Bangalore District Court
Motihar Shaikh @ vs The Managing Director on 29 February, 2016
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 29th day of February 2016
M.V.C. No.278/2014
Petitioners 1. Motihar Shaikh @
Motiur Rahaman S.K.,
S/o Daudali S.K.,
Aged about 43 years,
2. Sharifa Bibi,
W/o Motihar Shaikh,
Aged about 39 years,
3. Rakhiba Khatum,
D/o Motihar Shaikh,
Aged about 16 years,
4. Mousami Khatum,
D/o Motihar Shaikh,
Aged about 12 years,
Since petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are
minors, represented by their
Father Motihar Shaikh,
All are residing at Kodalkati,
Sonatikuri, Sonatikuri,
Mushidabad,
West Bengal - 742 175.
(Smt. D.N. Mamatha, Advocate)
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014
Vs.
Respondents 1. The Managing Director,
Vishwas Concrete Pvt. Ltd.,
RMC Divn. No.80185,
3rd Main road,
New Tharagupet,
Bangalore.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing
No.KA-01-AA-9937)
(Exparte)
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.
Ltd., No.31, T.B. Tower 1st Cross,
New Mission road,
Adjacent to Jain College,
Bangalore - 2.
(Policy cover note
No.DY1300658165, valid from 01-
09-2013 to 31-12-2013)
(Sri S. Krishna Kishore, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the death of Sakhir-Ul-Sheikh, son of Motihar Sheikh in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under; 3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 The petitioners said to be the legal heirs and financial dependents of the deceased Sakhir-Ul-Sheikh in their claim petition, were alleged that on 11-12-2013 at about 12.45 a.m., the deceased was standing at the construction building, at the back side of the Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Vasanthanagar Miller Tank road, Bangalore, who was standing near the right back side of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AA-9937 and he was giving direction to the driver of the said lorry to take the lorry in a reverse direction i.e., from north to south direction and at the same time and same spot, the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AA-9937 has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic norms took the said lorry to right side instead of taking the said lorry to his left side, as such the deceased who was standing at the right back side of the lorry was hit by the right side of the lorry and the said lorry was toppled to right side and deceased was struck under the lorry and the public and the workers 4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 around the spot managed to drag the deceased from the bottom of the toppled lorry and shifted him to the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, but he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries at about 3.21 a.m., on the same day. The postmortem was conducted and body was handing over to them and they were shifted the dead body to their native place by flight and conducted the funeral and obsequies by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy doing mason work by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and he was contributing the entire income to the family maintenance, due to the untimely death, they put into deep mental shock and agony and they lost the earning member in the family as well as love and affection, as the petitioner No.1 and 2 are none other than the parents of the deceased and petitioner No.3 and 4 are none other than the sisters of the deceased. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash 5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Thereby, High Grounds Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver in their police station crime No.73/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 (A) & (B) R/w Section 187 of M.V. Act. The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear nor file his written statement, as he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement in which has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in law or on facts and he has denied that the deceased was giving directions to the driver of the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle driver has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner because of his rash and negligent driving while 6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 taking the reverse, the accident was occurred and the deceased was sustained injuries. Though, he was shifted to hospital, but he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries and the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, but he has admitted about the issuance of the policy in favour of the first respondent in respect of the offending vehicle and the policy was valid from 11-10-2013 to 10- 10-2014 and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and he has alleged that the person who filed the complaint was the witness to the incident has categorically mentioned that the deceased was giving signal to the driver of the lorry by standing on right hind portion of the lorry, the lorry turned turtle to the right side as that portion was dug due to pipeline and due to that impact Shakir-ul-Sheik capsized under the said lorry. So, he was not working as a cleaner in the said lorry. Therefore, the averments of the petition are contrary to the police records lodged by the eye witness 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 and as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. The first respondent has entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving licence. So, he has contravened the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and he has alleged that the policy covers risk of one paid driver and legal liability to operation and maintenance for two persons. The deceased was not the employee under the insured as per the complaint. So, he is not liable to pay any compensation, as he was working in concrete work. Therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable and either the owner of the offending vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of the M.V. 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 Act in furnishing better particulars and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioners proves that deceased Shakhir-ul-Sheik was died in a road traffic accident occurred on 11-12- 2013 at about 12.45 a.m., at back side of Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Vasanthnagar, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the heavy goods concrete mixer bearing registration No.KA- 01-AA-9937?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
6. The petitioners in order to prove their claim petition, the petitioner No.1 has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 and they have examined one witness on their behalf as PW2. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in order to prove its defence has 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 examined its Assistant Manager as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 and examined one witness as RW2 and got marked the documents as Ex.R5 to Ex.R7.
7. Hard arguments on both side.
8. My finding 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
9. Issue No.1:
The petitioners being said to be the legal heirs and financial dependents of the deceased Sakhir-ul-Sheikh were approached the court on the ground that on 11-12- 2013 at about 12.45 a.m., the deceased was standing at the construction building, at the back side of the Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Vasanthanagar Miller Tank road, Bangalore, by giving direction to the driver of the
10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 said lorry to take the lorry in a reverse direction, but the driver of the offending vehicle instead of taking the reverse as per the direction, but he took the lorry towards left side, as such the deceased who standing at the right back side of the lorry was hit by the right side of the lorry and the said lorry was toppled to right side and deceased was struck under the lorry. The public and the workers around the spot managed to drag the deceased from the bottom of the toppled lorry and shifted him to the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, but he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries at about 3.21 a.m., on the same day. Thereby, the petitioners being said to be the legal heirs and financial dependants of the deceased were filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
10. The petitioners in order to prove their claim petition, the petitioner No.1 has filed his affidavit as his chief-examination as PW1, in which has stated that on 11-12-2013 at about 12.45 a.m., his son was standing at 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 the construction building, at the back side of the Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Vasanthanagar Miller Tank road, Bangalore, who was standing near the right back side of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AA-9937 and he was giving direction to the driver of the said lorry to take the lorry in a reverse direction i.e., from north to south direction and at the same time and same spot, the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-01-AA-9937 has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic norms took the said lorry to right side instead of taking the said lorry to his left side, as such the deceased who was standing at the right back side of the lorry was hit by the right side of the lorry and the said lorry was toppled to right side and deceased was struck under the lorry and the public and the workers around the spot managed to drag the deceased from the bottom of the toppled lorry and shifted him to the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, but he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries at about 3.21 12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 a.m., on the same day, the postmortem was conducted and body was handing over to them and they were shifted the dead body to their native place by flight and conducted the funeral and obsequies by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Thereby, High Grounds Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver in their police station crime No.73/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 (A) & (B) R/w Section 187 of M.V. Act. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he was not the witness to the accident, his brother has lodged the complaint and his son was working as a mason and as on the date of the alleged accident, his son was giving a direction to the lorry driver and the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, as the police have recorded his statement, but he did not produced the same before court and he has denied that 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 the accident was occurred on account of negligence of his son, since his son was standing behind the lorry by giving the signal to the driver.
11. The PW2 being said to the eye witness in his evidence has stated that on 11-12-2013 at about 12.45 a.m., one concrete lorry bearing No.KA-01-AA-9937 having fully loaded concrete came near the Mahaveer Jain Hospital road and Miller Tank road Junction, Vasantha Nagar and driver of the said concrete lorry was driving the same in a reverse gear to bring the same to the construction area in a direction of south to north and the deceased who was standing at the right back side of the lorry and he was also giving direction to the driver to bring the said lorry from the Mahaveer Jain Hospital road and Miller Tank road Junction road to the construction place and the driver of the said lorry without observing any signal has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and took the said lorry towards right side instead of taking the lorry towards his 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 left side, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the said lorry toppled towards right side and deceased was caught under the said lorry and after the fire engine was brought and with the help of the workers the deceased was dragged from the bottom of the toppled lorry and shifted him to the Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, but he was succumbed due to the accidental injuries at about 3.21 a.m., on the same day. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that the deceased was standing behind the lorry by giving the direction to the lorry driver to take the reverse of the said lorry and the driver instead of taking the lorry towards left side had took the right side. Thereby, the accident was occurred and he has denied that the deceased was standing behind the lorry by giving the direction to the lorry driver. So, on his own negligence, he was fell down and sustained the injuries, but he has admitted that the 15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 deceased was not the cleaner of the lorry, but he was giving the signal to the lorry driver.
12. The petitioners in support of the oral evidence have produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Ex.P1 is the information filed by one Hasibul Sheik in which has stated that on 11-12-2013 at about 12.45 p.m., the concrete lorry was came to the building by loading the concrete and the deceased was standing back side of the lorry by giving direction to the lorry driver for taking the lorry in a reverse, but the lorry driver instead of taking the lorry towards left side has took the right side in a rash and negligent manner and the said lorry was toppled towards right side and the deceased was caught under the said lorry and they brought the fire engine and with the help of the workers, the deceased was dragged from the bottom of the toppled lorry and the lorry driver was ran away from the spot. So based on the information High Grounds Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle 16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 driver in their police station crime No.73/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304(A) of IPC and Section 134 (A) & (B) R/w Section 187 of M.V. Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross examined the PW1 and PW2, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve their evidence. The PW1 being said to be the father of the deceased in his evidence has admitted that he was not the witness to the accident. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent has suggested the PW1 that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of his son for which he has denied the same. The learned counsel for the respondent has suggested the PW2 who is the eye witness that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the deceased for which he has also denied the same. If at all the accident was occurred on the negligence of the deceased nothing is prevented to the respondent to examine the offending vehicle driver nor the witnesses who are cited in the charge sheet to show that the accident in question was taken place on 17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 the negligence of the deceased and it was not taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, if that is so, the mater would have different.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent while canvassing his arguments has much argued that the averments as alleged in the claim petition are contrary to the police records and the complaint which was lodged by the eye witness according to him as on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was not the cleaner. So, question of giving the instruction to the lorry driver does not arise, even the petitioners in their claim petition have shown the deceased avocation as mason concrete work, but in which nowhere stated that the deceased was the cleaner. So, question of giving the instruction to the lorry driver does not arise. Thus, the claim petition itself is not maintainable against the respondent and there is no provision for any person either to sit or stand on the back side of the vehicle to give instruction to the lorry driver. So, the accident was occurred on the negligence of the 18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 deceased. Thus, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.
14. It is an admitted fact, the respondent has not disputed the accident which was taken place on 11-12- 2013, but according to the second respondent, the deceased was not the cleaner nor working under the first respondent. So, question of giving instruction to the lorry driver does not arise and the averments of the claim petition are contrary to the police records. Thus, this Court drawn its attention on Section 279 of IPC reads like thus;
Rash driving or riding on a public way:-
Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.
19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014
15. The above provision is clear whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person.
16. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the respondent has much argued that the averments as appeared in the claim petition are contrary to the police records and the deceased was not the cleaner of the lorry. So, question of giving instruction to the lorry driver does not arise and the accident was occurred on his own negligence and he has not disputed the accident which was taken place on 11-12-2013, but whereas the provision as stated above, is clear that whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, held that the accident was caused due to his rash or negligent driving. But the reasons best known to the offending vehicle driver has took the lorry in a reverse negligently knowing fully well his act causes hurt or injury to the 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 person who was standing on the back side of the lorry nor in the lorry. So, the negligence is on the part of the offending vehicle driver, if the driver taken minimum care while taking the reverse, he would have save the life of the deceased. So, on the negligence of the driver, the deceased has lost the life. Therefore, merely on the ground that the averments as alleged in the claim petition are contrary to the police records, it does not mean that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle driver. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect holds no water and moreover the respondent has not examined the offending vehicle driver nor challenged either the FIR or the complaint on the ground that the accident in question was not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, it was taken place on the negligence of the deceased, if that is so, the matter would have different. So, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are remained 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 unchallenged. Ex.P3 is the panchanama drawn by the I.O., clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the inquest panchanama and post mortem report clearly reflects that the deceased has sustained the injury because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver and he was succumbed due to the said accidental injuries, as the respondent has not disputed the accident nor involvement of the vehicle in view of Section 165 of M.V. Act. Ex.P8 is the final report filed by the I.O., clearly reflects that the I.O., after conducting the investigation has found that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, that is the reason why, he has charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver on the ground that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. So, the documents marked as 22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 are coupled with the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2. The respondent No.2 has examined its Assistant Manager as RW1, but her evidence will not help the respondent to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners have proved their case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Hence, I am of the opinion that the issue No.1 is answered as affirmative.
17. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being said to be the father of the deceased in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident his son was hale and healthy working as a mason by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and he was contributing entire income to the family maintenance, due to the untimely death they put into deep mental shock and agony and they lost the love and affection. The PW1 in his cross examination has denied that the employer of 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 the deceased has paid the compensation, but he has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that prior to the accident his son was getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-.
18. The PW2 being said to be the Labour Supervisor in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a mason by getting monthly income of Rs.9,000/-. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that prior to the accident, the deceased was working as a mason and other workers were also doing the work and he has not produced any document to show that prior to the accident, the deceased was getting monthly income of Rs.9,000/-, since he has not took the signature in the ledger.
19. The PW1 being the father of the deceased in his evidence has categorically admitted that he did not produce any document to show that prior to the accident his son was getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. So, one thing is clear from the oral and documentary 24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 evidence that the petitioners have not produced any document to show that prior to the accident, the deceased was getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. In the absence of the materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the income of the deceased as alleged in the claim petition. So considering the age and skill of the deceased and the present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider the monthly notional income of Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Then the yearly income comes to Rs.84,000/-.
20. Ex.P9 to Ex.P14 are clearly reflects that the petitioners are none other than the parents and sisters of the deceased. So, they are the financial dependents of the deceased. The petitioners in their claim petition were alleged that as on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are the inquest panchanama and postmortem report are clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 21 years. Ex.P13 is the 25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 birth certificate which belongs to the deceased in which the deceased date of birth has been shown as 11-01- 1992. So, if the date of birth as shown in the Ex.P13 is taken into consideration as on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 22 years. Therefore, the deceased age is taken into consideration as 22 years as on the date of the alleged accident. Now, the question arises whether the Tribunal has to consider the age of the deceased or the younger parents of the deceased. Thus, this court drawn its attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 AIR SCW 3105 in between Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision their lordship held that while awarding the compensation under the head of loss of dependency, the Tribunal has to consider the age of the deceased alone. So, the decision as stated above is directly applicable to the case on hand.
26 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014
21. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners in their claim petition nor in their evidence nowhere stated that the deceased was married, so one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident, the deceased was bachelor. So in case of bachelor 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses and 50% as the contribution to the family. So, his annual income comes to Rs.84,000/-. So after deduction of 50% towards his personal and living expenses which comes to Rs.42,000/- . So by virtue of decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in between Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., the multiplier applicable to the deceased is 18. So, Rs.42,000X18 = Rs.7,56,000/- towards loss of dependency. So, the petitioners are entitled for the said amount towards loss of dependency.
22. The petitioner No.1 to 4 are none other than the parents and sisters of the deceased, they lost the love and affection. So, Rs.40,000/- is awarded under the 27 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 head of loss of love and affection. Rs.10,000/- is awarded under the head of loss of estate.
23. The petitioners in their claim petition were alleged that they were shifted the dead body to their native place by flight and conducted the funeral and obsequies by spending huge amount. So, considering their original resident, Ex.P18 and Ex.P19, it is just and necessary to consider Rs.50,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. So, Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies.
24. Thus, the total award stands as follows:
1.Loss of dependency Rs. 7,56,000-00
2.Loss of love and affection Rs. 40,000-00
3.Loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00
4.Transportation of dead Rs. 50,000-00 body and funeral expenses Total Rs. 8,56,000-00
25. The learned counsel for the respondent has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged 28 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 accident, the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The 1st respondent being the owner has entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving licence. So, the 1st respondent has contravened the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, he is not liable to pay the compensation, but whereas the RW2 being the junior clerk of Regional Transport Office, Mumbai in his evidence has clearly stated that the offending vehicle driver has took the LMV transport driving licence on 22- 06-2006 and he was also took the driving licence for HGV on 26-09-2007 and the driving licence was existence and the DL in respect of HGV has been renewed from 03-12- 2012 to 02-12-2015.
26. It is an admitted fact, the accident was occurred on 11-12-2013 and the RW2 though he being the witness of the respondent has categorically admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence to 29 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 drive the Concrete Mixer Vehicle. So, the evidence of the RW2 clearly reflects that as on the date of alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect holds no water.
27. The second respondent in its written statement has admitted about issuance of the policy in respect of offending vehicle in favour of first respondent and the policy was existence from 11-10-2013 to 10-10-2014. The accident was occurred on 11-12-2013. So, as on the date of alleged accident, the policy was in existence. Since the Ex.R1 reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the policy was in existence. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident, the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy 30 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 KLJ 292 from the date of petition till its realisation. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
28. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% 31 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 30% each is allotted to the share of petitioner No.1 and 2 and 20% each is allotted to the share of petitioner No.3 and 4 by way of apportionment of compensation amount.
Out of the share amount of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in their name in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to them by means of a/c payee cheque on proper identification. However, they are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Out of the share amount of petitioner Nos.3 and 4 being the minors entire their share amount shall be deposited in any nationalised or scheduled bank till attaining their age of majority. However, the petitioner 32 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014 No.1 being the natural guardian of the petitioner Nos.3 and 4 is at liberty to withdraw periodical interest accrued on their deposit. After attaining their age of majority the entire amount shall be released to them without any further proceedings.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 29th day of February 2016.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 Sri Motihar Shaikh @ Motiur Rahaman S.K. PW2 Sri Hasibul Shaik List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint
33 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014
Ex.P2 True copy of FIR
Ex.P3 True copy of Panchanama
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P6 True copy of Inquest panchanama
Ex.P7 True copy of Post mortem report
Ex.P8 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P9 Notarised attested true copy of Aadhaar
card
Ex.P10 Notarised attested true copy of Aadhaar
card
Ex.P11 Notarised attested true copy of Birth
certificate
Ex.P12 Notarised attested true copy of Birth
certificate
Ex.P13 Birth certificate
Ex.P14 Character certificate
Ex.P15 MLC register
Ex.P16 No objection certificate
Ex.P17 Certificate of Embalming
Ex.P18 Coffin maker certificate
Ex.P19 Airline ticket
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Smt. Prathibha S. RW2 Sri Sachin Gouli 34 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.278/2014
List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 Policy copy
Ex.R2 Notice copy
Ex.R3 Postal receipt
Ex.R4 Postal acknowledgement
Ex.R5 Authorization letter
Ex.R6 Driving licence extract of Raju Jamna Singh
Ex.R7 Office copy of Driving licence
(P.J. Somashekar),
XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT,
Bangalore.