Bangalore District Court
Yashodhamma vs Enviro Control Associates I Pvt Ltd on 1 June, 2024
KABC020313922019
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt.Vidyalaxmi Bhat
B.A., LL.B.(Hon's)LL.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 1st day of June 2024
ECA No.148/2019
Petitioners: 1. Smt. Yashodhamma
W/o M.Balappa
Aged about 49 years.
2.Neelambika
D/o M.Balappa
Aged about 23 years.
Both are residents of
Thoranagatta Village, Jagalur Taluk,
Davanagere Dist57752.
(By Sri. Nagaraj.M, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. M/s.Enviro Control Associates
(India) Private Limited
No.001, Fair Court, No.9/1, Mytle
Lane, Richmond Town,
Bangalore560025.
(SCCH12) 2 ECA No.148/2019
2. M/s. SMC Infrastructures Pvt Ltd
No.686, 16th Cross, 4th Block, HMT
Layout, Vidhyaranyapra,
Bangalore560097.
3. M/s. Bangalore Water Supply &
Sewerage Board (BWSSB)
STPHebbal Valley
Division, Opposie to Nagavara Lake,
BDA Outer Ring Road,
Rep.by its Executive Engineer.
4. Future Generali India
Insurance Company Limited No.47/1,
1st Floor, 9th 'A' Main Road,
Indiranagar 1st Stage,
Defence Colony, Bangalore560038.
( R.1 By Sri.J.R.Sarvamangala,
Advocate
R.2 By M.C.Thimmaiah, Advocate
R.3 By B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate
R.4 By V.Srihari Naidu, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition U/S 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for claiming compensation of RS.80,00,000/ with interest @ 12% p.a in respect of death of Krishna.B.Yadav, who is the son of petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, son of 1 st petitioner and brother of 2nd petitioner by name Krishna.B.Yadav was a civil engineering graduate and was working with 2 nd respondent since many years. The 2nd respondent SMC Infrastructures (SCCH12) 3 ECA No.148/2019 Private Limited is a Subcontractor to the 1 st respondent M/s. Enviro Control Associates (India) Private Limited. The 1 st respondent herein is a registered licensed contractor and has entered into turnkey contract with the 3rd respondent M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Bard, Bangalore to execute the design and construction of 100 MLC Sewerage treatment plant at BWSSB(STP) Hebbal valley site, situated near outer Ring road, opposite to Nagarava Lake, Kariyannapalya, Bangalore city. Further contended that, on 17.06.2019, her son Mr.Krishna.B.Yadav was engaged at the said Kariyannapalya site at about 11.am during the course of employment. Due to collapse of the construction several workers, including the son of petitioner herein sustained severe injuries. As a result of the said accident, petitioner's son Krishna.B.Yadav died. The said accident occurred due to nonsupply of required safety equipments to workers by the respondents. That respondents have not given proper instruction or training to the workers with trained professionals about handling of emergency situation. The rules and conditions envisaged in labour law has not been properly amended by the respondents. The respondent's collective negligence is the cause of accident. That due to the information of the said accident the jurisdictional Amruthally Police have filed FIR in Crime No.100/2019 dt. 17.06.2019 under Section 304(A) 337, 338 R/w 34 of IPC and took investigation.
3. It is further stated that the 1st petitioner has lost her only son and 2nd petitioner has lost her brother. Petitioners were (SCCH12) 4 ECA No.148/2019 dependents of deceased Krishna.B.Yadav. They further contended that her son was earning Rs.18,000/ per month with additional perks and facilities around Rs.12,000/ by 2 nd respondent.
4. That the 1st respondent Enviro Control Associates (India) Private Limited, has filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.145/2019, as per provisions of Section 8 of Employees' Compensation Act, with the Small Causes Court (SCCH12) Bangalore and thereby has sought permission to deposit a sum of Rs.8,47,160/ towards compensation to the petitioner herein. The petitioner is not accepting and agreeing to the calculations of Rs.8,47,160/ as compensation by the respondents, which is very paltry and incorrect calculation. Further contended that on the date of death her son has completed 29 years of age and therefore eligible for the calculation as per provisions of Section 4(a) and Schedule IV of Employee's Compensation Act. The respondents are jointly responsible to pay the said claim amount. The respondent no.1 and 2 have not forwarded a report to the commissioner or to the concerned authorities informing the death of petitioner's son. In due format as per the provisions of section 10(B) (1) of the E.C. Act, similarly, as per the provisions of Section 17(A) of E.C Act, the 1 st and 2nd respondent have not informed in writing to the employees about the rights envisaged in Employee's Compensation Act and both are entitled to pay penalty to the petitioner herein for their acts of noncompliance of law and rules. The cause of action for this claim petition (SCCH12) 5 ECA No.148/2019 arose during June, 2019 when the Krishna.B. Yadav died due to the accident. During the court of his employment. Hence, this petition.
5. After registering the case the notices were issued to the respondents and they appeared through their counsel and filed their objections separately.
The respondent no.1 in his written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. That there is no relationship of Employer and employee between the deceased Krishna.B.Yadav and this respondent. This respondent is not the employer of deceased and the petitioner cannot take a claim against this respondent under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. The said Krishna.B.Yadav was employee under 2 nd respondent. Therefore there is no cause of action against this respondent. The 1 st respondent herein is a registered licensed contractor and has entered into turnkey contract with the 3rd respondent M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Bard, Bangalore to execute the design and construction of 100 MLC Sewerage treatment plant at BWSSB(STP) Hebbal, Bengaluru. The 2nd respondent SMC Infractuctures Pvt. Ltd is a Subcontrator to the 1 st respondent and 3rd respondent is a principal employer.
6. That this respondent has issued work ordered dated 29.01.2017 to the said sub contractor 2nd respondent for execution of civil work of said Sewage Treatment plant of 3 rd (SCCH12) 6 ECA No.148/2019 respondent at Hebbal, Bangalore. On 17th June 2019 while executing the works an accident has taken place at Sewage Treatment plant at BWSSB (STP) Hebbal, BWSSB, opposite Nagawara lake Kariyannapalya, outer ring road, Bangalore ins the said the accident. That on 17.06.2019 accident occurred and Krishna.B.Yadav sustained injuries which resulted in death. 2Nd respondent has already borne the medical as well as funeral expenses of the deceased.
7. It is further stated in the written statement that the 2 nd respondent being employer is liable to deposit the required compensation as per the Act. However, this respondent being the principal contractor, under the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970, without prejudice to its right, recover the same from the 2 nd respondent and from the insurance company, this respondent has already deposited D.D. 147204 dt. 19.07.2019 as compensation in respect of death of Krishna B. Yadav by filing Mis. No. 146/2019 before this court. The said amount is calculated as per the provisions of ECA Act. Further petitioners have received Rs. 5,00,000/ towards full and final settlement of their claim towards compensation by declaring they are not entitled to any further compensation. They have not disclosed about receipt of the said amount. There is no further amount due to the petitioners as the required and eligible compensation is already deposited by this respondent. This respondent has discharged his obligation. 2Nd respondent is duly insured with respondent No. 4 and (SCCH12) 7 ECA No.148/2019 insurance policy is valid from 22.09.2018 to 21.01.2019. The copy of policy is produced along with written statement. Notification of Govt. of India under ECA Act regarding monthly wages that has to be considered for calculating compensation is also produced. As such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is put to strict proof. The negligence on part of this respondent is denied. The claim of compensation is exaggerated. On all these grounds 1st respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. The respondent No.2 in his written statement ha contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The petition suffers from delay and latches and is defective for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer Future General India Ins. Co. Ltd. That in view of deposit of the compensation by way of compliance with the provisions of ECA Act on 22.07.2019 1t respondent has deposited compensation by D.D. No. 147204 Dt. 19.07.2019. He admitted that respondent No.1 has entered contract with 3 rd respondent for construction of STP and he is principal contractor. He entered subcontract with this respondent and issued work order on 21.01.2017 for execution of civil work. He stated that, he has started work by engaging his own employees and Sri. Krishna B. Yadav was one of such employees engaged by 2 nd respondent.
9. He contended that, there is no relationship of employer and employee between Krishna B.Yadav and respondent No. 1 and (SCCH12) 8 ECA No.148/2019
3. That petitioners are the L.R's of deceased Krishna B.Yadav is denied. That on 17.06.2019 while executing work accident took place and Krishna.B.Yadav sustained injuries which resulted in his death. That this respondent has met medical and funeral expenses of the deceased. Amount of compensation of Rs. 8,47,160/ has been deposited before this court by filing separate Misc petition. As such, 1st respondent has discharged his burden. All the employees of this respondent had been insured with Future General India Ins. Co. and policy is valid from 22.09.2018 to 21.09.2019. The said insurance company is not impleaded as party to this case. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Further, petitioner is not dependent on the deceased under ECA Act, but still exaggerated claims are made. Then he denied income of the deceased and contended that, petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That Mis. Petitioner filed depositing compensation deposited is meager is denied. On all these grounds 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. The respondent No. 3 in his written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Further he contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased Krishna.B.Yadav and this respondent. The petitioner cannot make a claim against this respondent under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. The petition is defective for non joinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer. He also stated about (SCCH12) 9 ECA No.148/2019 the deposit of compensation before the court and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
11. The respondent No. 4 in its written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. He admitted the issuance of policy in favour of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board A./C Enviro Control Associates (I) Pvt.Ltd and the same was valid for the period from 22.09.2018 to 21.09.2019 and admitted that this respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further as per the petition, deceased was working under 2nd respondent. There is not contract between 2nd respondent and 4th respondent therefore, this petition is not maintainable against 4th respondent. Accident has not taken place during the course of employment with the 1st respondent. Age and income of the deceased is disputed. This respondent also stated about the deposit of compensation and that he has satisfied amount of Rs. 8,52,160/ as full and final settlement with the first respondent. Therefore, he is not a necessary party to the case. On all these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
12. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessorsin office has framed the following issues. The records also show that on 04.08.2022 once again issues are framed in the above case. There are two set of issues on the same pleadings. But on perusal of issues, aforementioned issues over the disputed facts. Hence they are taken for discussion;
(SCCH12) 10 ECA No.148/2019
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Krishna.B.Yadav?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that deceased Sri Krishna.B.Yadav was employee under respondent no.2?
3. Whether the petitioners proves that, on 17.06.2019 at about 11.00 am her son Krishna.B.Yadav was engaged t worj at Kariyannapalya site, while executing the works at Sewage Treatment Plant, BSWWB, opposite Nagavara Lake, Kariyannapalya, outer ring road, he construction collapsed and te petitioners' son Krishna.B.Yadav sustained injuries which and he succumbed to injuries while taking treatment in the hospital during the course of employment of deceased under the respondent no.2?
4. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
5. What Order or Award?
13. In order to prove the above issues the petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1.Through him Ex.P1 to 22 documents are marked. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 has got examined its Project Engineer as R.W.1. Through him Ex.R1to Ex.R.12 documents are marked. The respondent no.1 got examined its Site Engineer as R.W.2. Through him Ex.R.13 to Ex.R.17 documents are marked. On confrontation (SCCH12) 11 ECA No.148/2019 to RW1, Ex. 18 is marked. Then, respondent no. 3 got examined its Executive Engineer as R.W. 3, Through him Ex. R. 18 to Ex. R21 documents are marked and closed their side evidence. It can be noticed that Ex. R.18 is twice marked by some oversight and that is how there is some incorrect marking in evidence.
14. Heard the arguments and perused the entire materials placed on record and my answers on the above issues are as follows;
ISSUE No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.4 : As per final order
ISSUE No. 5 : As per final orders for the
following
REASONS
15. ISSUE NO. 1 to 3 : Since these 3 issues are inter
related and many of the facts are admitted by respondents, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reason.
It is necessary to notice that petitioner claiming to be mother of the deceased Krishna B. Yadav has filed this petition under the provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation. Under the said Act petitioners require to prove their relation with the deceased, employer and employee relationship with the deceased and his employer and also that (SCCH12) 12 ECA No.148/2019 the accident occurred during the course of employment. In the present case, 2nd respondent in his written statement denied the relationship. In Ex.P.4 PW1 has produced death certificate Krishna.B.Yadav and her name is shown as mother and at ex. P. 20 she has produced ration card which show the relationship of petitioners with the deceased.
16. In the cross examination of P.W.1 respondents have not suggested anything about her relationship with the deceased. As such, there is admission by 2nd respondent and no denial of relationship by the other respondents. Hence, petitioner has proved issue No.1 in her favour that she is the L.R of the deceased Krishna.B.Yadav.
17. Coming to 2nd issue, that whether Krishna B. Yadav was employee under respondent No. 2, 1st and 2nd respondents have admitted that, Krishna.B.Yadav was employee under 2nd respondent. 4Th respondent insurance company stated that, Krishna.B.Yadav was not employee under respondent no. 1, But, 2nd respondent himself admitted that Krishna.B.Yadav was employee under him. Therefore, 4th respondent's defense that petitioner has to prove relationship of the deceased with employer has been established by the petitioner. As such, petitioner has proved issue No. 2 also that deceased was employee under respondent No.2.
18. Now coming to 3rd issue as to whether petitioner proves accident took place while executing the work with respondent no. 2 and whether the accident was during the course of (SCCH12) 13 ECA No.148/2019 employment, It is necessary to notice that all the respondents have mentioned about the deposit of the compensation by respondent no. 1 on the compensation of Rs 8,47,160/ before this court under the provisions of E.C. Act makes it clear that, accident took place during the course of employment. The same is also admitted by 1st and 2nd respondents who are principal and subcontractors respectively. Therefore, even this issue is proved by the petitioner that accident of Krishna.B.Yadav occurred during the course of employment and he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. As such, in view of specific admission in pleadings by the respondent no. 1 and 2, it is not necessary to go in detail about the oral evidence of the parties. Accordingly, this court holds Issue No. 1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.4: In view of above reasons petitioner is entitled for compensation at the hands of responds. The dispute is relating to quantum of the compensation. Though 1st respondent deposited Rs. 8,47,160/ before the curt calculating the compensation, petitioners have not accepted the same and continued with this petition. They stated that they are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,00,000/ as her son was earning Rs. 18,000/ per month as salary and perk facilities of Rs. 12,000/. According to her, the amount deposited by respondent no. 1 is meager and not appropriate as per the provisions of E.C. Act.
(SCCH12) 14 ECA No.148/2019
20. 2nd respondent through admitted that, Krishna.B.Yadav was working under him as Site Engineer has not admitted the income stated by petitioner. He has also not stated what was the monthly salary being given to Krishna.B.Yadav while he was working. To prove the come, petitioner got examined as P.W. and reiterated petition averments. In her chief examination she has produced bank statement of te deceased at Ex.P.22 and his Diploma Marks cards and Provisional Diploma Certificate at Ex.P.18 and 19 As per the account statement he was paid salary of Rs. 11,280/in April - 2019, Es. 11, 208/ in June 2019. 2nd respondent has not produced any contrary document to show that the same was not the salary paid to deceased Krishna.B.Yadav while he was working.
21. In fact in the cross examination of the RW1 the salary slip of the deceased produced by RW1 is marked as Ex. R.18. RW1 admitted the said salary slip and according to the said document the salary of the deceased was Rs. 12,000/ and the net salary was Rs. 11,208/ in may 2019. Since 2 nd respondent has admitted and accepted the salary of the deceased, the same has to be considered to decide the monthly income of the deceased. During the course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that, as per the Central Govt. Notification issue by Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment dt:31.05.2010 for the purpose of Section 4(1) the monthly wages from the date of notification is Rs.8,000/ and the same is taken for calculation to decide the compensation in respect of death. That according to 2 nd respondent the same is (SCCH12) 15 ECA No.148/2019 correct calculation and no other calculation can be done, 2 nd respondent further contended that, the subsequent notification dt.03.01.2020 produced by the petitioner in which the wages is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/ is not applicable to the present case as it came into effect from 03.01.2020. Accident took place on 17.06.2019, It is necessary to note that in the present case, relying upon the notification dated 03.01.2020 will not arise because as per the said notification it comes into effect from the date of publication in the official gazette and it has prospective effect. It cannot be made application to the accident took place prior to the date of notification.
22. Further, though petitioner not got examined employer of the deceased as his witness in the present case, the employer being 2nd respondent accepted and admitted the salary of the deceased in 2019 was Rs. 12,000/. Though there is suggestion that Rs. 18,000/ was the salary, witness accepted and admitted Rs. 12,000/ as salary paid to deceased. In the opinion of this court when such fact is established, notification of 2010 to calculate the income of Civil Engineer, skilled worker who died in 2019 cannot be considered to decide the wages. When there is no proof of income at all, then certainly the said notification can be considered. In fact as per the definition of Wages under Sec. 2 (m) "wages" includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a traveling allowance or the value of any traveling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a employee towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a employee to cover (SCCH12) 16 ECA No.148/2019 any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment. But grant of perks to the deceased is not established by any documents in this case, though petitioner claimed that deceased had perks worth of Rs. 12,000/ hence that cannot be included in income. Hence, petitioners have established that the income of deceased at the time of his death was Rs. 12,000/ per month by oral as documentary evidence and the same is accepted as monthly income of the deceased to calculate the compensation.
23. As per Section 4(1A) of E.C. Act where death results from the injury n amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of compensation. 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased is Rs. 6,000/ and age of the deceased at the time of death was 28 years. The same age is taken for calculation even as per Ex.R. 17 while depositing compensation by the respondent no. 1. The relevant factor as per Schedule Iv to the age group of 28 years is 211.79. Hence, the total loss of income is Rs. 6,000/ X Factor 211.79 is Rs.12,70,740/
24. Further in respect of funeral expenses respondent no. 1 and 2 contended that they have already paid Rs. 5,00,000/ on humanitarian ground. At Ex. R.4 copy of cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/ dt.13.07.2019 and receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/ by the 1st petitioner at Ex. R.5 are produced. In cross examination of P.W.1 she stated that she has no knowledge about it and her (SCCH12) 17 ECA No.148/2019 brotherinlaw took the cheque and deposited in her favour. She admitted 2nd respondent paid ambulance charges for taking dead body, but denied the suggestion that Rs. 20,000/ was paid for funeral expenses. There is no documents to show that such funeral expenses are paid to petitioner. Hence in the opinion of this court Rs. 10,000/ has to be awaded as funeral expenses.
25. In respect of receipt of Rs. 5,00,000/ by the petitioner as per Ex.R5 though PW1 pleaded ignorance of those cheques and receipts they are signed by the petitioner No. 1 and issued in the name of petitioner. Respondent no. 2 contended that, out of humanity amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ is paid to petitioner apart from the amount deposited before the court. The same is also in respect of death of the son of petitioner No.1 in the form of compensation. Therefore, the said amount of Rs. 5,00,000/ has to be deducted in the total compensation. Further, amount deposited before the court in Crl. Mis. No. 146/2019 to the tune of Rs. 8,47,160/ is also liable to be deducted from the total compensation now payable to petitioners. Petitioners are entitled to get release of the said amount on due verification of their identity. Hence, total compensation to be payable to petitioners if Rs. 12,70,740/ plus Rs. 10,000/ funeral expenses which comes up to Rs. 12,80,740/. 1 st respondent has already deposited Rs. 8,47,160/ in Crl. Misc No. 146/2019 and also paid Rs. 5,00,000/ by way of two cheques. The said Rs. 5,00,000/ received by the petitioners. Therefore, total quantum of compensation is as under:
(SCCH12) 18 ECA No.148/2019
Sl.No. Particulars of Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Total loss of income : 12,70,740/
2. Funeral expenses : 10,000/
3. Total compensation : 12,80,740/
payable
4. Amount already : 8,47,160/
deposited in
C.Mis.No.146/2019
5. Compensation paid by : 5,00,000/
way of two cheques
6. Total deductions 13,47,160/
7. Excess compensation 66,420/
8. Remaining Nil/
compensation payable
Hence, in view of above discussion, petitioners are not entitled for any additional compensation in the above case and they are entitled to get release of the compensation of Rs.8,47,160/ deposited in Crl. Misc. NO. 146/2019 subject to verification of their identity. 1St and 2nd respondent shall not claim recovery of Rs.66,420/ from petitioners which is excss compensation deposited in view of pain and agony suffered by petitioners due to loss of family members, Since amount is already deposited no interest awarded. I answer issue No. 4 Party in the Affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.4: In view of the above discussion on Issue No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following, (SCCH12) 19 ECA No.148/2019 ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.12,80,740/ from the hands of respondent no.1.
Respondent no.1 being principal employer has already deposited the amount of Rs.8,47,160/ in Crl.Mis.No.146/2019 and petitioners have already received Rs.5,00,000/ from the respondents, as such petitioners are not entitled for any additional compensation.
Further petitioners are entitled to get release of the compensation of Rs.8,47,160/ deposited Crl.Mis.No.146/2019 subject to verification of their identity if they have not already got it released.
1st and 2nd respondents shall not claim recovery of Rs.66,420/ from petitioners which is excess compensation deposited in view of pain and agony suffering suffered by petitioners due to loss of family member.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/.
Draw Award Accordingly.
(SCCH12) 20 ECA No.148/2019 (Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and computerized and printout taken by her, then corrected and pronounced in the open court on this the 1 st day of June 2024) (Smt. Vidyalaxmi Bhat) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Yashodamma List of documents got marked for the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : Copy of dead body received report
Ex.P.4 : Copy of death certificate of
Krishna Yadav
Ex.P.5 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
Krishna Yadav
Ex.P.6 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of P.W.1
Ex.P.7 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of 2nd
petitioner
Ex.P.8 : Legal notice
Ex.P.9 to 11 : Postal receipts
Ex.P.12 & 13 : Postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.14 : Reply by 1 st petitioner'
Ex.P.14(a) : Postal cover
Ex.P.15 : Reply by 2nd petitioner'
Ex.P.15(a) : Postal cover
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of order sheet of
Misc.No.146/2019
Ex.P.17 : Copy of SSLC Marks card of deceased
Ex.P.18 : Copy of Civil Engineering marks
card of deceased
(SCCH12) 21 ECA No.148/2019
Ex.P.19 : Provisional diploma certificate of deceased
Ex.P.20 : Copy of ration card
Ex.P.21 : Copy of recent ration card
Ex.P.22 : Bank statement of deceased.
List of witnesses examined for the respondents:
R.W.1 : Shital Kamagowda R.W.2 : Rajeev Gandhi.R R.W.3 : Bharath Kumar.S.
List of documents marked for the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Authorization Letters
Ex.R.2 : Copy of Form No. C
Ex.R.3 : Notarized copy of Certificate of
Registration
Ex.R.4 : Copy of Cheque for Rs.3,00,000/ Issued
to petitioners
Ex.R. 5 : Acknowledgement of receipt of cheque by
the petitioner
Ex.R.6 : Copy of work order issued by 1st
respondent in favour of 2nd respondent
Ex.R.7 : Copy of Insurance Police
Ex.R.8 : Statement of calculation made by 2nd
respondent
Ex.R.9 : Receipt for payment of Rs. 20,000/for
funeral and transportation of dead body
Ex.R.10 : Receipt for transportation in ambulance
Ex.R.11 : Receipt given in respect transportation in
Ambulance
Ex.R.12 : Copy of Gazette Notification
Ex.R.13 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.14 & 15 : Copy of certificate of registration
Ex.R.16 : Notarized copy of Form No. 6 license
Ex.R.17 : Statement of calculation made by 1st
respondent
Ex.R.18 : Copy of Salary Slip
Ex.R.19 : Copy of Contract agreement
Ex.R.20 : Copy of work order
Ex.R.21 : Copy of Letter dated 31.05.2017.
(SCCH12) 22 ECA No.148/2019
Ex.R.22 : Copy of conditions of contract
(Smt. Vidyalaxmi Bhat)
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACMM, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by
VIDYALAXMI
VIDYALAXMI BHAT
BHAT Date:
2024.06.06
16:20:14 +0530