Bangalore District Court
) Gowramma vs ) The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd on 26 September, 2016
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 26th day of September 2016
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, ., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.783/2016
Petitioners: 1) Gowramma
Aged about 40 years,
W/o Shivaraju.
2) Shivaraju,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Late Siddaiah.
3) Kiran Kumar,
Aged about 17 years,
S/o Shivaraju.
Petitioner No.3 being minor
Represented by his father/
Natural guardian Shivaraju,
S/o late Siddaiah.
All are residing at
Badregowdanadoddi Village,
Kottagalu Post, Harohalli Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(By Sri Girimallaiah, Advocate)
-Vs-
SCCH 1 2 MVC No.783/2016
Respondents: 1) The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.
Regional Office, T.P.Hub,
No.44/45, Leo Shopping
Compelx,
Residency Road,
Bengaluru -560 025.
(Insurer of Tractor -Trailer
Bearing Reg.No.KA-42-T-3010
KA-42-T-3011)
(By Sri Suneel S.Narayan ,
Advocate)
2. Shivane Gowda, Major,
S/o Reddy Gowda,
Achalu Village & Post,
Sathanoor Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(Owner of Tractor-Trailer bearing Reg.
No. KA-42-T-3010, KA-42-T-3011)
(By Sri G.M., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.20 lakhs from the respondents with regard to the death of their son Arun Kumar, S/o Shivaraju in the road traffic accident.
SCCH 1 3 MVC No.783/2016
2. The brief facts of the case are :
It is the case of the petitioner that on 15.12.2014 at about 4.55 a.m. when the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No. KA-05- HH-462 along with a pillion rider on the left side of Kanakapura- Sathanur road, near Bettegowda's house, between Jakkegowdanadoddi- Achalu, Sathanur hobli, Kanakapura taluk, Ramanagara district, at that time driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-42-T-3010, KA-42-T-3011, came at high speed from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, due to the impact the rider of the motor cycle and pillion rider thrown on the road and sustained grievous injuries.
3. Immediately after the accident, injured was shifted to Nimhans hospital, wherein the injured succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was hale and healthy and was aged 22 years and he was working as driver cum helper in Keerthana Enterprises and earning a sum of Rs.12,000/p.m. and he used to contribute the entire income towards the family and he was the only bread earner of the family and the petitioners are father, mother and minor brother of the deceased and they were depending upon him. The petitioners were entirely SCCH 1 4 MVC No.783/2016 depending on the earnings of the deceased and they are finding extremely difficult to eke out their livelihood as the deceased was the only earning member in their family.
4. The accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the Tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-42-T-3010, KA-42- T-3011 and the respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being the owner of the Tractor and trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners.
5. In pursuance of this claim petition, this Court issued notice against the respondents. Respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the Court through their respective counsels and have filed written statement separately.
Respondent NO.1 has filed written statement denying the petition averments. This respondent has denied the date, time and mode of accident, relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive and exorbitant. It is further contended that the driver of the Tractor and trailer was not possessing valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It is SCCH 1 5 MVC No.783/2016 further contended that he is not liable to pay any compensation since the concerned jurisdictional police station failed to forward all the related documents to this respondent within 30 days from the date of information of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The second respondent filed written statement denying the petition averments. It is contended that the rider and pillion rider of the motor cycle involved in the accident did not have valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident, hence, petition is liable to be dismissed. The date, time and mode of accident, age , avocation and income of the deceased, relationship of the petitioners with the deceased are all denied. The alleged accident is imaginary, unfounded, fictitious, concocted and after thought created story of the petitioners made with a malafide intention to make out claim under the guise of the alleged accident. The petitioners in collusion with the Police Officials have managed to register a case against the Tractor and trailer and got prepared the sketch to their convenience and to suit their claim. It is contended that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle which was involved in the accident and as such the rider as well as the pillion SCCH 1 6 MVC No.783/2016 rider of the motor cycle bearing No. KA-05-HH-462 was under the influence of alcohol and the rider drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident in the early morning at about 4.55 a.m. and hence, the accident occurred. The issuance of policy, in respect of Tractor and trailer bearing NO. KA-42-T-3010, KA-42-T-3011 is admitted and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. It is further contended that the first respondent reserves its right to amend its statement of objection and also to take over the defence of the insured in the event of the owner does not contest the proceedings under section 170 of M.V.Act. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
7. Based on the pleadings, this Court has framed the following:-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 15-12-2014 at about 4.55 a.m, Between Jakkegowdanadoddi-Achalu, On Sathanur-Kanakapura Road, Near Bettegowda's House, Sathanur Hobli, Ramanagara District, within the jurisdiction of Sathanur Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-42-T-
3010 and KA-42-T-3011by its driver?
SCCH 1 7 MVC No.783/2016
2. Whether the respondent No.1 and 2 proves that the accident was occurred on account of negligent act of the Deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order?
8. In order to prove their claim, the first petitioner is examined as PW-1, another witnesses is examined as PW-2 and they have got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to 16. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness as RW-1 and have got marked Ex.R.1 to 3.
9. I heard the arguments of respondent NO.1 counsel and petitioner has filed written arguments.
10. Having heard and perused the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1. Issue No.1 ... In the affirmative
2. Issue No.2 ... In the negative
3. Issue NO.3 ... partly in the affirmative
4. Issue No.4 ... As per final order For the following:
SCCH 1 8 MVC No.783/2016
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 and 2 : These two issues are inter-connected to each other and they are taken up together for discussions in order to avoid repetitions.
12. It is the case of the petitioners that on 15.12.2014 at about 4.55 a.m. when the deceased was riding motor cycle bearing No. KA-
05-HH-462 along with a pillion rider on the left side of Kanakapura- Sathanur road, near Bettegowda's house, between Jakke gowdanadoddi- Achalu, Sathanur hobli, Kanakapura taluk, Ramanagara district, at that time driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-42-T-3010, KA-42-T-3011, came at high speed from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, due to the impact the rider of the motor cycle and pillion rider thrown on the road and sustained grievous injuries and injured succumbed to the injuries at Nimhans hospital .
13. The petitioner in order to prove their case, first petitioner has filed affidavit reiterating the petition averments and also got marked the documents FIR, mahazar, charge sheet, P.M.Report, inquest report as Ex.P.1 to 5. She was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that she has not witnessed the SCCH 1 9 MVC No.783/2016 accident and she has not personally aware of how the accident was occurred. One Shivakumar has lodged the complaint and he was not present at the time of the accident. The petitioner has relied upon the evidence of PW-2 who is an eye witness according to the petitioner. He says the deceased was proceeding ahead of their vehicle and eh has witnessed the accident and in the cross-examination, he says he was a pillion rider in the motor cycle and the deceased was riding the motor cycle at the speed of 30 kms per hour and the said road is National High way and there is no any road divider and the same is double line road. He admits that he has not given any complaint but he admits that he had accompanied the injured in the ambulance. It is suggested that, he was not there at the time of the accident and only in order to help the family of the deceased, he is giving false evidence before the Court and the said suggestion was denied. Respondent No.2 counsel also in the cross-examination has elicited that his native place and the native place of the deceased is one and same and he gave the information of the accident at around 5.30 a.m. to the father of he deceased. He says that they were proceeding from north to south and on the east there are 5 to 6 houses and the place of SCCH 1 10 MVC No.783/2016 accident road is level road. He was at a distance of 20 feet and the deceased Arun Kumar was ahead of their vehicle. It is elicited that he saw the tractor at the distance of 60 to 70 feet and the width of the road is 20 feet and their motor cycle was at a distance of 4 feet at the edge of the left side of the road. The tractor was coming at the distance of 15 to 16 feet from the edge of the road on its direction. It is suggested that two wheeler can pass through on the left side of his direction and the said suggestion was denied and the witness volunteers that the tractor driver came on the right side of the road and there was no any vehicle infront of the tractor and there was no any vehicle ahead of the motor cycle of Arun Kumar on his direction. It is suggested that deceased Arun Kumar was riding the motor cycle with the influence of alcohol and the said suggestion was denied. It is further suggested that on account of the negligence of the Arun kumar the accident was occurred and the same was denied. It is also suggested that the accident was not occurred due to negligence of the driver of the tractor and the said suggestion was denied. It is elicited that the police have recorded his statement at Nimhans hospital at around 2 p.m. and he has not given their vehicle number while SCCH 1 11 MVC No.783/2016 giving the statement before the police since they have not enquired. It is admitted that at the distance of 3 kms there is a police station from the place of accident. It is suggested that he has not witnessed the accident and only to make him as eye witness his statement was recorded belatedly and the said suggestion was denied.
14. On the other hand respondents have examined the driver of the tractor as RW-1 and he says the tractor was not involved in the accident and his duty hours from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and his vehicle was not removed in the early morning and the same was removed at 9 a.m. The police came near the house of his owner and took the vehicle number and the vehicle was seized after 4 months of the accident. He relied upon Ex.R.1 to 3 i.e., notarized copy of two R.C and driving licence. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross- examination, he admits that the Sathanur police have filed the charge sheet against him and the said case is pending and he was released on bail. He has not produced any document before the Court that his duty hours is from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. It is suggested that, he has given false evidence before the Court that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and the said suggestion was denied.
SCCH 1 12 MVC No.783/2016
15. Now, let me appreciate the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and the driver who has been examined as RW-1 regarding negligence is concerned. Admittedly PW-1 and the complainant both have not witnessed the accident and now the evidence remains is of PW-2. PW- 2 categorically says that he was also proceeding in the motor cycle and the deceased was proceeding ahead of their vehicle and the tractor came exclusive to right side of the road and the accident was taken place. It is suggested that he was not present at the time of accident. It is elicited that he has not given the complaint. PW-2 categorically says he had accompanied the injured to the hospital in an ambulance and the same has not been disputed only a suggestion was made that he was not there at the time of accident and only in order to help the family of the deceased , he is giving false evidence before the Court and the same was denied. PW-2 has given the details in the cross- examination about the width of the road and they were at a distance of 4 feet at the edge of the left side of the road and tractor was coming at the distance of 15 to 16 feet from the edge of the road on its direction and this evidence has not been rebutted by the respondent and though RW-1 has been examined, he says that he has not removed the vehicle SCCH 1 13 MVC No.783/2016 in the early morning and he categorically admits Sathanur Police have filed the charge sheet against him and he has not challenged the charge sheet. He admits that he was released on bail in that case and his duty hours is from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. but he claims that police came near the house of his owner and took the vehicle number and the vehicle was seized after 4 months of the accident and the same was not been challenged and mere taking the defence that vehicle was not involved in the accident cannot be entertained unless they adduce evidence before the Court. Eye witness is examined as PW-2 and PW-2 has withstood the cross-examination and he has given the details of the width of the road as well as the manner in which the tractor was driven. The police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet and also it has to be noted that accident was taken place on 15.12.2014 and the complaint was given on the same day at 10.30 and specific allegation in the complaint is made against the driver of the Tractor and trailer. The police also investigated the matter and filed charge sheet in terms of Ex.P.3. Eye witness who has been examined before the Court has been arrayed as CW-3 in the charge sheet and the respondents have not rebutted the evidence of the SCCH 1 14 MVC No.783/2016 petitioners. For having taken the oral and documentary evidence, I accept the evidence of the PW-3 and documentary evidence and in the absence of cogent evidence, this Court cannot disbelieve the version of PW-2. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the respondent in his arguments without prejudice to the contentions he contended that Court has to take contributory negligence and I have already pointed out that though respondents have contended that negligence act of the deceased and the same is not substantiated by leading cogent evidence and mere examination of Tractor and trailer driver is not sufficient and he categorically admits filing of charge sheet against him. In order to consider the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence as held in the judgment reported in (2014 Kant.M.A.C. 330 (SC) ( Meera Devi and another )-No cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence, doctrine of common law cannot be applied. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative and issue NO.2 in the negative.
16. Issue No.3:- The petitioners have contended that claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased. In order to prove the same petitioners have produced the S.S.L.C. marks card of the deceased in SCCH 1 15 MVC No.783/2016 which his parents name has been mentioned as Gowramma and Shivaraj. Ex.P.5 ration card discloses the name of the parents of the deceased as Gowramma and Shivaraj and brother's name as Kiran. Hence, the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners are proved as that of mother , father and brother.
17. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased was working as driver cum helper at Keerthana Enterprises and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/p.m. In order to substantiate the same, the petitioners have relied upon the evidence of PW-1 who is the Mother of the deceased and she has produced S.S.L.C. marks card, I.T.I. marks card, ITI certificate issued by Kirloskar Toyota Textiles and the same are marked Ex.P.6 to 9 and also produced the driving licence of the deceased as Ex.P.10 and also relied upon the Aadhar card, election identity card and ration card of the petitioners at Ex.P.11 to 16. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he has not produced any document to show that he was earning Rs.12,000/p.m. It is suggested that her son was not working and hence, he has not produced any documents. PW-1 says she can examine the employer. It is suggested that ITI certificate is created for the purpose of this case and the same SCCH 1 16 MVC No.783/2016 was denied. She admits that her husband is working as coolie and she is also working as coolie during the life time of her son. Third petitioner is aged 17 years. It is suggested that third petitioner is also working and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that her son and his friends have consumed alcohol in the morning and her son himself went and dashed some other vehicle and the accident was not due to the involvement of the Tractor and trailer and the same was denied.
18. The petitioner counsel has relied upon the judgment reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 (Munnalal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others) . Petitioner counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 2849 (m.Mansoor and another Vs. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. and another) regarding deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenses of the deceased and the Apex Court has deducted 50% towards personal living expenses ad opted multiplier of 18 and also given Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of affection and Rs.10,000/- on account of funeral expenses.
19. Now, let me appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The respondent counsel also in his arguments, he SCCH 1 17 MVC No.783/2016 vehemently contended that though the claimants are before the Court, PW-1 categorically admits that her husband is working as coolie and she is also working as coolie and no loss of dependency and question of maintaining the petition does not arise. For having taken note of the said admission and on perusal of the age mentioned of the 3rd petitioner as 17 years, this Court has to rely upon the Aadhar card of 3rd petitioner which is marked at Ex.P.16. On perusal of the Ex.P.16 the age of the 3rd petitioner is mentioned as 01.01.1997 and the accident was taken place on 15.12.2014. On perusal of the ration card which was obtained on 22.6.2015 the age of the 3rd petitioner is mentioned as 18 and the accident was occurred on 15.12.2014. Hence, it is clear that he was aged about 17 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the contention of the respondent that 3rd petitioner also not dependant cannot be accepted. Mere accepting by PW-1 that she was doing coolie and her husband was doing coolie cannot be the ground to say that they were not depending on the income of the deceased son and they are not in the permanent employees and they have not doing coolie the question of survival and no doubt it is elicited that during the life time of the deceased also they were doing coolie and it cannot SCCH 1 18 MVC No.783/2016 be the ground to come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not the dependants.
20.It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was working as driver cum helper and was earning Rs.12,000/p.m. and to substantiate the same petitioners have not produced any document but they have produced driving licence of the deceased in terms of Ex.P.10 and deceased has done I.T.I. In support of his educational qualification they have produced S.S.L.C. marks card, I.T.I.marks card, ITI certificate, Training certificate issued by Kirloskar Toyota Textiles, Provisional National Trade certificate, Government Industrial Training Institute and driving licence at Ex.P.6 to 10. Ex.P.9 discloses that deceased had undergone In-plant Training in Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery Pvt.Ltd., from 17.3.2014 to 16.9.2014 as a part of his COE course and the said course if for a period of 6 months. Here, this Tribunal would like to rely upon the unreported judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in M.F.A 9394/13 c/w.9924/13 (B.Anuradha @ Anusha and others vs. M/s. Shriram General Insurance Co.,)wherein it is held that :
"...the deceased was a tailor by profession and the accident occurred on 09.03.2012. We are of the SCCH 1 19 MVC No.783/2016 considered view that the appropriate notional income be assessed at Rs.10,000/- p.m. The deceased was aged about 30 years as on the date the accident...."
In the case on hand, the deceased was working as driver cum helper and it is a skilled job and more over he had done I.T.I. Course, hence, I have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.9,000/- p.m. in the absence of documentary proof that, the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m.
21. It is important to note that in the recent judgment reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 (SC)( Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Vs. National Insurance company Ltd. And others) Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
Quantum - fatal accident -principles of assessment-multiplier-choice of -deceased aged 26 and claimants are father , mother and sister who got married during pendency of claim application -Tribunal adopted multiplier of 17-High Court reduced multiplier to 13 -whether multiplier of 17 based on the age of the deceased be applied - Held:yes, the age of dependants has no nexus with the computation of compensation .
SCCH 1 20 MVC No.783/2016 As per the above judgment in this case also, this Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased to arrive the proper multiplier. The date of birth of the deceased is 30.11.1992 as per S.S.L.C. marks card which is marked at Ex.P.6 and the accident took place in the year 2014 and he was aged 22 years at the time of accident and the relevant multiplier is 18.
22. In view of the principles laid down in the judgment reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident, 50%, of his income, has to be taken as loss of future prospects. I have already taken the income of the deceased per month as Rs.9,000/- and 50% of it works out to Rs.4,500/- and thus the total works out to Rs.13,500/-. The deceased was bachelor at the time of accident, hence, 50% of his income has to be deducted towards his personal income. It works out to be Rs.6,750/-p.m.. (13,500-6,750) . Then the annual income is Rs.81,000/-. (6,750x12). The proper multiplier applicable is 18 and if SCCH 1 21 MVC No.783/2016 we multiply the annual income of the deceased by the multiplier , the same works out to Rs.14,58,000/- (81,000x18), to which the petitioner is entitled to under the head loss of dependency on account of death of their son in the accident. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.14,58,000/- towards loss of dependency.
23. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the deceased has left behind his parents and younger brother, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the parents and brother for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social SCCH 1 22 MVC No.783/2016 security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
24.The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs 1 Loss of dependency 14,58,000-00 2 Compensation to the family 1,00,000-00 members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc. 3 Cost incurred on account of 10,000-00 funeral and ritual expenses Total 15,68,000-00
25. Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of application till the date of payment and also by following the principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with SCCH 1 23 MVC No.783/2016 regard to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
26. As regards the liability to be fixed on the respondents, admittedly the respondent No.1 is the insurer and the respondent No.2 is the owner of the Tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-42-T-3010, KA-42-T-3011 and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. However, primary liability is fixed on respondent No.1 insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, I answer issue No.3 accordingly.
27. Issue No.4: In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
SCCH 1 24 MVC No.783/2016 The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,68,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and he is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Mother - 40%
Petitioner No.2 - Father - 40%
Petitioner No.3 - brother - 20%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of petitioner No.1 and 2 in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2.
As far as petitioners No.3, who is a minor at the time of filing the petition, his portion of compensation amount is ordered to be SCCH 1 25 MVC No.783/2016 invested in high yielding fixed deposit in his name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of petitioner NO.2 for a period of 5 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 26th day of September, 2016) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 Gowramma
P.W.2 Veerabadra @ Veerabadregowda
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 Shivasidde Gowda Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of mahazar
Ex.P-3 : Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P-4 : Copy of P.M.Report
SCCH 1 26 MVC No.783/2016
Ex.P-5 : Copy of Inquest Report
Ex.P-6 : Notarised copy of SSLC marks card (Original compared)
Ex.P-7 Notarised copy of ITI marks card (Original compared)
Ex.P.8 Notarised copy of ITI certificate (Original compared)
Ex.P.9 Training certificate issued by Kirloskar Toyota Textiles
Ex.P.10 Notarised copy of driving licence (Original compared)
Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of second petitioner
(Original compared)
Ex.P.12 Notarised copy of election identity card of second petitioner
(Original compared)
Ex.P.13 Notarised copy of election identity card of PW-1(Original
compared)
Ex.P.14 Notarised copy of Aadhar card (Original compared)
Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of ration card (Original compared)
Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of 3rd petitioner (Original
compared)
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 and 2 Notarised copies of R.C.'s (2) (Original compared) Ex.R.3 Notarised copy of driving licence (Original compared) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore