Bangalore District Court
Smt.Narayanamma vs Scch-11 2 Mvc.No.6795/2019 on 4 May, 2022
KABC020282242019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BENGALURU. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS THE 04th DAY OF MAY-2022
PRESENT: SRI.RAGHAVENDRA.D, B.COM, L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
MVC No.6795/2019
Petitioners:
1. Smt.Narayanamma,
W/o.Late Chandrappa,
D/o.Muniyappa,
Aged about 60 years.
2. Sri.Prakash.K.C.,
S/o.Late Chandrappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Both are residing at
Kudiyanur Village,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District.
(By - Sri.T.V.Ramesh, Advocate)
-Versus-
Respondents:
SCCH-11 2 MVC.No.6795/2019
1. Sri.R.Ravi,
S/o.Palaniyappan, Major,
R/o.Chandapura, Anekal Main Road,
Anekal, Bengaluru - 562 106.
2. The Magma HDI General Insurance
Company Limited, No.36, 2nd Floor,
Minerva Circle, J.C.Road,
Bengaluru -27.
3. Smt.Dhanalakshmi.G.,
W/o.Late.C.Manjunatha,
Aged about 33 years.
4. Kumari.Varshini,
D/o.Late C.Manjunatha,
Aged about 6 years,
Minor represented by her
mother/natural guardian,
No.3 and 4 are residing at No.1714,
4th Cross, Ganesh Temple,
Sanjeevini Nagar, Kodigehalli,
Bengaluru North, Sahakaranagara P.O
Bengaluru - 560 092.
(Resp.1 - Exparte)
(Resp.2 - By Sri.A.N.Hegade, Adv.)
(Resp.3 & 4 - By Sri.N.M.Ananda, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest from the date SCCH-11 3 MVC.No.6795/2019 of petition till its realization for death of Sri.C.Manjunatha, S/o.Late Chandrappa in a road traffic accident.
2. The petition averments in brief is that on 09.10.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., when deceased was standing near Kattigenahalli Gate, Malur Taluk, Kolar District to cross the road, at that time one Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-59-1787 came from Malur side to go towards Hosakote side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came to the extreme left side of road and dashed against pedestrian. Due to which, he knocked down and sustained grievous head injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Siliconcity Hospital, Hosakote, while in the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The petitioners have spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and towards funeral obsequies.
Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and was working as a mason and also doing part time work at KSRTC Depot as Bus washer and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per SCCH-11 4 MVC.No.6795/2019 month. Due to untimely death of deceased, petitioners life has become dark, miserable and depressed and put to great financial hardship. The accident in question has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry by its driver. The respondents being owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to petitioners.
3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear before the tribunal and hence, he has been placed as ex-parte. The respondent No.2 to 4 appeared before the tribunal and filed their respective written statement.
In objection the respondent No.2 has denied the contents of claim petition specifically and categorically. He has also denied age, occupation and income of the deceased. He has also denied the place, time and manner of accident. Further contended that the alleged accident has occurred only due to the negligence of deceased, who was crossing the road there is no zebra cross and he is not seeing SCCH-11 5 MVC.No.6795/2019 oncoming vehicle and straight away tried to cross the road. The place which was accident occurred there is no signal or there is no any pedestrian cross place, when deceased was crossing the road negligently and he is liable for accident. The amount claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
4. In objection the respondent No.3 & 4 have contended that they are the wife and daughter of deceased and deceased is the only breadwinner of these respondents and they are entirely depending upon the earnings of deceased and they are legal representatives of deceased. Further the 2nd petitioner is married and living separately along with his wife and children separately and he is not dependant on the income of deceased and he is earning independently and maintaining his family and therefore 2nd petitioner is not a necessary party to this petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.
SCCH-11 6 MVC.No.6795/2019
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Tribunal has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether petitioners prove that the son of 1st petitioner and brother of petitioner No.2 namely Manjunatha.C. succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident that took place on 09.10.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., near Kattigenahalli Gate, Malur-Hosakote Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, while he was standing to cross the road, due to the rash and negligent driving of Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-
59-1787 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. The petitioners in support of their case, the brother of deceased/petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW.1 and one eye witness examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and closed their side of evidence. On the other hand, the third respondent being the wife of deceased examined as RW.1 and Assistant Manager in respondent insurance company examined as RW.2 and got SCCH-11 7 MVC.No.6795/2019 marked documents at Ex.R.1 to 10 and closed their side of evidence.
7. I have heard arguments on both the sides and perused materials available on records. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on citations reported in:
(i) 2013(2) AKR 577 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Central Office vs. B.N.Nagesh S/o.Narasimha Shastry and another.
(ii) 2014 ACJ 1968 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Saravana Vs. T.Kiran Vinod Kumar and another.
(iii) ILR 2004 KAR 1104 between Koosappa Poojari Vs. K.Sadabba and others.
(iv) 2015(1) AKR 89 between S.Narayana Vs. M.G.Ravichandran and another.
The ratio and the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above reported judgments are taken into consideration to decide the above case. SCCH-11 8 MVC.No.6795/2019
8. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:
//REASONS//
9. Issue No.1:- In this case the petitioners contend that on 09.10.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., Near Kattigenahalli Gate, Malur Hosakote Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District, the deceased Sri.C.Manjunatha had met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-59-1787 by its driver and he died during the course of treatment.
10. The petitioner No.2 examined as PW.1 and produced Ex.P.1 and 2 - FIR and complaint. On perusal of Ex.P.2, one eye witness by name Sri.Prakash, S/o.Narayanaswamy gave first information to police on 10.10.2019, the accident occurred on 09.10.2019 at 8.30 PM. On the basis of Ex.P.2 police registered a case as per SCCH-11 9 MVC.No.6795/2019 Ex.P.1. In his complaint he has stated that due to rash and negligent driving of tipper lorry by its driver the accident occurred and he died during the course of treatment. After registering case Police went near place of accident and drawn Mahazar as per Ex.P.3 by narrating the place of accident. Ex.P.4 Seizer Mahazar. Ex.P.6 Inquest Report. Ex.P.7 PM Certificate, wherein mentioned that deceased Manjunath.C died due to septicaemia resulted due to head injury and road traffic accident. After investigation police filed charge sheet as per Ex.P.8, against driver of offending vehicle for the offences punishable U/s.279 & 304(A) of IPC and R/w.Sec.187 of M.V.Act.
11. The learned counsel for respondent insurance company vehemently argued that the accident occurred while deceased was crossing the road, as such there is a contributory negligence on the part of deceased. In order to prove negligence of deceased, the Assistant Manager in respondent insurance company got examined as RW.2. He SCCH-11 10 MVC.No.6795/2019 has deposed in his chief examination that deceased was crossing the road negligently and accident occurred. The contention of petitioners that the deceased was waiting on foot path to cross road and due to impact of accident the deceased fell on the road as such there is no negligence on the part of deceased. In order to prove the accident, the petitioners have examined one eye witness by name Sri.Prakash as PW.2. In his chief examination, he has deposed that one Manjunatha was standing to cross the road, at that time a Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-59- 1787 came from Malur side to go towards Hosakote side at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came to the extreme left side of road and dashed against C.Manjunatha. Due to impact, he thrown to a distance and knocked down on a road, sustained grievous head injuries. In his cross examination, he has deposed that his shop is situated at the distance of 20 feet from the place of accident and he witnessed the accident. Further in his cross examination, he SCCH-11 11 MVC.No.6795/2019 has also deposed that Manjunatha was standing when Tipper Lorry dashed against him. Further in his cross examination deposed that there is electric poll and electric lights and shops at the place of accident. Further in his cross examination, he has admitted that in his first information, he has stated that one lorry dashed against one stranger. On perusal of Ex.P.2 first information, PW.2 lodged complaint with the police by alleging that one stranger aged about 45 years, while he was crossing the road one Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-59-1787 came from the side of Malur towards Hosakote and dashed against him. But PW.2 before tribunal deposed that deceased was standing to cross the road. There is clear improvement in the evidence of PW.2. Further the petitioners have produced Ex.P.3 Mahazar, wherein it is mentioned that while deceased was crossing the road lorry dashed against him. After thorough investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of Tipper lorry and in the charge sheet, it is also SCCH-11 12 MVC.No.6795/2019 alleged that deceased was crossing the road. The petitioners have not produced sketch before the tribunal to show where exactly the accident occurred. But Rw2 produced EX.R9 sketch to show where the accident occurred. On perusal of EX.R9 in middle of road near divider on tar road the accident occurred. Even on perusal of Ex.P.3 Mahazar, it was written that while deceased was crossing the road a tipper lorry dashed against him and he fell down on the road. Further there is no evidence before the tribunal to show lorry came on footbath and dashed to deceased. So, on perusal of police documents placed by the petitioner, the accident occurred on tar road. So, by considering all the oral evidence and documentary evidence placed by the petitioners, it clearly shows that the accident occurred on tar road. The deceased has to observe the movement of vehicles on the road before crossing the road. So, it appears that there is some sort of contributory negligence of deceased. It is not just and proper to put the entire negligence on the driver of tipper SCCH-11 13 MVC.No.6795/2019 lorry. Case on hand, the deceased also contributed his negligence to the accident.
12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 insurance company relied on citations reported in:
(i) 2013(2) AKR 577 between Bengaluru Metropolitan Transport Corporation Central Office Vs. B.N.Nagesh S/o.Narasimha Shastry and another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as follows:
"(A) Motor vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 -
Contributory negligence - Determination - Specific case of claimants supported by eye-witness was that deceased was crossing road from East to West and she had almost crossed 75% of road and at that time, offending vehicle driven in rash and negligent manner and not taking any caution to slow down vehicle while taking right turn, that too while entering main road had dashed against deceased on account of which, she sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same - Finding of contributory negligence of driver to extent of 75% recorded by Tribunal, proper".
(ii) 2014 ACJ 1968 between Saravana Vs. T.Kiran Vinod Kumar and another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as follows:
"Negligence - Contributory negligence - Pedestrian
- Claimant crossing a road near junction was hit by a SCCH-11 14 MVC.No.6795/2019 vehicle resulting in injuries plying on road was crossing the road and held that claimant contributed to the accident to the extent of 30 percent and rider of vehicle was negligent to the extent of 70 percent- Appellate court observed that accident took place near a junction and rider of offending vehicle on approaching junction should have reduced speed of vehicle as he owed a duty towards safety of pedestrians; claimant had crossed major portion of road and he was few feet away from foot path but as he failed to observe vehicles plying on the road before crossing he was guilty of negligence - Appellate court held that claimant contributed towards the accident to the extent of 15 percent and driver of offending vehicle was liable to the extent of 85 percent."
(iii) ILR 2004 KAR 1104 between Koosappa Poojari Vs. K.Sadabba and others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held as follows:
"Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (59/88)- Section 173 (1) - Contributory negligence - claimant had crossed the road where he was not supposed to cross - held - certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him - If a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he can not claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident - Pedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver."
(iv) 2015(1) AKR 89 between S.Narayana Vs. M.G.Ravichandran & another, wherein the Honb'le High Court of Karnataka held as follows:
SCCH-11 15 MVC.No.6795/2019
"(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.166 -
Contributory negligence - Determination - Accident occurred when claimant was crossing road - Evidence showing that he was crossing road even after seeing car coming from opposite direction - In city like Bengaluru vehicles are continuously running one after another - Fed up by waiting, claimant might have attempted to cross road and in said accident to some extent- Considering this fact, driver of offending vehicle i.e., car driver and claimant contributed held liable to extent of 85% and 15% respectively."
With due respect to Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I have carefully perused the above reported judgments, the ratio and dictum laid down in the above reported judgments are taken into consideration to decide the above case. Case on hand, this tribunal already held that there is a contributory negligence on the part of deceased. So, I am of the opinion that by considering all the police documents and oral evidence placed by both the parties, it is just and proper to fix 10% of contributory negligence on deceased and remaining 90% contributory negligence is on the part of driver of Tipper Lorry. Accordingly, Issue No.1 held in the Affirmative.
SCCH-11 16 MVC.No.6795/2019
13. Issue No.2: In view of answering issue No.1 in the affirmative, the petitioners are entitled for compensation. To assess the compensation, the Tribunal has to look into several factors like age, avocation, income of deceased, conveyance charges, funeral and obsequies, towards of loss of love and affection, etc., let me discuss one by one;
(A) Towards dependency and loss of future earnings:
(i) In the petition the age of the deceased Sri.C.Manjunatha is shown as 38 years. In order to prove age of deceased, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.10 -
Notarized copy of Aadhaar Card of deceased, wherein the date of birth is mentioned as 20.06.1980, the accident occurred on 09.10.2019, so the age of deceased was 39 years as on the date of accident. As per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Smt. Sarla Verma case '15' multiplier is applicable in present case. SCCH-11 17 MVC.No.6795/2019
(ii) The petitioners contended that deceased S.Vadivelu was working as a mason and also doing part time work at KSRTC Depot as bus washer and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month. In order to prove the occupation and income of deceased, the petitioners have not produced any documents. Case on hand the petitioners have not produced any relevant document to prove the income of deceased.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka fixed notional income of the year 2019 at Rs.14,000/- per month for determination of income before Lok Adalat for the Districts coming under the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench, Bengaluru. Case on hand the petitioners have not produced any relevant document to prove the income of deceased. Accordingly, the notional income of deceased during the year 2019 treated as Rs.14,000/- per month.
(iii) In Hem Raj V/s the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court SCCH-11 18 MVC.No.6795/2019 held that there cannot be distinction where there is positive evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guess work in the facts and circumstances of a case. Both the situations stand at the same footing. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the petitioners are entitled for future prospects. In Pranaya Sethi and other Case the Hon'be Supreme Court held that in case the deceased was self employed or on a fixed salary an addition of 40% of the established income should be warranted where the deceased was below 40 years. Case on hand deceased was aged about 39 years and drawing fixed salary. Hence, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, petitioners are entitled for additional 40% of salary to the established income. The established income of the deceased was Rs.14,000/- and 40% of Rs.14,000/- is Rs.5,600/-. So, the total gross income of deceased was Rs.14,000/- + Rs.5,600/- = Rs.19,600/- per month. Petitioner No.2 brother of SCCH-11 19 MVC.No.6795/2019 deceased and he was not depending on deceased. Admittedly deceased Sri.C.Manjunatha married, having wife, children and parents. The petitioner No.1 mother of deceased, respondent No.3 wife of deceased Manjunatha.C and respondent No.4 daughter of deceased Manjunatha.C. Now only petitioner No.1, respondent No.3 & 4 are only entitled for compensation as they are the Dependants of deceased. So, as per dictum of Hon'ble Supreme court in Smt. Saral Verma case where number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, 1/3 rd has to be deducted from the gross income of deceased towards his personal expenses and remaining is to be taken as dependency. Thus petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.23,52,060/- towards loss of dependency which is calculated as follows:
Calculation Total (In R.)
1/3rd of Rs.19,600/- Rs.13,067/-
(deduction of Rs.6,533/-)
Rs.13,067/- multiply by 12 Rs.1,56,804/- Rs.1,56,804/- multiply by 15 Rs.23,52,060/- Multiplier SCCH-11 20 MVC.No.6795/2019 (B):- Towards Consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses;
In view of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India, in between United India Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and others in Civil Appeal No.2705 of 2020 & in between National insurance company LTD V/s Pranay Sethi and Ors, The petitioner No.1 being the mother of deceased Sri.C.Manjunatha is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards loss of Filial consortium, respondent No.3 being the wife of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards spousal consortium and respondent No.4 being the daughter of deceased is entitled for Rs.40,000/- towards parental consortium and they are also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses.
(C) Towards Medical Expenses: The petitioners have claimed compensation towards medical expenses. The petitioners contended that immediately after the accident SCCH-11 21 MVC.No.6795/2019 they took deceased to Siliconcity Hospital, Hosakote wherein he took treatment as an inpatient.
14. PW.1 has produced Ex.P.9 Medical bills, according to PW.1, the deceased Manjunatha was residing with him and he was working in Malur. After the accident, he himself borne the treatment expenses of his brother, as such medical expenses has to be paid to him. Per contra, the wife of deceased examined as RW.1, she has deposed that her husband was living with her and she has spent medical expenses and for obsequies expenses. Further in her cross examination, she has deposed that petitioner No.2 has taken medical bills from her and produced before the tribunal. On perusal of entire record, there is no evidence before the tribunal, who has paid the medical expenses to the hospital. Case on hand, PW.1 himself produced the medical bills before the tribunal. Further his contention that at the time of accident, the deceased was living in his house and not with the wife of deceased. Usually when the SCCH-11 22 MVC.No.6795/2019 accident occurred for the purpose of treatment the close relatives of deceased will spent money for treatment. In the absence of proper evidence before the tribunal, by considering facts and circumstances of case it appears that the petitioner No.2 being the brother of deceased he might have paid the medical expenses. Hence, this tribunal is of the opinion that, it is just and proper to pay medical expenses to the petitioner No.2.
15. The petitioner has also produced 9 Medical bills for a sum of Rs.1,40,781/- marked at Ex.P.14. In Ex.P.14 - Srl.No.2 to 8 medical bills are repeated in Srl.No.9 and Srl.No.10 Ambulance service bill for Rs.2,000/-. However the petitioners may used ambulance to shift the injured to hospital for treatment. The respondent insurance company not rebutted other medical bill by placing cogent evidence. So, Tribunal is of the view that compensation of Rs.1,08,684/- is just and reasonable towards medical expenses.
SCCH-11 23 MVC.No.6795/2019
16. The petitioner No.1 mother of deceased and she is having one more son to look after her. The respondent No.3 is widow and respondent No.4 has lost her father. So, under such circumstances, it is just and proper to allot major portion of compensation amount to respondent No.3 & 4.
17. Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 being the mother of deceased is entitled for 20% of compensation amount, respondent No.3 being wife of deceased is entitled for 30% of compensation amount and respondent No.4 being minor daughter of deceased is entitled for remaining 50%.
18. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation as follows:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
a. Towards dependency and loss Rs.23,52,060/-
of future income
b. Towards Consortium.
1. Filial Consortium Rs.40,000/-
2. Spousal consortium Rs.40,000/-
3. Parental Consortium Rs.40,000/-
c. Towards Loss of estate & Rs.30,000/-
SCCH-11 24 MVC.No.6795/2019
Funeral Expenses .
d. Towards medical expenses Rs.1,08,684/-
Total Compensation Rs.26,10,744/-
19. In MFA.No.100090 of 2014 C/w.
MFA.No.25107 of 2013 between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and others Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes and another, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Page No.7 at Para No.15 held as follows:
"However, the provisions of Section 149(1) of the Act to the extent they speak of interest payable on the compensation amount is in the nature of an exception to the general law enacted in 169 of the M.V.Act and therefore, the provisions of Section 34 of CPC to that extent become invocable on the general principles of construction of statutes namely the special law overrides the general law. Therefore, in the absence of any other law relating to interest on Judgments, the MACT has to follow the provisions of Section 34 of CPC, 1908. Thus, in the given circumstances of this case, interest at the rate of more than 6% could not have been awarded."
In view of ratio and dictum laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above judgment, the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
20. It is already held that the accident occurred due to SCCH-11 25 MVC.No.6795/2019 rash and negligent driving of Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-59-1787 by its driver. The respondent contended that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident. The respondent insurance company has not placed any materials to prove his contention by placing cogent evidence. Even the police authorities have not filed charge sheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence punishable U/s.181 of M.V.Act. Hence, the respondent No.1 and 2 being the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. So, the respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending Tipper Lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-59-1787 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners to an extent of 90% i.e., Rs.23,49,670/-. Hence, Issue No.2 answered Partly in the Affirmative.
21. Issue No.3: For the forgoing reasons and in view of above discussion, Tribunal proceed to pass the following: SCCH-11 26 MVC.No.6795/2019
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/s.166 of Motor Vehicle Act is allowed with cost.The petitioner No.1 & respondent No.3 & 4
are entitled for 90% of Rs.23,49,670/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of which, the petitioner No.2 is entitled for medical expenses of Rs.1,08,684/- (Rupees One Lakh Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four only). Petitioner No.1, respondent No.3 & 4 are entitled for remaining balance compensation amount of Rs.22,40,986/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Forty Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Six Only) with interest at 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily liable to deposit the said compensation SCCH-11 27 MVC.No.6795/2019 amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of the total compensation amount, the petitioner No.1 being the mother of deceased is entitled for 20% and respondent No.3 being the wife of deceased is entitled for 30% and respondent No.4 being minor daughter of deceased is entitled for 50%. In total amount apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3, 60% of the amount shall be released in favour of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.3, and remaining 40% of the amount shall be deposited in their names in any Nationalized bank or Schedule Bank near to their place for a period of 3 years without encumbrance. They are entitled for interest that accrues on F.D periodically.
50% of compensation amount allotted to the share of minor respondent No.4 shall be kept in FD in the name of minor respondent No.4 in any of the Nationalized Bank or Scheduled Bank of the choice of minor guardian for a period of 3 years or till she attain the age of majority SCCH-11 28 MVC.No.6795/2019 whichever is later. The guardian of petitioner is entitle to receive interest that accrues on FD periodically.
Entire medical expenses amount shall be released in favour of petitioner No.2 as amount is meager one.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest thereon disburse amount as mentioned above as per guidelines laid down by Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.The petitioners and respondent No.3 & 4
hereby directed to produce particulars of Bank Account of petitioners, with name of Bank, IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of Bank Pass Book which contained compulsorily photographs of petitioners and respondents, which is duly attested by concerned Bank. Further petitioners and respondents shall produce PAN Card/Adhar Card.
SCCH-11 29 MVC.No.6795/2019
In case of deposit of awarded amount with interest thereon by respondent, the petitioners and respondents are entitled to receive amount as mentioned above after expiry of period provided for filing an appeal.
Bank shall not advance loan on such FD, and shall not cause premature release of FD without permission from the Tribunal.
Bank shall release amount along with interest thereon in favour of petitioners and respondent No.3 & 4 on proper verification and identification or credit said amount to their account after expiry of three years period of deposit, without waiting for further order of court.
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Office to draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 04th day of May, 2022.) (Raghavendra.D) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM BENGALURU SCCH-11 30 MVC.No.6795/2019 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
PW.1 : Sri.Prakash.K.C. PW.2 : Sri.Prakash
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:-
Ex.P1 : FIR Ex.P2 : Complaint Ex.P3 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 : Seizer Mahazar Ex.P5 : IMV Report Ex.P6 : Inquest Report Ex.P7 : PM Report Ex.P8 : Charge Sheet Ex.P9 : Death Summary Ex.P10-12: Notarized copies of Aadhaar Card Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of Ration Card Ex.P14 : 9 Medical bills
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
RW.1 Smt.Dhanalakshmi RW.2 Sri.Ashlesh Mogar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS:-
Ex.R.1 Notarized copy of Ration Card
Ex.R.2-3 2 Notarized Copies of Aadhaar Cards
Ex.R.4 Copy of Yashwini Yojana Card
Ex.R.5 Birth Certificate of 4th respondent
Ex.R.6 Death Certificate of deceased
SCCH-11 31 MVC.No.6795/2019
Ex.R.7 Study certificate
Ex.R.8 Authorization letter
Ex.R.9 Sketch
Ex.R.10 Copy of insurance policy
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.