Bangalore District Court
) S.Komathi vs Madhusudhan D. Shenoy on 9 February, 2015
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY'2015
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
MVC No.1856/2014
Petitioners: 1) S.Komathi,
W/o.C.Subramani,
Aged about 37 years,
2) S.Reena,
D/o.C.Subramani,
Aged about 19 years,
3) S.Vikram,
S/o.C.Subramani,
Aged about 15 years,
All are residing at:
No.28/4, Babu Building,
Near Ganesha Temple,
Singasandra Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore
Since the 3rd petitioner is minor
Reptd., by his mother 1st
petitioner as Natural Guardian
(By Sri A.Sreenivasaiah, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Madhusudhan D. Shenoy,
S/o.Devanna Shenoy,
No.105/2,
Nagondanahalli Main Road,
Immadihalli, Whitefield,
Bangalore 560 066.
2. The Manager,
ICICI Lombard Motors Ins.Co.Ltd.,
2nd Floor, SVR Complex,
Madiwala, Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore 560 068.
Policy
No.3001/M101281240/00/000
Validity 25.05.2013 to 24.05.2014
(Respondent No.1 by Sri
K.H.Umakanthappa, Advocate)
Respondent No.2 by Sri H.N.Keshava
Prashanth, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs from the respondents with regard to the death of C.Subramani in the road traffic accident that occurred on 10.03.2014 at about 03.30 pm., near Bommasandra H.P.Petrol Bunk, Anekal, Bangalore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased C.Subramani.
3. It is contended in the petition that on 10.03.2014, at around 03.30 pm., the deceased was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.05/EC.7581 and when he reached near Bommasandra H.P.Petrol Bunk, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, at that time, one Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KA.53/P.9408 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and safety of others, came in the same direction with high speed and the driver of the said vehicle having lost control over his vehicle, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and in the accident, C.Subramani sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore and after first aid treatment, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment and inspite of better treatment administered there for 10 days, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
4. It is contended that the deceased was working as Manager in New Star Roadways Transport and getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and he was the only earning member in the family.
5. It is contended that the accident has occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by its driver and hence, the jurisdictional Police have filed charge sheet against him. Therefore, the petitioners claim compensation of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the Maruti Omni Van.
6. In pursuance of this petition, the Tribunal issued notice against the respondents. Both the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed separate statement of objections.
7. The first respondent in the statement of objections denied that the driver of the Maruti Omni Van was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The respondent No.1 denies the averments made out in the petition regarding the age, avocation, income, date, place and time of accident, the injuries suffered by the deceased and the treatment given to him and his death on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The averments of the petition that on the date of accident, when the deceased was riding the motorcycle near H.P.Petrol Bunk, Bommasandra, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, at that time, the Maruti Omni Van came from the same direction and dashed against the deceased and the deceased was taken to Sparsh Hospital wherein first aid was given and thereafter, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital wherein he was treated for 10 days and insptie of that, he succumbed to the injuries are all denied as false and the respondent No.1 has put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. It is also denied that the deceased was working as Manager at New Star Road Ways Transport and getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and that the petitioners have spent Rs.3 lakhs for treatment. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is arbitrary, inflated and excessive. It is contended that the accident occurred was due to the negligence and carelessness of the deceased and not due to the fault of the driver of the of the Maruti Omni Van and hence, the respondent No.1 contends that the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. The respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections, wherein it is contended that the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. The respondent No.2 does not admit the allegations made in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. It is contended that it has issued Policy of Insurance in respect of the Maruti Omni Van and the same was valid during the period of accident. However, it is contended that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.2 has taken the statutory defence and also the general defence. It is contended by the respondent No.2 that the driver of the said Maruti Van was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the first respondent, knowing fully well that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, entrusted the vehicle to him and hence, there is clear breach of terms of policy conditions and hence, the second respondent is not liable to indemnify the first respondent. It is further contended that the petitioners have to prove the very negligence on part of the driver of the Maruti Van, the age, avocation and income of the deceased, so also the amount spent for medication. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.
9. It is contended that as per Section 158(6) of M.V.Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer. Further, it is contended that as per Section 134(C) of the MV Act, it is mandatory due of the insurer ie., first respondent to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, vehicular documents. The respondent No.1 has not complied the same. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. For all these reasons, the 2nd respondent has prayed to reject the petition.
10. In view of the contentions raised by the parties, the following issues are framed:-
1) Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.03.2014 at about 3.30 pm., near Bommasandra H.P.Petrol Bunk, Anekal, Bangalore within the jurisdiction of Hebbagodi Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KA.53/P.9408 by its driver?
2) Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the accident occurred on account of the negligent act of the deceased?
3) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4) What Order?
11. In order to substantiate their case, on behalf of the petitioners', the first petitioner has been examined as PW 1 and they have also examined one more witness as PW 2 and in all, 13 documents are got marked as Ex.P.1 to P.13.
12. On behalf of the respondents, none has been examined, nor any documents are got marked.
13. I have heard the arguments of petitioners' counsel as well as the counsel for the respondents.
14. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) In the negative,
3) Partly in the affirmative,
4) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
15. Issue No.1 and 2:- Since both these issues relate to the occurrence of accident and the negligence, I deem it just and proper to discuss both the issues together, since the evidence is likely to overlap.
16. The petitioners' in order to substantiate their case examined the first petitioner as PW 1 and through her evidence, Exhibits P.1 to P.12 came to be marked. Apart from the evidence of PW 1, the petitioners' have examined another witness as PW 2 and through him Ex.P.13 is marked. On behalf of the respondents, none has been examined.
17. It is the case of the petitioners' that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van by its driver and on the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. In order to prove these allegations, the first petitioner has been examined as PW 1 and in her evidence, she has reiterated the averments of the petition with regard to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Omni Van. PW 1 in her evidence got marked the FIR, Charge Sheet, Mahazar, and IMV Report as Ex.P.1, P.2, P.3 and P.6. PW 1 was subjected to cross- examination. In her cross-examination, it is elicited from her that she did not witness the accident and she came to know about the accident through the public over the phone that the accident has occurred near H.P.Petrol Bunk of Bommasandra. It is interesting to note here that though both the respondents contend that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself and even issue No.2 is framed in that regard, but in the cross- examination, not even a suggestion is put to PW 1 in that regard. Added to that, the respondents, having taken such a contention and having attributed negligence to the deceased, ought to have examined the driver of the Maruti Omni Van, who was the right person to speak as to how the accident occurred and also to elicit regarding the negligence of the deceased in occurrence of the accident.
18. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court regarding the negligence.
On perusal of the petition averments, it is alleged that the driver of the Maruti Omni Van came from the same direction in which the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle and dashed against his motorcycle and caused the accident. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon Ex.P.1 - FIR, wherein an allegation is made against the driver of the offending vehicle, who came from the same direction and hit against the deceased. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P.3. Ex.P.6 is the IMV Report, which shows that during the course of inspection, no fresh damages are seen on the vehicle. It has to be noted that though the respondents claim that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased, but as I have already pointed out above, the respondents have not placed on record any material before the Court nor examined the driver of the Maruti Omni Van. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1, coupled with the documentary evidence is suffice to hold that the accident and the resultant death of C.Subramani is due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van by its driver. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative and issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
19. Issue No.3:- This issue relates to the claim of compensation regarding the death of C.Subramani in the accident in question. The petitioners has produced Ex.P.5 Inquest Mahazar and Ex.P.7 P.M.Report. Ex.P.5 and P.7 are the Inquest Mahazar and the P.M. Report conducted on the body of the deceased. In Ex.P.7 PM Report, the reason for death is shown to be 'COMA' as a result of head injury sustained. The respondents No.1 and 2 have not disputed Ex.P.5 and P.7.
20. It is the case of the petitioners in the petition that at the time of the accident, the deceased C.Subramani was aged 44 years and working as Manager in New Star Transport Company and drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even though the petitioners say in the petition that the deceased was working as Manager in the said firm and drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month, but in the evidence of PW 1, she says that her husband was working as Manager in the said firm for the past 15 years and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, PW 1 has been cross-examined. In her cross-examination, she says that her husband was not having any Bank Account and she states that she has not produced any document to show that her husband was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and says that the owner used to pay salary by way of cash. It is suggested to her that her husband was not working as Transport Manager in New Star Transport Company and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and the said suggestion has been denied by him. In her cross-examination, she further says that her husband was aged 44 years at the time of his death and that her husband studied upto SSLC. The petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 SSLC Marks Sheet of the deceased, perusal of which shows that deceased was born on 20.05.1970, Ex.P.12 being a Public Document, the genuineness of the same cannot be doubted and thus, based on Ex.P.12, it can be said that as on the date of accident ie., 10.03.2014, the deceased was running 44 years.
21. In order to substantiate the avocation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.8 Salary Certificate issued by New Star Roadways, perusal of which shows that the deceased was working as Manager in the said firm, with consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the petitioners have also examined one B.Baskaran, the Proprietor of the Firm, in which the deceased was working. PW 2 in his evidence, deposed that the deceased C.Subramani was working in their Transport Company as manager from the past 15 years and drawing consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He further says that he has produced the Notarised Copy of the Membership Certificate issued by the Bangalore City Lorry Transporting Agents Association, which is marked as Ex.P.13. He has been cross- examined by the counsel for the respondents. In his cross-examination, he says that 3 employees are working with him. He further says that he has not produced any document to show that he was paying a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month to the deceased and that he is an income tax assessee and further, says that he has not declared in his income tax return with regard to the payment of salary to the deceased. He further says that he has not maintained any books of accounts to show that the salary was paid in favour of the deceased. It is suggested to him that since the deceased was his friend and hence, he is giving false evidence before the Court to help the petitioners and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
22. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence before the Court with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased.
The petitioners have relied upon Ex.P.8 Salary Certificate of the deceased, perusal of the same shows that the same was issued by PW 2, which shows that the deceased was working in the Transport Company of PW 2 as Manager for the last 15 years. Here, it is pertinent to note that PW 2, who though says that the deceased was working in his Transport Company from the last 15 years, but he admits that he has not produced any document to show that the deceased was working under him and that he has not produced any document to show that he was paying Rs.15,000/- as salary to the deceased and further admits that he has not declared in his income tax return regarding payment of salary to deceased and that he has not maintained any books of accounts to show the salary being paid to the deceased. Added to that, PW 2 has not produced the Muster Roll of the employees working in his office. In the complaint lodged by one Saravana, it is stated that PW 2 Bhaskar is running a Transport Company, wherein the deceased is working and on the date of accident, the deceased after having attended the office, was returning to home and at that time the accident has occurred. Even though from the complaint averments it can be assumed that the deceased was working in the Transport Company run by PW 2, however, having regard to the clear admissions made by PW 2 regarding the made of payment of salary and the maintenance of accounts regarding the payment of salary to the deceased, they does not inspire the confidence of the Court to accept the evidence of PW 2 as trustworthy and therefore, considering the age of the deceased as 44 years and the family status of the deceased, I deem it just and proper to take his income at Rs.6,000/- per month.
23. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that there is no authoritative pronouncement as regards the manner of addition of income for future prospectus and relied upon an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in SLP CC 8058/2014, wherein the Apex Court has directed the Office to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of appropriate larger bench and thereby contended that in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement regarding awarding of future prospectus, he prayed to reject the prayer of the petitioners regarding future prospectus.
24. This contention of the respondent No.2 cannot be considered, for the reason that the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh' 2013 ACJ 1403 and in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (2012) 6 SCC 421, has held that even for self employed persons, the Court take consider the future prospectus and mere referring to larger bench to clear the conflicting views, will not render the principles in Rajesh's Case inapplicable and hence, I deem it just and proper to consider the future prospectus in this case also.
25. As discussed above, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/- and since, he was aged 44 years at the time of accident, 30% out of his income ie., Rs.1,800/-, as per the principles laiddown in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh' 2013 ACJ 1403 and in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (2012) 6 SCC 421, has to be added to his income towards future prospectus, which works out to Rs.7,800/-.
26. As seen from the cause title to the petition and the evidence of PW 1 and the answer elicited from PW 1, the deceased has left behind his wife and two children ie., the petitioners. As the deceased left behind 3 persons, who were entirely dependant on his income, 1/3rd ie., 2,600/- out of his income of Rs.7,800/- has to be given deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive. The balance comes to Rs.5,200/-. Thus, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.62,400/-.
27. Since the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14 and if we multiply the annual loss of dependency ie., Rs.62,400/- by 14 multiplier, the same works out to Rs.8,73,600/-, to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
28. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the deceased has left behind wife and children, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
29. It is the case of petitioners that after the accident, injured Subramani was taken to Sparsh Hospital, wherein first aid was given and thereafter, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital wherein he was treated for 10 days and even after providing best treatment there, he succumbed to the injuries after 10 days of accident and hence, the petitioners claim that they have spent Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment. In her evidence, PW 1 says that they have spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment and also spent Rs.1 lakh for other incidental expenses ie., for transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies. In the cross-examination of PW 1, it is elicited from her that after the accident, her husband was taken to Sparsh Hospital and that her husband succumbed to injuries after 10 days of the accident. It is further elicited from her that the medical expenditure are met by them by making the payment by way of cash. It is suggested to her that the medical expenditure was reimbursed from the Insurance Company and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is further suggested to her that they have not spent Rs.3 lakhs towards treatment and the said suggestion has been denied by her.
30. The petitioners have produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills 5 in numbers, accounting for Rs.1,41,853/- and I have gone through these bills. These bills are issued by St.Johns' Hospital, wherein the deceased was treated prior to his death. These bills also include ambulance charges of Rs.3,000/-. Thus, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.1,41,853/- towards medical expenses and conveyance charges.
31. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 8,73,600.00
2 Compensation to the family members 1,00,000.00
(children and family members other
than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection,
social security etc.
3 Compensation to the widow of the 50,000.00
deceased for loss of love and affection,
pains and sufferings, loss of
consortium, deprivation of protection ,
social security etc.
4 Cost incurred on account of funeral 10,000.00
and ritual expenses
5 Medical expenses incurred before 1,41,853.00
death
Total 11,75,453.00
32. As regards the liability to be fixed on the respondents, though the respondent No.2 Insurance Company contends that the Maruti Omni Van was insured with it at the time of accident, but it is contended that the driver of the Maruti Omni Van was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and hence, it is absolved from paying compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 except contending the same in the statement of objections, neither examined the driver of the vehicle nor the respondent No.1 nor produced any acceptable evidence in support of the same and therefore, the said contention has remained as contention only and hence. I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the primary liability is fixed on the respondent No.2 to indemnify the respondent No.1 and satisfy the award. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.
33. Issue No.4: In the result I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,75,453/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and the respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 50%
Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 25%
Petitioner No.3 - Son - 25%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% out of their share is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the respective petitioner's in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them.
As far as petitioner No.3, who are still minor, his portion of compensation amount is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in his name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice petitioner No.1 for 5 years, with liberty to the petitioner No.1 to withdraw interest once in 3 months on the deposit for the maintenance of minor petitioner No.3.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transaction thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 9th day of February, 2015) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.S.Komathi
P.W.2 : B.Baskaran
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents : Nil Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR
Ex.P-2 : Letter addressed to JMFC Anekal
Ex.P-3 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P-4 : Mahazar
Ex.P-5 : Inquest Report
Ex.P-6 : IMV Report
Ex.P-7 : PM Report
Ex.P-8: Salary Certificate
Ex.P-9 : Medical Bills 5 in nos
Ex.P-10 : Notarised copy of ration card
Ex.P-11: Study Certificate of the 3rd petitioner
Ex.P.12: SSLC Marks Card of deceased
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of membership certificate
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Nil
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore
09.02.2015
Petitioners by AS
Respondent No.1 by KHU
Respondent No.2 by HNKP
For Judgment
Judgment pronounced in Open Court vide separate Judgment ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,75,453/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and the respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 50%
Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 25%
Petitioner No.3 - Son - 25%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% out of their share is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the respective petitioner's in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them.
As far as petitioner No.3, who are still minor, his portion of compensation amount is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in his name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice petitioner No.1 for 5 years, with liberty to the petitioner No.1 to withdraw interest once in 3 months on the deposit for the maintenance of minor petitioner No.3.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER PRL.MACT 12.09.2014 Petitioners - VKC Respondent No.1 - KP Respondent No.2 - Exparte For Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.24,62,014/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1 - Insurance Company.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 35%
Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 15%
Petitioner No.3 - Daughter - 15%
Petitioner No.4- Daughter - 15%
Petitioner No.5 - Father - 10%
Petitioner No.6 - Mother - 10%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% out of their share is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the respective petitioner's in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them.
As far as petitioners No.3 and 4, who are still minors, their portion of compensation amount is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of respective petitioners in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice petitioner No.1, until they attain majority, with liberty to the petitioner No.1 to withdraw interest once in 3 months on the deposits for the maintenance of minor petitioners No.3 and 4.
Entire compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.5 and 6, who are aged 68 and 59 years respectively is ordered to be released to them.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore
-----------------
The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) 2013 ACJ 1403 ( Rajesh and others Vs. Rajbir Singh and Others), wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Quantum - Fatal accident - Principles of assessment - Future prospects - Whether formula for increase of income for future prospects adopted for persons 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 percent of actual income (after 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."
(2) 2013 AIR SCW 5800 ( Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza & Ors Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service), wherein, the Supreme Court has held as under:-
" Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.168 - Accident compensation - Victim aged 25 years, at time of accident - Doing skilled job of polisher - Taking his notional income as Rs.15,000/- p.a., - Improper - Considering his skilled job, victim's monthly income would come to Rs.5,000/- per month, - Adding 50% towards future increase and deducting 1/5th towards personal expenses Rs.6000/- has to be taken as monthly income - Applying multiplier of 20 to compute loss of dependency - Compensation payable comes to Rs.14,40,000/-
- Adding Rs.1 lac towards loss of consortium, Rs.1 lac towards loss of care to minor, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.6,000/- towards medical and attendant expenses - Victim held entitled to rs.16,96,000/- as total compensation - Fact that no prayer to enhance compensation is made in appeal, notwithstanding".
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE (S.C.C.H. - 1) DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY'2015 PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B, MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T. MVC No.1856/2014 Petitioners: 4) S.Komathi, W/o.C.Subramani, Aged about 37 years,
5) S.Reena, D/o.C.Subramani, Aged about 19 years,
6) S.Vikram, S/o.C.Subramani, Aged about 15 years, All are residing at:
No.28/4, Babu Building, Near Ganesha Temple, Singasandra Hosur Main Road, Bangalore Since the 3rd petitioner is minor Reptd., by his mother 1st petitioner as Natural Guardian (By Sri A.Sreenivasaiah, Advocate) Vs. Respondents: 3. Madhusudhan D. Shenoy, S/o.Devanna Shenoy, No.105/2, Nagondanahalli Main Road, Immadihalli, Whitefield, Bangalore 560 066.
4. The Manager, ICICI Lombard Motors Ins.Co.Ltd., 2nd Floor, SVR Complex, Madiwala, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore 560 068.
Policy No.3001/M101281240/00/000 Validity 25.05.2013 to 24.05.2014 (Respondent No.1 by Sri K.H.Umakanthappa, Advocate) Respondent No.2 by Sri H.N.Keshava Prashanth, Advocate) JUDGMENT The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.30 Lakhs from the respondents with regard to the death of C.Subramani in the road traffic accident that occurred on 10.03.2014 at about 03.30 pm., near Bommasandra H.P.Petrol Bunk, Anekal, Bangalore.
9. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that the first petitioner is the wife, petitioner No.2 and 3 are the children of the deceased C.Subramani.
10. It is contended in the petition that on 10.03.2014, at around 03.30 pm., the deceased was riding a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.KA.05/EC.7581 and when he reached near Bommasandra H.P.Petrol Bunk, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, at that time, one Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KA.53/P.9408 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life and safety of others, came in the same direction with high speed and the driver of the said vehicle having lost control over his vehicle, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased and in the accident, C.Subramani sustained grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Bangalore and after first aid treatment, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment and inspite of better treatment administered there for 10 days, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
11. It is contended that the deceased was working as Manager in New Star Roadways Transport and getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and he was the only earning member in the family.
12. It is contended that the accident has occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by its driver and hence, the jurisdictional Police have filed charge sheet against him. Therefore, the petitioners claim compensation of Rs.30 lakhs from the respondents No.1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the Maruti Omni Van.
13. In pursuance of this petition, the Tribunal issued notice against the respondents. Both the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed separate statement of objections.
14. The first respondent in the statement of objections denied that the driver of the Maruti Omni Van was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The respondent No.1 denies the averments made out in the petition regarding the age, avocation, income, date, place and time of accident, the injuries suffered by the deceased and the treatment given to him and his death on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The averments of the petition that on the date of accident, when the deceased was riding the motorcycle near H.P.Petrol Bunk, Bommasandra, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore, at that time, the Maruti Omni Van came from the same direction and dashed against the deceased and the deceased was taken to Sparsh Hospital wherein first aid was given and thereafter, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital wherein he was treated for 10 days and insptie of that, he succumbed to the injuries are all denied as false and the respondent No.1 has put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. It is also denied that the deceased was working as Manager at New Star Road Ways Transport and getting a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month and that the petitioners have spent Rs.3 lakhs for treatment. The amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners is arbitrary, inflated and excessive. It is contended that the accident occurred was due to the negligence and carelessness of the deceased and not due to the fault of the driver of the of the Maruti Omni Van and hence, the respondent No.1 contends that the petitioners are not entitled to claim compensation from the respondents and hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.
15. The respondent No.2 has filed statement of objections, wherein it is contended that the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. The respondent No.2 does not admit the allegations made in the petition and put the petitioners to strict proof of the same. It is contended that it has issued Policy of Insurance in respect of the Maruti Omni Van and the same was valid during the period of accident. However, it is contended that the liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.2 has taken the statutory defence and also the general defence. It is contended by the respondent No.2 that the driver of the said Maruti Van was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the first respondent, knowing fully well that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, entrusted the vehicle to him and hence, there is clear breach of terms of policy conditions and hence, the second respondent is not liable to indemnify the first respondent. It is further contended that the petitioners have to prove the very negligence on part of the driver of the Maruti Van, the age, avocation and income of the deceased, so also the amount spent for medication. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant.
9. It is contended that as per Section 158(6) of M.V.Act, 1988, it is the mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer. Further, it is contended that as per Section 134(C) of the MV Act, it is mandatory due of the insurer ie., first respondent to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, vehicular documents. The respondent No.1 has not complied the same. Hence, the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. For all these reasons, the 2nd respondent has prayed to reject the petition.
10. In view of the contentions raised by the parties, the following issues are framed:-
5) Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 10.03.2014 at about 3.30 pm., near Bommasandra H.P.Petrol Bunk, Anekal, Bangalore within the jurisdiction of Hebbagodi Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van bearing registration No.KA.53/P.9408 by its driver?
6) Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the accident occurred on account of the negligent act of the deceased?
7) Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
8) What Order?
11. In order to substantiate their case, on behalf of the petitioners', the first petitioner has been examined as PW 1 and they have also examined one more witness as PW 2 and in all, 13 documents are got marked as Ex.P.1 to P.13.
12. On behalf of the respondents, none has been examined, nor any documents are got marked.
13. I have heard the arguments of petitioners' counsel as well as the counsel for the respondents.
14. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on the above issues as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) In the negative,
3) Partly in the affirmative,
4) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
15. Issue No.1 and 2:- Since both these issues relate to the occurrence of accident and the negligence, I deem it just and proper to discuss both the issues together, since the evidence is likely to overlap.
16. The petitioners' in order to substantiate their case examined the first petitioner as PW 1 and through her evidence, Exhibits P.1 to P.12 came to be marked. Apart from the evidence of PW 1, the petitioners' have examined another witness as PW 2 and through him Ex.P.13 is marked. On behalf of the respondents, none has been examined.
17. It is the case of the petitioners' that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van by its driver and on the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased himself. In order to prove these allegations, the first petitioner has been examined as PW 1 and in her evidence, she has reiterated the averments of the petition with regard to the negligence of the driver of the Maruti Omni Van. PW 1 in her evidence got marked the FIR, Charge Sheet, Mahazar, and IMV Report as Ex.P.1, P.2, P.3 and P.6. PW 1 was subjected to cross- examination. In her cross-examination, it is elicited from her that she did not witness the accident and she came to know about the accident through the public over the phone that the accident has occurred near H.P.Petrol Bunk of Bommasandra. It is interesting to note here that though both the respondents contend that the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased himself and even issue No.2 is framed in that regard, but in the cross- examination, not even a suggestion is put to PW 1 in that regard. Added to that, the respondents, having taken such a contention and having attributed negligence to the deceased, ought to have examined the driver of the Maruti Omni Van, who was the right person to speak as to how the accident occurred and also to elicit regarding the negligence of the deceased in occurrence of the accident.
18. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available before the Court regarding the negligence.
On perusal of the petition averments, it is alleged that the driver of the Maruti Omni Van came from the same direction in which the deceased was proceeding on motorcycle and dashed against his motorcycle and caused the accident. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon Ex.P.1 - FIR, wherein an allegation is made against the driver of the offending vehicle, who came from the same direction and hit against the deceased. The Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle as per Ex.P.3. Ex.P.6 is the IMV Report, which shows that during the course of inspection, no fresh damages are seen on the vehicle. It has to be noted that though the respondents claim that the accident has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the deceased, but as I have already pointed out above, the respondents have not placed on record any material before the Court nor examined the driver of the Maruti Omni Van. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1, coupled with the documentary evidence is suffice to hold that the accident and the resultant death of C.Subramani is due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van by its driver. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative and issue No.2 is answered in the negative.
19. Issue No.3:- This issue relates to the claim of compensation regarding the death of C.Subramani in the accident in question. The petitioners has produced Ex.P.5 Inquest Mahazar and Ex.P.7 P.M.Report. Ex.P.5 and P.7 are the Inquest Mahazar and the P.M. Report conducted on the body of the deceased. In Ex.P.7 PM Report, the reason for death is shown to be 'COMA' as a result of head injury sustained. The respondents No.1 and 2 have not disputed Ex.P.5 and P.7.
20. It is the case of the petitioners in the petition that at the time of the accident, the deceased C.Subramani was aged 44 years and working as Manager in New Star Transport Company and drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. Even though the petitioners say in the petition that the deceased was working as Manager in the said firm and drawing salary of Rs.20,000/- per month, but in the evidence of PW 1, she says that her husband was working as Manager in the said firm for the past 15 years and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, PW 1 has been cross-examined. In her cross-examination, she says that her husband was not having any Bank Account and she states that she has not produced any document to show that her husband was drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and says that the owner used to pay salary by way of cash. It is suggested to her that her husband was not working as Transport Manager in New Star Transport Company and drawing salary of Rs.15,000/- per month and the said suggestion has been denied by him. In her cross-examination, she further says that her husband was aged 44 years at the time of his death and that her husband studied upto SSLC. The petitioners have produced Ex.P.12 SSLC Marks Sheet of the deceased, perusal of which shows that deceased was born on 20.05.1970, Ex.P.12 being a Public Document, the genuineness of the same cannot be doubted and thus, based on Ex.P.12, it can be said that as on the date of accident ie., 10.03.2014, the deceased was running 44 years.
21. In order to substantiate the avocation and income of the deceased, the petitioners have produced Ex.P.8 Salary Certificate issued by New Star Roadways, perusal of which shows that the deceased was working as Manager in the said firm, with consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the petitioners have also examined one B.Baskaran, the Proprietor of the Firm, in which the deceased was working. PW 2 in his evidence, deposed that the deceased C.Subramani was working in their Transport Company as manager from the past 15 years and drawing consolidated salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. He further says that he has produced the Notarised Copy of the Membership Certificate issued by the Bangalore City Lorry Transporting Agents Association, which is marked as Ex.P.13. He has been cross- examined by the counsel for the respondents. In his cross-examination, he says that 3 employees are working with him. He further says that he has not produced any document to show that he was paying a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month to the deceased and that he is an income tax assessee and further, says that he has not declared in his income tax return with regard to the payment of salary to the deceased. He further says that he has not maintained any books of accounts to show that the salary was paid in favour of the deceased. It is suggested to him that since the deceased was his friend and hence, he is giving false evidence before the Court to help the petitioners and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
22. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence before the Court with regard to the avocation and income of the deceased.
The petitioners have relied upon Ex.P.8 Salary Certificate of the deceased, perusal of the same shows that the same was issued by PW 2, which shows that the deceased was working in the Transport Company of PW 2 as Manager for the last 15 years. Here, it is pertinent to note that PW 2, who though says that the deceased was working in his Transport Company from the last 15 years, but he admits that he has not produced any document to show that the deceased was working under him and that he has not produced any document to show that he was paying Rs.15,000/- as salary to the deceased and further admits that he has not declared in his income tax return regarding payment of salary to deceased and that he has not maintained any books of accounts to show the salary being paid to the deceased. Added to that, PW 2 has not produced the Muster Roll of the employees working in his office. In the complaint lodged by one Saravana, it is stated that PW 2 Bhaskar is running a Transport Company, wherein the deceased is working and on the date of accident, the deceased after having attended the office, was returning to home and at that time the accident has occurred. Even though from the complaint averments it can be assumed that the deceased was working in the Transport Company run by PW 2, however, having regard to the clear admissions made by PW 2 regarding the made of payment of salary and the maintenance of accounts regarding the payment of salary to the deceased, they does not inspire the confidence of the Court to accept the evidence of PW 2 as trustworthy and therefore, considering the age of the deceased as 44 years and the family status of the deceased, I deem it just and proper to take his income at Rs.6,000/- per month.
23. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that there is no authoritative pronouncement as regards the manner of addition of income for future prospectus and relied upon an unreported judgment of the Apex Court in SLP CC 8058/2014, wherein the Apex Court has directed the Office to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of appropriate larger bench and thereby contended that in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement regarding awarding of future prospectus, he prayed to reject the prayer of the petitioners regarding future prospectus.
24. This contention of the respondent No.2 cannot be considered, for the reason that the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh' 2013 ACJ 1403 and in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (2012) 6 SCC 421, has held that even for self employed persons, the Court take consider the future prospectus and mere referring to larger bench to clear the conflicting views, will not render the principles in Rajesh's Case inapplicable and hence, I deem it just and proper to consider the future prospectus in this case also.
25. As discussed above, the income of the deceased is taken at Rs.6,000/- and since, he was aged 44 years at the time of accident, 30% out of his income ie., Rs.1,800/-, as per the principles laiddown in the case of Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh' 2013 ACJ 1403 and in Santosh Devi Vs. National Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (2012) 6 SCC 421, has to be added to his income towards future prospectus, which works out to Rs.7,800/-.
26. As seen from the cause title to the petition and the evidence of PW 1 and the answer elicited from PW 1, the deceased has left behind his wife and two children ie., the petitioners. As the deceased left behind 3 persons, who were entirely dependant on his income, 1/3rd ie., 2,600/- out of his income of Rs.7,800/- has to be given deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive. The balance comes to Rs.5,200/-. Thus, the annual loss of dependency works out to Rs.62,400/-.
27. Since the deceased was aged 44 years at the time of accident, the multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 14 and if we multiply the annual loss of dependency ie., Rs.62,400/- by 14 multiplier, the same works out to Rs.8,73,600/-, to which the petitioners are entitled to under the head loss of dependency.
28. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs. Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also, since the deceased has left behind wife and children, I deem it proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses.
32. It is the case of petitioners that after the accident, injured Subramani was taken to Sparsh Hospital, wherein first aid was given and thereafter, he was shifted to St.John's Hospital wherein he was treated for 10 days and even after providing best treatment there, he succumbed to the injuries after 10 days of accident and hence, the petitioners claim that they have spent Rs.3,00,000/- for treatment. In her evidence, PW 1 says that they have spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment and also spent Rs.1 lakh for other incidental expenses ie., for transportation of dead body and funeral and obsequies. In the cross-examination of PW 1, it is elicited from her that after the accident, her husband was taken to Sparsh Hospital and that her husband succumbed to injuries after 10 days of the accident. It is further elicited from her that the medical expenditure are met by them by making the payment by way of cash. It is suggested to her that the medical expenditure was reimbursed from the Insurance Company and the said suggestion has been denied by her. It is further suggested to her that they have not spent Rs.3 lakhs towards treatment and the said suggestion has been denied by her.
33. The petitioners have produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills 5 in numbers, accounting for Rs.1,41,853/- and I have gone through these bills. These bills are issued by St.Johns' Hospital, wherein the deceased was treated prior to his death. These bills also include ambulance charges of Rs.3,000/-. Thus, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.1,41,853/- towards medical expenses and conveyance charges.
34. The details of compensation I propose to award are as under:
Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs
1 Loss of dependency 8,73,600.00
2 Compensation to the family members 1,00,000.00
(children and family members other
than wife) for loss of love and
affection, deprivation of protection,
social security etc.
3 Compensation to the widow of the 50,000.00
deceased for loss of love and affection,
pains and sufferings, loss of
consortium, deprivation of protection ,
social security etc.
4 Cost incurred on account of funeral 10,000.00
and ritual expenses
5 Medical expenses incurred before 1,41,853.00
death
Total 11,75,453.00
32. As regards the liability to be fixed on the respondents, though the respondent No.2 Insurance Company contends that the Maruti Omni Van was insured with it at the time of accident, but it is contended that the driver of the Maruti Omni Van was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and hence, it is absolved from paying compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2 except contending the same in the statement of objections, neither examined the driver of the vehicle nor the respondent No.1 nor produced any acceptable evidence in support of the same and therefore, the said contention has remained as contention only and hence. I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 being the owner and the respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the primary liability is fixed on the respondent No.2 to indemnify the respondent No.1 and satisfy the award. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered.
34. Issue No.4: In the result I proceed to pass the following: -
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.11,75,453/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and the respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Compensation amount is apportioned as follows:-
Petitioner No.1 - Wife - 50%
Petitioner No.2 - Daughter - 25%
Petitioner No.3 - Son - 25%
Out of the compensation amount so apportioned in favour of the petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% out of their share is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in the name of the respective petitioner's in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with entire interest is ordered to be released to them.
As far as petitioner No.3, who are still minor, his portion of compensation amount is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in his name in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice petitioner No.1 for 5 years, with liberty to the petitioner No.1 to withdraw interest once in 3 months on the deposit for the maintenance of minor petitioner No.3.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transaction thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court dated this the 9th day of February, 2015) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.S.Komathi
P.W.2 : B.Baskaran
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents : Nil Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR
Ex.P-2 : Letter addressed to JMFC Anekal
Ex.P-3 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P-4 : Mahazar
Ex.P-5 : Inquest Report
Ex.P-6 : IMV Report
Ex.P-7 : PM Report
Ex.P-8: Salary Certificate
Ex.P-9 : Medical Bills 5 in nos
Ex.P-10 : Notarised copy of ration card
Ex.P-11: Study Certificate of the 3rd petitioner
Ex.P.12: SSLC Marks Card of deceased
Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of membership certificate
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Nil
(H.P.SANDESH)
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore