Bangalore District Court
Azra Begum vs Ayub Pasha on 4 January, 2025
KABC020247312023
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Additional Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.5498/2023
Dated this 04th day of January, 2025
Petitioner: Azra Begum D/o Mohammed Yousur
Nadvi,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.2, Ground Floor, 3rd Cross,
Hutchins Road, St. Thomas Town,
Next to Rahat Residency APT,
Bengaluru - 560094.
(Smt. Champa C., Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. Ayub Pasha S/o Nasir Ahmed,
R/at No.271, Yelachenahalli,
Kanakanagar,
Bengaluru - 560076.
(Sri B. R. Srinath, Advocate)
2 MVC No.5498/2023
2. IFFCO TOKIO Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
Sri Shanthi Towers, 5th Floor,
3rd Main, 141, Estate of NGEF
Layout, Kasturinagar,
Bengaluru - 560043.
(Sri T. Kodandarama, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of death of Zahra Fariyal who is daughter of petitioner, in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 31-07-2023 at about 2:15 p.m., deceased Zahra Fariyal was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX- 0715 as a pillion rider, which was ridden by one Mohammed Abdul Hannan Sharief, slowly, on the left side of the road, by observing all traffic rules and regulations, in order to go to Devanahalli. At that time, a BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129, driven by its driver in high speed, in rash 3 MVC No.5498/2023 and negligent manner, proceeding in the same direction, all of a sudden took turn near BSF Main road, in order to go through service road and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, which was going next to lorry. Due to said impact, the deceased pillion rider and rider both fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased sustained grievous injuries to her head and all over the body and succumbed to injuries on the way to K.K. Hospital. Earlier to the accident, the deceased was brilliant student and going for NECET class and was taking tuitions for primary students and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She was contributing her entire earnings to her family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioner is struggling for her livelihood. The Yelahanka Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the said BBMP Garbage Lorry for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and 4 MVC No.5498/2023 severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel. The respondent No.2 has filed its written statement. Whereas, the respondent No.1 did not choose to file his written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy bearing No.MS570915 in favour of respondent No.1, in respect of the Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129 and its validity as on the date of accident. It has contended that, the rider of alleged motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX-0715 was riding the same without having knowledge of riding, without wearing helmet and without possessing valid vehicle documents, in rash and 5 MVC No.5498/2023 negligent manner and suffered self accident. The insured vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary and proper party, as the alleged driver of the insured vehicle is the necessary party to the proceedings. Further, it has sought permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.1, as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the petition is bad for non compliance of provisions under Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the deceased. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. The insured vehicle was plying without valid permit and fitness certificate at the alleged place and time of accident and the insured had consciously breached the terms and conditions 6 MVC No.5498/2023 of the policy. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, deceased Zahra Fariyal D/o Late Mukthar Ahmed has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in road traffic accident, alleged to have been occurred on 31-07-2023 at about 2.15 p.m., near BSF Campus, B.B. Main Road, towards Airport, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-01-AD-1129 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to 7 MVC No.5498/2023 compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom ?
3. What order or Award ?
6. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and closed her side. On the other hand, the respondents No.1 and 2 have not adduced any evidence on their behalf.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS 8 MVC No.5498/2023
9. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioners that, on 31-07-2023 at about 2:15 p.m., when the deceased Zahra Fariyal was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX- 0715 as a pillion rider, which was ridden by one Mohammed Abdul Hannan Sharief, slowly, on the left side of the road, by observing all traffic rules and regulations, in order to go to Devanahalli, a BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD- 1129, driven by its driver in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, proceeding in the same direction, all of a sudden took turn near BSF Main road, in order to go through service road and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, which was going next to lorry. Due to said impact, the deceased pillion rider and rider both fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The deceased sustained grievous injuries to her head and all over the body and succumbed to injuries on the way to K.K. Hospital. But she succumbed to injuries on the way to hospital. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident, the deceased was 9 MVC No.5498/2023 brilliant student and going for NECET class and was taking tuitions for primary students and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. She was contributing her entire earnings to her family. Due to untimely death of a sole bread earner, the petitioner is struggling for her livelihood.
10. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has got examined herself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein she has reiterated the entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of their oral evidence, the petitioners have got marked total 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to 21. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of sketch, Ex.P.4 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.5 and 6 are true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident reports, Ex.P.7 is true copy of inquest, Ex.P.8 is true copy of post-mortem report, Ex.P.9 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.10 is true copy of Declaration of Divorce (Khula) issued by Markaz-E-Ahle Sunnat Jamia 10 MVC No.5498/2023 Hazrath Bilal, Bengaluru, Ex.P.11 is true copy of notice under Sec.133 Motor Vehicle Act, Ex.P.12 is true copy of reply to said notice, Ex.P.13 and 14 are notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioner and deceased, Ex.P.15 is true copy of MLC intimation, Ex.P.16 is notarised copy of SSLC marks card of deceased, Ex.P.17 & 18 are notarised copies of 1st & 2nd PUC marks card, Ex.P.19 is notarised copy of birth certificate, Ex.P.20 is translation of declaration of divorce (Khula) and Ex.P.21 is tuition fee receipt.
11. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 12, prima-facia it reveals that, the said accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129 and the deceased Zahra Fariyal has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.9, has clearly stated that, the said accident has occurred 11 MVC No.5498/2023 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129.
12. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, the date, time and place of accident, issuance of insurance policy in favour of the respondent No.1 with respect to offending BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further, the above oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner has remained undisputed by the owner of offending vehicle i.e. Respondent No.1, as he did not choose to file his written statement and contest the case of the petitioner. Whereas, the respondent No.2 insurance company, though has specifically denied the above facts and taken specific defence that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX-0715, has failed to establish the said contentions. There is absolutely no evidence adduced by the respondent No.2 to establish the said contentions or any 12 MVC No.5498/2023 rebuttal evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Even the respondent No.2 has not stepped into witness box to depose the contentions taken in its written statement on oath. On the other hand, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, the accident in question has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129 and deceased Zahra Fariyal has succumbed to grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. Further, the P.W.1 has unequivocally denied the suggestions made in her cross-examination that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX-0715. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has cross- examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from her mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of her evidence.
13 MVC No.5498/2023
13. The Ex.P.3 sketch and Ex.P.4 spot mahazer clearly goes to show that, the said accident has taken place on the extreme left side of 40 feet wide Bengaluru-Devanahalli road, near BSF, Bagalur Cross, Yelahanka, Bengaluru, due to dashing of the offending Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129 to the motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX-0715, while taking turn towards the left side of the road in order to reach the service road. Further it is pertinent to note, as per Ex.P.5 & 6 Motor Vehicle Accident Reports, the accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident has not taken place due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle and there was no negligence on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX-0715, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle. There is absolutely no rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2 to 14 MVC No.5498/2023 disprove the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner and even nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that, the said accident has occurred due to self rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorcycle bearing No.KA-03-JX-0715 or there was any contributory negligence on his part in the cause of accident.
14. Further, the Ex.P.8 Post-motem report, clearly speaks that, the deceased Zahra Fariyal has died due to cardiopulmanary arrest, due to severe traumatic head injury, sustained in the road traffic accident. The investigation officer in his final report/charge-sheet, which is marked as Ex.P.9 has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01- AD-1129. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged by the owner or driver of the offending BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129. In such 15 MVC No.5498/2023 circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, with regard to date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle, injuries caused to deceased Zahra Fariyal in the said accident and the cause of her death.
15. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof as in a criminal case are not required."
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation 16 MVC No.5498/2023 and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, "in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
17. Therefore, in the light of observations made in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the deceased Zahra Fariyal has succumbed to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 31-07-2023 at about 2.15 p.m., near BSF main road, Bagalur cross, Bengaluru-Devanahalli road, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
17 MVC No.5498/2023
18. Issue No.2: While answering above issue, for the reasons stated therein, this Court has already held that, the petitioner has successfully proved through cogent and corroborative evidence that, the alleged accident is caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing No.KA-01-AD-1129 and due to said impact the deceased Zahra Fariyal has sustained grievous injuries on her head and other parts of the body and succumbed to said injuries. Now the petitioner is required to establish that, she is the legal representative of the deceased. In this regard, she has produced her Aadhar card and Aadhar card of deceased Zahra Fariyal, which are marked as Ex.P.13 and 14 and the Ex.P.10 Declaration of Divorce (Khula). The said documents clearly goes to show that, the petitioner is the mother of deceased Zahra Fariyal. On the other hand, the relationship of the petitioner with the deceased Zahra Fariyal is not disputed by the respondent No.2. In such circumstances, there is no 18 MVC No.5498/2023 impediment to believe the above documents produced by the petitioner and hold that, the petitioner is the legal representative of deceased Zahra Fariyal.
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. V/s Birender, reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356, has clearly held that, " The legal representatives of the deceased could move application for compensation by virtue of clause (c) of Section 166(1). The major married son who is also earning and not fully dependant on the deceased, would be still covered by the expression "legal representative" of the deceased. This Court in Manjuri Bera (supra) had expounded that liability to pay compensation under the Act does not cease because of absence of dependency of the concerned legal representative. Notably, the expression "legal representative" has not been defined in the Act.
The Tribunal has a duty to make an award, determine the amount of compensation which is just and proper and specify the person or persons to whom such compensation would be paid. The latter part relates to the entitlement of compensation by a person who claims for the same.
19 MVC No.5498/2023According to Section 2(11) CPC, "legal representative" means a person who in law represents the Tractor and Trally bearing No.AP-03-AN-8690 & AP-03-AN-8712 estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section 2(1)(g).
As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of BANCO National Ultramarino vs. Nalini Bai Naique [1989 Supp (2) SCC 275, the definition contained in Section 2(11) CPC is inclusive in character and its scope is wide, it is not confined to legal heirs only. Instead it stipulates that, a person who may or may not be legal heir competent to inherit the property of the deceased can represent the estate of the deceased person. It includes heirs as well as persons who represent the estate even without title either as executors or administrators in possession of the estate of the deceased. All such persons would be covered by the expression "legal representative". As observed in Gujarat SRTC vs. Ramanbhai Prabhatbhai [(1987) 3 SCC 234 a legal representative is one who suffers on account of death of a person due to a motor vehicle accident and need not necessarily be a wife, husband, parent and child.
In Manjuri Bera (supra), in paragraph 15 of the said decision, while adverting to the 20 MVC No.5498/2023 provisions of Section 140 of the Act, the Court observed that even if there is no loss of dependency, the claimant, if he was a legal representative, will be entitled to compensation. In the concurring judgment of Justice S. H. Kapadia, as His Lordship then was, it is observed that there is distinction between "right to apply for compensation" and "entitlement to compensation". The compensation constitutes part of the estate of the deceased. As a result, the legal representative of the deceased would inherit the estate. Indeed, in that case, the Court was dealing with the case of a married daughter of the deceased and the efficacy of Section 140 of the Act. Nevertheless, the principle underlying the exposition in this decision would clearly come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) even though they are major sons of the deceased and also earning.
It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the concerned legal representative was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only." 21 MVC No.5498/2023
20. According to the ratio laid down in above decision, the legal representatives though not fully dependent on the deceased are entitled to claim compensation under all the heads i.e., under both conventional and non-conventional heads. In order to determine the compensation, the age, avocation, income, dependency, future prospects of the deceased and other conventional heads are to be ascertained.
21. The compensation towards loss of dependency: The petitioner through oral and documentary evidence has established that, she is the mother of deceased Zahra Fariyal and she was depending on the deceased. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the head of loss of dependency. In order to calculate the loss of dependency, the first step is to determine the age and income of the deceased.
i) Age and income of the deceased : The petitioner has averred that, the age of deceased as on the 22 MVC No.5498/2023 date of accident was 18 years. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has produced the Aadhar Card and SSLC marks card of deceased Zahra Fariyal, which is marked as Ex.P.13 and 16, wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 14-01-2005. Admittedly, the accident has taken place on 31-07-2023. Therefore, as on the date of accident the age of the deceased was about 19 years. The petitioners have stated that, as on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and she was brilliant student and going for NECET class and was taking tuitions for primary students and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. But, the petitioner has not produced any document to show that, the deceased Zahra Fariyal was taking tuitions for primary students and she was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In such circumstances, there is no other option before this Court, except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. 23 MVC No.5498/2023
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the cases of, G. T. Basavaraj V/s Niranjan and another, in MFA No.7781/2016, judgment dated 11-08-2022, Ramanna and another V/s Y. B. Mahesh and another in MFA No.140/2017, judgment dated 16-01-2020 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Anusaya and others in MFA No.101195/2014, judgment dated 05-01-2023, has clearly held that, "when the income of the deceased is not proved, then the notional income as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be adopted as the income of the deceased."
Admittedly, the accident has taken place in the year 2023. Therefore, the notional income of the deceased as per the guidelines issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is to be treated as Rs. 15,500/- per month. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased in the present case is held as Rs.1,86,000/-.
24 MVC No.5498/2023
ii) As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the legal heirs of deceased are also entitled for future prospects of the deceased, though she was not a permanent employee as on the date of death. Since the deceased was aged about 19 years and was not a permanent employee, the future prospects would be 40% of his income, which comes to Rs.74,400/- per annum. Therefore, the future prospects of the deceased is held as Rs.74,400/-. If this income is added to the notional income, then it comes to Rs.2,60,400/- per annum. Further, the annual income of the deceased comes within the exemption limits as per Income Tax Act.
iii) The deduction of personal expenses and calculating the multiplier: The family of the deceased consist of one person i.e., petitioner. The total number of the dependents of the deceased is one and admittedly the 25 MVC No.5498/2023 deceased has died bachelor. Therefore, deduction towards the personal expenses of deceased is taken as 50% of the total income, which comes to Rs.1,30,200/-. After deducting 50% out of total income, towards the personal expenses of deceased, the annual income of the deceased is held as Rs.1,30,200/-.
iv) As on the date of death, the age of the deceased was 19 years. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 S.C., the appropriate multiplier in the present case is taken as 18. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of dependency is held as Rs.23,43,600/-.
v) Compensation under conventional heads: As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the 26 MVC No.5498/2023 compensation under the following conventional heads is awarded:
a) Loss of estate - Rs. 15,000/-
b) Loss of consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
c) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
The compensation under above heads has to be enhanced 10% for every 3 years. Seven years have been lapsed from the date of the judgment. Therefore, the compensation under the above conventional heads is enhanced by 20%, the loss of estate comes to Rs.18,000/-, the loss of filial consortium comes to Rs.48,000/- to petitioner and funeral expenses comes to Rs.18,000/-.
22. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Head of
Amount/Rs
No. Compensation
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 23,43,600-00
2. Loss of filial consortium Rs. 48,000-00
3. Loss of estate Rs. 18,000-00
27 MVC No.5498/2023
4. Funeral expenses Rs. 18,000-00
Total Rs. 24,27,600-00
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 24,27,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
23. Liability: Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending BBMP Garbage Lorry bearing Reg. No. KA-01-AD-1129, the accident in question has occurred and deceased Zahra Fariyal has succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the said accident. In such circumstances, the respondent No.1 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damage caused by the said vehicle. The 28 MVC No.5498/2023 respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.2 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,27,600/- from the respondent No.2, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
24. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,27,600/- (Rupees twenty four lakh twenty seven thousand 29 MVC No.5498/2023 six hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount to the petitioner. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation amount awarded in favour of petitioner, 40% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in her name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years, with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 60% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in her favour, through e-payment on proper identification and verification. 30 MVC No.5498/2023
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court this the 04 th day of January, 2025) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners P.W.1: Azra Begum D/o Mohammed Yousuf Nadvi Documents marked on behalf of petitioners Ex.P.1: True copy of F.I.R.
Ex.P.2: True copy of First Information Statement
Ex.P.3: True copy of Sketch
Ex.P.4: True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 & 6: True copy of M.V.A. Reports
Ex.P.7: True copy of Inquest
Ex.P.8: True copy of Post-mortem Report
Ex.P.9: True copy of Charge-sheet
Ex.P.10: Notarised copy of Declaration of Divorce
(Khula)
Ex.P.11: True copy of Notice U/Sec.133 M.V.Act.
Ex.P.12: True copy of reply to said notice
31 MVC No.5498/2023
Ex.P.13 & Notarized copy of Aadhar cards of the 14: petitioner and deceased Ex.P.15: True copy of MLC Intimation Ex.P.16: Notarized copy of SSLC marks card Ex.P.17 & Notarized copy of 1st & 2nd PUC marks card 18:
Ex.P.19: Notarised copy of Birth certificate Ex.P.20: Notarised copy of translation of Declaration of Divorce (Khula) Ex.P.21: Fee Receipt.
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
Documents marked on behalf of respondents
-Nil-
(Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.