Bangalore District Court
Mario Leo Joseph vs The Managing Partner on 30 January, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY, 2015
PRESENT : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., LL.B.,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6273/2013
Petitioner/s : 1. Mario Leo Joseph
S/o Narayan Joseph
Aged about 70 years.
2. Mary Rita Leo
W/o Mari Leo Joseph
Aged about 60 years
Both are residing at
No. 414, Marrian Illam,
I-G Main Road,
Near Vinayaka Temple,
OMBR Layout,
Banasavadi,
Kalyan Nagar
Bengaluru - 43.
(By Pleader - Sri.G.Srinivasa.)
V/s
Respondent/s : 1.The Managing Partner,
M/s Kallada Travels,
No.14, K.C.R. Complex
Hosur main road,
Madivala,
Bengaluru - 68.
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.6273/2013
(RC Owner of bus bearing
No. KA-01 AB-6543)
(By Pleader - Sri.H.N.Keshava
Prasanth.)
2. The Reliance General
Insurance Co.ltd.,
No. 28, V. Floor,
Centenary Building
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru.
(Insurer of bus bearing
No. KA-01 AB-6543)
Policy No:
2204722340000413
valid from 12.09.2012 to
11.09.2013.
(By Pleader - Sri.V.S.Biju.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation on account of death of their son Fredrick Leo in road traffic accident.
2. Initially, this petition was assigned to the Hon'ble SCCH-10 and subsequently, as per the Notification No.ADMI/419/2014 dated 06.05.2014, it is (SCCH-15) 3 MVC.6273/2013 reassigned to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.
3. The brief case of petitioners is that on 27.08.2013 at about 1 a.m. i.e. early in the morning, deceased was traveling in the bus bearing registration No.KA-01 AB-6543 from Bengaluru to Kochin. When the said bus was proceeding on Tiruppur to Uthukuli road, it was dashed against Ultimate mobile care cell phone shop, near Cottony Fashions companion, the northern side of road in Karumarampalayam.
b) Because of which, deceased suffered severe injuries and died on the spot itself. Accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of bus driver. Therefore, 1st respondent being the RC owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer of bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the petition as sought for.
4. In response to due service of notices, both the respondents have appeared through their counsels and filed their separate statement of objections to the main (SCCH-15) 4 MVC.6273/2013 petition denying the petition averments. 1 st respondent has admitted its ownership over the bus. It has contended that as on the date of accident, policy of the bus was with 2nd respondent which was valid and in force. Therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs.
b) 2nd respondent has admitted the policy and its force on the date of accident. But has contended that its liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The vehicle involved in the accident is heavy transport vehicle. Therefore, specific endorsement is required to drive the particular class of vehicle. The driver had no license to drive the heavy transport vehicle and the owner has entrusted the vehicle to a person who had no valid license. Hence, there is a willful breach of policy condition. Accordingly, it is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs. (SCCH-15) 5 MVC.6273/2013
5. On the above said pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor in office i.e. the then Presiding Officer of SCCH-10 was pleased to frame the following issues.
1) Whether petitioners prove that deceased Sri. Fredrick Leo died in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.08.2013 at about 01:00 a.m. due to hit to Ultimate Mobile Care Cell phone Shop, near Cotton Fashions Company on the Northern Side of Road in Karumparampalayam in Tiruppur to Uthukuli Road, within the jurisdiction of Tiruppur North Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No. KA-01 AB-6543 by its driver as alleged?
2) Whether petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3) What order or award?
6. To prove the above said issues and to substantiate their respective contentions, 1 st petitioner himself has entered into witness box as PW-1. They have got examined the alleged employee of the deceased as PW-2. Totally got exhibited 31 documents and closed their side. Despite sufficient opportunities, both respondents did not lead their defence evidence. (SCCH-15) 6 MVC.6273/2013 Hence, defence evidence on behalf of both respondents taken as nil.
b) Heard petitioner and counsel for 2 nd respondent on merits. Since 1st respondent and his counsel keep on absent, arguments on behalf of 1 st respondent taken as not submitted. In support of his case, petitioner has filed memo along with the decisions reported in,
1. ILR 2013 KAR 493,
2. 2012 ACJ 2316,
3. 2012 ACJ 2002,
4. 2013 ACJ 1403,
5. 2014(2) TAC (SC) and
6. 2014(2) TAC 176 (Kant.).
This Tribunal has carefully gone through the above reported decisions and perused the records.
7. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said issues are answered in the;
1. Issue No.1 : Affirmative.
2. Issue No.2 : Petitioners are entitled for Compensation amount of Rs.75,21,000/- at the rate of 40:60 together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its (SCCH-15) 7 MVC.6273/2013 entirety from 2nd respondent.
3. Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1:- Both the respondents have denied the entire petition averments. But both the respondents have not let in any defence evidence and 1st respondent has even filed its statement of objections to the main petition, subsequently, it has not at all contested the matter on merits.
9. However, to establish their case, petitioners as observed above got examined 2nd petitioner as PW-1 who has filed her affidavit evidence reiterating the petition averments. During her cross-examination the only suggestion made on behalf of 2 nd respondent is that accident did not take place because of the bus driver. Except that nothing has been suggested to 2 nd petitioner and there is no specific defence so far the involvement of the bus and the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver resulting in accident. (SCCH-15) 8 MVC.6273/2013
10. Moreover in support of the oral testimony of 2 nd petitioner, petitioners have produced true copies of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, MV report, PM report and charge sheet and since police papers are in Tamil language, their translated version in English respectively at Ex.P-1 to 10. All those documents categorically reveal that jurisdictional police have initially registered criminal case against the bus driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and after investigation they have charge sheeted the bus driver for the offences alleged.
11. As observed above, 1 st respondent has not cross-examined petitioners' witnesses. 2 nd respondent as observed above has not at all taken specific plea and there is no cross-examination with regard to the police papers which are in consonance with the case of petitioners.
12. Moreover, there is presumption with regard to the police papers that they are prepared by the investing officers during the discharge of their official (SCCH-15) 9 MVC.6273/2013 duty while investigating into a crime. Of course the said presumption is rebuttal one. But, both the respondents have not at all let in any such rebuttal evidence. Hence, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of 2nd petitioner supported by the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 10.
13. So far death of the deceased because of accidental injuries on the spot itself, no defence raised on behalf of both the respondents in the statement of objections. 2nd respondent even during the evidence, has not cross-examined in that behalf. On the other hand, police papers are in support the case of petitioners with regard to the death of the deceased because of accidental injuries. Hence, petitioners have successfully proved that accident took place due to negligence of bus driver and the deceased died because of accidental injuries. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
14. ISSUE No.2:- It is the case of petitioners that they are parents of the deceased. There is no dispute (SCCH-15) 10 MVC.6273/2013 raised on behalf of other side with regard to the relationship of petitioners with the deceased. Moreover to establish their relationship with the deceased, petitioners have produced police papers along with true copies of police clearance at Ex.P-11 with regard to transportation of dead body from Thiruppur to Bengaluru.
15. They have also produced the certified copy of death certificate of the deceased at Ex.P-12; notarized copy of SSLC marks card and Degree Certificate at Ex.P-13 & 14; notarized copy of driving license, PAN card and passport at Ex.P-15 to 17 pertain to the deceased.
16. They have also produced their notarized copies of passports and adhar cards at Ex.P-18 to 21. All those documents are in consonance with the case of petitioners with regard to father's name of the deceased. The addresses shown in all those documents tally with each other. So, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of petitioners that they are parents (SCCH-15) 11 MVC.6273/2013 of the deceased. Hence, being the legal heirs, they are entitled to file claim petition seeking compensation and in view of answering issue No.1 in affirmative being legal heirs of the deceased, petitioners are entitled for compensation. Now in respect of quantum.
17. It is the case of petitioners that deceased was aged 37 years, working as Senior Immigration Specialist at Fragomen Immigration Services India Private Ltd., Koramangala, Bengaluru also at Kakkanad, Kochi, having income of Rs.53,000/- p.m.
18. To establish that petitioners as observed above have produced documents at Ex.P-13 and 15 to 17 respectively the notarized copies of SSLC marks card, driving license, pan card and pass part. All those documents categorically reflect the date of birth of the deceased as 16.03.1976. The date of accident is 27.08.2013. So as on the date of accident, petitioner was aged about 37 years.
19. Moreover, there is no cross-examination about the age of the deceased mentioned in those (SCCH-15) 12 MVC.6273/2013 documents. Hence, it can be safely held that deceased was aged 37 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable to the said age is 15.
20. To prove the avocation and income of the deceased, petitioners with the oral evidence of 2 nd petitioner have also got examined the authorized person of the employee of the deceased as PW-2 who has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has stated that the deceased was working in their concern as Senior Immigration Specialist and was drawing salary of Rs.52,965/-. Deceased was working from 16.08.2011 till his death i.e. on 27.08.2013 in the road traffic accident.
21. It is also in his affidavit evidence that since deceased was very efficient and hard worker and he was eligible for promotion in 2014. If the deceased had been alive, his salary would have been increased to Rs.9,00,000/- p.a. and he had bright future prospectus in their concern.
22. During his chief evidence he has produced letter of offer terms of employment, confirmation letter, (SCCH-15) 13 MVC.6273/2013 letter of appraisals, pay slips, master role, leave register extract and pay role at Ex.P-24A to 26A and 27 to 30. During the evidence of 2 nd petitioner, she has produced pay slips of the deceased at Ex.P-22, job offer letter of the deceased with terms of employment at Ex.P-23, true copy of job confirmation letter at Ex.P-24, true copies of appraisal letters at Ex.P-25 pertain to the deceased.
23. All the said documents categorically reveal that deceased was working as Senior Immigration Specialist in Fredrick Immigration Services India Private Ltd. and his net salary for the month of July, 2013 was Rs.50,445/- i.e. after deducting the TDS, profession Tax and labour welfare fund.
24. It is in the cross-examination of PW-2 that last net salary drawn by the deceased was Rs.50,445/- for the month of July, 2013. PW-2 has also stated that there is basic salary, HRA and Conveyance fixed for particular category. At the time of appointment, company will fix the annual salary in which after deducting the fixed (SCCH-15) 14 MVC.6273/2013 basic salary, HRA and conveyance, the amount remained will be called as special allowance. Accordingly, Rs.26,065/- remained amount after deducting basic salary, HRA, conveyance fixed for the category of the job of deceased and the same is shown as special allowance.
25. It is also in his cross-examination that in May and June salary, special allowance is shown as Rs.24,000/- and in the month of July it is shown as Rs.26,000/- for which he voluntarily deposed that as per the appointment letter, the appraisal once in a year in case of deceased falls on 1st July of every year. Therefore, there is Rs.2,000/- excess in the salary of July, 2013.
26. He has also deposed that the salary of the deceased was being credited to HDFC, Info Park branch, Kochi. At this stage, it is important to go through Ex.P- 31, the bank account statement extract produced by 2 nd petitioner pertains to the deceased. The entries therein are in support of the above observed evidence of PW-2. (SCCH-15) 15 MVC.6273/2013
27. So there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the petitioners that deceased was working as Senior Immigration Specialist in Fredrick Immigration Services India Private Ltd. and the net salary was Rs.50,450/- as on the date of accident.
28. It is the case of the petitioners that they were depending on the income of the deceased. Of course, it is elicited in the cross-examination of 2 nd petitioner that they have 3 sons and one daughter, totally 4 children. Deceased is youngest one. Out of two children, one son became priest and one is in states. He is a software engineer. Deceased was unmarried.
29. It is also in her cross-examination that her husband is a retired employee in Airlines and he has no pension facility. He had received retirement benefit in lump sum. She has denied the suggestion that their family is being maintained by her husband for which she voluntarily deposed that her family was being maintained by deceased and he used to pay Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- p.m. for their family (SCCH-15) 16 MVC.6273/2013 maintenance. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of 2nd petitioner.
30. Moreover in view of the admitted fact that date of birth of 1st petitioner is 04.11.1939, the date of birth of 2nd petitioner is 28.02.1949, being the age old parents, it can safely be held that they were depending on the income of the deceased. Accordingly, petitioners have successfully proved that they are the dependants of the deceased.
31. It is the case of the petitioners that they are respectively aged 70 and 60 years. It is admitted fact that their date of birth is 04.11.1939 and 28.02.1949 respectively. As observed above, the date of accident is 27.08.2013. So, on the date of accident they were respectively aged 74 and 64 years.
32. Therefore, considering the age of the deceased and at the fag end of their life, they have lost their son in an unfortunate accident, it is just and proper to award reasonable compensation under the (SCCH-15) 17 MVC.6273/2013 head loss of loss of love and affection as well as loss of estate.
33. So far deduction of income towards personal expenses of the deceased, petitioners' counsel placed his reliance on the decision reported in 2012 ACJ 2316 wherein it is held that;
"Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment - Personal expenses - Deceased a bachelor aged 25 - Claimants: parents, brother and sister - compensation - Contention that 50 per cent of income should be deducted for personal expenses - Whether Tribunal was justified in deducting 1/3rd of the income of the deceased as his personal expenses - Held: yes."
34. But in the present case on hand, the deceased died leaving behind his parents only. Therefore, the above observed decision does not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Since, the deceased died unmarried leaving behind his parents, ½ of his income should be deducted towards his personal expenses.
35. With regard to applicability of multiplier, petitioners' counsel placed his reliance on the decision (SCCH-15) 18 MVC.6273/2013 reported in 2012 ACJ 2002 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has 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 computation of compensation. (1009 ACJ 1298 (SC) followed.)
36. The other side has not produced any decision over ruling the above decision. So, in view of the above observed decision, the multiplier applicable to this case is 15 since the deceased died at his age of 37 years.
37. With regard to future prospectus, the counsel for petitioners placed his reliance on the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that;
"Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment - Future prospectus - Whether formula for increase of income for future prospectus adopted ffor person with permanent jobs in Sarla Verma's case 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC), may also be applied to persons who were self - employed or were engaged on fixed wages - Held:
yes; 50 per cent of actual income (after (SCCH-15) 19 MVC.6273/2013 deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years; 30 per cent for age group of 40 to 50 years; 15 per cent for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no addition thereafter".
38. In the case on hand, since deceased died at his age of 37 years, petitioners are entitled for future prospectus at 50%. In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation under the heads mentioned below and the amount against them.
1. Loss of Dependency Rs.49,00,500/- (Rs.54,450 x ½ x 12 x 15 )
2. Add 50% of future prospectus Rs.24,50,250/-
3. Loss of Love and Affection Rs.
1,00,000/-
(P-1 & P-2, Rs.50,000/- each)
4. Loss of Estate Rs. 50,000/-
(P-1 and P-2, Rs.25,000/- each)
6. Transportation of dead body and Funeral Expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total: Rs.75,20,750/-
rounded off to Rs.75,21,000/-.
39. Considering the cost of living as on the date of the accident, it is thought fit to award interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization of the compensation amount in its entirety. (SCCH-15) 20 MVC.6273/2013
40. Now in respect of liability. There is no dispute between the parties with regard to the fact that 1 st respondent is the RC owner and 2 nd respondent is the insurer of bus. 2nd respondent has contended that its liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It has specifically contended that bus driver do not have valid and effective driving license to drive class of vehicle involved in the accident.
41. However, to establish its defence of breach of policy conditions, it has not at all let in any defence evidence. On the other hand, if the entire evidence on record is taken into consideration as per Ex.P-9, the jurisdictional police have charge sheeted the bus driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of MV Act. There is no allegation against the bus driver for any of the offences punishable under any of the provisions of MV Act. Hence, 1 st respondent being the RC owner is liable to pay the compensation and 2 nd respondent being the insurer is liable to indemnify the said liability.
(SCCH-15) 21 MVC.6273/2013
42. Considering the age and the relationship of petitioners with the deceased, it is thought just and proper to apportion the compensation amount amongst them at 40:60. Accordingly, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.75,21,000/- at 40:60 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd respondent. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
43. ISSUE No.3:- From the above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.75,21,000/- at 40:60 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount, 1 st and 2nd petitioners shall deposit Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.22,50,000/- respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil (SCCH-15) 22 MVC.6273/2013 Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest as well as cost to be paid to them individually through account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court by me on this the 30th day of January, 2015.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
PW1: Mary Rita Leo PW2: K.Kurian
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
-None-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 : English translation of Ex.P1, Ex.P3 : True copy of True copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P4 : English translation of Ex.P3, Ex.P5 : True copy of spot sketch, Ex.P6 : English translation of Ex.P4, Ex.P7 : True copy of IMV report, (SCCH-15) 23 MVC.6273/2013 Ex.P8 : True copy of PM report, Ex.P9 : True copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P10 : English translation of Ex.P9, Ex.P11 : True copy of Police clearance, Ex.P12 : Certified copy of death certificate, Ex.P13 : Notarized copy of SSLC marks card of deceased (original shown for perusal), Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of Degree certificate of deceased ((original shown for perusal), Ex.P15 : Notarized copy of driving license (original shown for perusal), Ex.P16 : Notarized copy of PAN card (original shown for perusal), Ex.P17 : Notarized copy of Passport of the deceased (original shown for perusal), Ex.P18 : Notarized copy of Passport of 1 st petitioner (original shown for perusal), Ex.P19 : Notarized copy of passport of 2nd petitioner (original shown for perusal), Ex.P20 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of 1 st petitioner (original shown for perusal), Ex.P21 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of 2 nd petitioner (original shown for perusal), Ex.P22 : Pay slips of deceased (4 in nos.).
Ex.P23 : True copy of Job offer letter
Ex.P24 : True copy of Job confirmation letter
Ex.P25 : True copy of Approval letters(2 in nos.)
Ex.P26 : Bus ticket
Ex.P23A: Authorization letter,
Ex.P24A: True copy of Letter of offer terms of
employment,
Ex.P25A: True copy of confirmation letter,
Ex.P26A: True copy of letter of appraisals (2 in nos.),
Ex.P27 : True copy of pay slips (3 in nos.) for the months
of May to July 2013,
Ex.P28 : True copy of Master role,
Ex.P29 : True copy of Leave register extract,
Ex.P30 : True copy of Pay role (2 in nos.) for the moth of
June and July 2013.
(SCCH-15) 24 MVC.6273/2013
Ex.P31 : Bank statement extract of the deceased.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
- Nil -
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.(SCCH-15) 25 MVC.6273/2013
30/01/2015:
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.75,21,000/- at 40:60 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount, 1 st and 2nd petitioners shall deposit Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.22,50,000/- respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest as well as cost to be paid to them individually through account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(K.KATYAYINI) XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.(SCCH-15) 26 MVC.6273/2013
AWARD SCCH NO.15 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY MVC No.6273/2013 Petitioner/s : 1. Mario Leo Joseph S/o Narayan Joseph Aged about 70 years.
2. Mary Rita Leo W/o Mari Leo Joseph Aged about 60 years Both are residing at No. 414, Marrian Illam, I-G Main Road, Near Vinayaka Temple, OMBR Layout, Banasavadi, Kalyan Nagar Bengaluru - 43.
(By Pleader - Sri.G.Srinivasa.) V/s Respondent/s : 1.The Managing Partner, M/s Kallada Travels, No.14, K.C.R. Complex Hosur main road, Madivala, Bengaluru - 68.
(RC Owner of bus bearing No. KA-01 AB-6543) (By Pleader - Sri.H.N.Keshava Prasanth.) (SCCH-15) 27 MVC.6273/2013
2. The Reliance General Insurance Co.ltd., No. 28, V. Floor, Centenary Building M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
(Insurer of bus bearing No. KA-01 AB-6543) Policy No:
2204722340000413 valid from 12.09.2012 to 11.09.2013.
(By Pleader - Sri.V.S.Biju.) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner above named under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, praying for compensation of Rs.
for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/death in a motor accident caused by vehicle bearing No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before K.Katyayini, Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, in the presence of Shri Advocate for petitioner/s and of Shri Advocate for respondent.
(SCCH-15) 28 MVC.6273/2013
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners are entitled for the compensation of Rs.75,21,000/- at 40:60 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization in its entirety from 2 nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount, 1 st and 2nd petitioners shall deposit Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.22,50,000/- respectively in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest as well as cost to be paid to them individually through account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
By the By the Respondent
Petitioners
Court fee paid on petition
(SCCH-15) 29 MVC.6273/2013
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee:
Total
Decree Drafted by: Scrutinised by:
Decree Clerk: Sheristedar: MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-15) 30 MVC.6273/2013