s Future General India Insurance Co.Ltd., T.P.Claims hub, 3rd and 4th floor, Shravanee Krishna Mansion 100 feet road, 2nd block, Jayanagara (East Jayanagara) Bangalore - 560011 SCCH-20 34 MVC No.1924/2021
2. Smt.Girijamma W/o Dasaiah R/at ; Voddarakoppalu Village Bannur Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District PIN 571101 (R1 By Pleader Sri.V.Shrihari Naidu R2By Pleader Sri.Nagaraju.V.N) 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 Smt.Sharmila CS, V Addl., Judge and XXIV A.C.M.M, Member, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.23,70,000/ with interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
SCCH-20 35 MVC No.1924/2021The petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.22,50,000/, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in his name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The petitioner No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/ each, after deposit, entire amount shall be released in their favour with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 ¬ _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-20 36 MVC No.1924/2021