Bangalore District Court
Sri. Venkataronappa vs The Managing Director on 23 January, 2020
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH6
PRESENT: SHANTALA RAMESH DODWAD., B.A.,LL.B.,
IV ADDL., JUDGE & ACMM.,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
MVC No.1979/2018
Dated this the 23rd day of January 2020
Petitioners : 1. Sri. Venkataronappa
S/o Late Ramappa,
Aged about 48 years,
2.Smt. Eswaramma
W/o Venkataronappa,
aged about 42 years,
3. Naresh. V
S/o Venkataronappa,
Aged about 23 years,
4. Kum. Lakshmidevi. V
D/o Venkataronappa,
Aged about 20 years.
All are residing at:
Tapatheshwara
Colony,Chinthamani Town,
Chikkaballapur District,
PIN No. 563125.
V/s
(By pleader L. Manjunatha)
Respondent/s The Managing Director,
KSRTC, Central Office,
Shanthi Nagar,
Double Road,
Bengaluru.
(Owner of Bus Bearing No.
KA07AF1672)
(By pleader M. S. Basavaraju)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the death of Anji. V S/o Venkataronappa in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioners are the father, mother, elder brother and sister of the deceased Anji. V who was aged 19 years, was a mason.
On 18.03.2018 at about 745 A.M., the deceased Anji was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing No. KA07L2147 along with Baby Akshith and Master Arshith Kumar, slowly and cautiously with observing traffic rules and regulations on extreme left side of the Kolar road, when he reached near wine shop, Chinthamani Town at that time the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA07 AF1672 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from behind i.e., from Srinivasapura towards Chinthamani side and dashed against the motor cycle which was proceeding by the Anji. It is further submitted that due to the impact Anji was died on the spot and other pillion riders sustained grievous injuries. It is further submitted that dead body of Anji was shifted to Government Hospital, Chinthamani, where post morterm was conducted. After the post morterm dead body was handed over to the legal representatives of the deceased Anji. It is further submitted that the 1st petitioner is the father, 2nd petitioner is the mother, 3rd petitioner is the elder brother and 4 th petitioner is the unmarried elder sister of the deceased Anji. It is further submitted that petitioners spent more than Rs.1,00,000/ towards transportation and funeral expenses. As on the date of the accident deceased Anji was aged about 19 years and hale and healthy. It is further submitted that deceased Anji was earning member and working as Mason and earning more than Rs.20,000/per month.
It is further submitted that, the 1 st and 2nd petitioners lost their loving son and 3rd and 4th petitioners lost their loving brother at young age. The peitioners submits that the accident is occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA07AF1672. Chintamani police have registered a case in Cr.No.40/2018 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. After investigation, the police have filed a chargesheet against the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.
No. KA07AF1672. The respondent being the owner of the said KSRTC bus is liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have sought for awarding compensation of Rs.40,00,000/ with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent has appeared before the Court through their counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the petition as false and contended that, the petitioners have already preferred one more petition in MVC. No. 2965/2018 on the same causes of action and for the same relief and the same is pending before SCCH1. Hence, the above petition is not sustainable under law and liable to be dismissed on this very ground itself. The respondent further submits that, on the date and time of the alleged accident the bus in question was on its schedule trip Srinivasa pura to Chintamani. And the bus was being driven by its drivers slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and regulations. And while it was so on KolarChinthamani main road, which is a double road, having a road median at that point of time the deceased came on a motor cycle bearing No. KA03L2147 along with two pillion riders, though it is strictly prohibited from the cross road, riding the same in a rash and negligent manner with terrific, darted the main road, with the same, but due to over speed and as well as over loading lost the control over the same and first dashed against the bus in question and proceeded further and dashed against the road divider and exposed himself for the alleged accident. As such, for the alleged accident the deceased himself was wholly and solely responsible,but the driver of the bus in question was no way responsible, However, the petitioners with the sole intention to make a wrongful gain from the respondent, falsely implicated the bus in question and foisted a false case in active collusion and connivance with the police by creating a false crime records a make believe story. Under these circumstances, the respondent submits that he is not liable to pay compensation much less the amount claimed in the petition and the petition as against the respondent is liable to be dismissed.
4. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined petitioner no.1 as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and examined one Narasimhamurthy as PW.2 and closed their side. The respondent examined the driver of the KSRTC Bus No. KA07F1672 as RW.1.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues would arise for my consideration;
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners proves that Sri. Anji. V S/o Venkataronappa, died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 18.03.2018 at about 07.50 A.M., near wine shop, Kolar Road, Chintamani Town, Chikkaballapura District, involving KSRTC bus bearing No. KA07AF1672 belonging to respondent?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident was mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are the only legal heirs of deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate from whom?
5. What Order or Award?
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records. The learned counsel for respondent filed written arguments.
The learned counsel for repondent relied upon the following dicisions:
1. MANU/SC/0295/2005: National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prembai patel and Ors.,
2. 2007 ACJ 1284: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Meena Variyal and other.
3. 2007 AIR SCW 3591: Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlata Shukla and Ors.
4. 2005 ACJ 1359: P. S. Somaiah and another Vs. Director, Bangalore Dairy and others.
5. MFA. No. 10770/2010 to 10767/10: Shivanna and other Vs. KSRTC.
6. 2014 AIR SCW 1081: Lacho Ram and Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corptn.
7. MFA. No. 2829/2009 (MV): Manju Vs. Mathue. K. P.
8. MFA. No. 962/2012 C/w MFA. No. 989/2012: H. S. Panchakshariah Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another.
9. ILR 2009 KAR 3562: Veerappa and another Vs. Siddappa and another.
10. ILR 2003 KAR 409: P. Varalakshmi Reddy and others Vs. The Karnataka State Road Transport corporation.
11. 2010 SCC Online KAR 1121: P. Anki Reddy Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
7. My findings on the above issues are as under: Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative Issue No.4 : In partly affirmative for Rs.22,05,928/ from respondent.
Issue No.5 : As per final order REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 and 2 taken together: The petitioner No.1 who is the father of the deceased Anji. V, petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased Anji. V, petitioner No.3 is the elder brother of the deceased Anji. V and petitioner No.4 is the unmarried elder sister of the deceased Anji. V. Petitioner No.1 in order to establish their case, filed the affidavit in lieu of chiefexamination of PW1 and reiterated the petition avernments and got marked Ex.P1 FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 Mahazar, Ex.P3 Sketch, Ex.P4 IMV report, Ex.P5 Inquest report, Ex.P6 Postmortem report, Ex.P7 Charge Sheet, Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased Anji. V, Ex.P9 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of 1st petitioner, Ex.P10 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of 2nd petitioner and Ex.P11 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of 3rd petitioner and Ex.P12 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of 4th petitioner and petitioners also examined one Narasimhamurthy as PW2. Admittedly PW1 is not the eye witness of the accident. However, the learned counsel for respondent has cross examined PW1 and PW2 at length about the accident.
9. The advocate for petitioners submitted that, even though PW1 is not the eye witness, to prove the accident the petitioner has produced the documents such as Ex.P1 FIR with complaint, Ex.P2 Mahazar, Ex.P3 Sketch, Ex.P4 IMV report, Ex.P5 Inquest report, Ex.P6 Postmortem report, Ex.P7 Charge Sheet, Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of deceased Anji. V, which are sufficient to prove, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA07AF1672.
10. On the contrary the learned advocate for respondent submitted that, the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA 03L2147. So, the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to petitioners. Even though the counsel for respondent cross examine the PW1 and PW2 in length, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of both the witnesses to show that, the accident was occurred not due to the negligence of the driver of the KSRTC bus.
11. To appreciate the arguments of both side learned advocates, it is necessary to go in detail about the documents produced by the petitioners. Ex.P1 FIR with complaint, the Chinthamani police have registered the case on the basis of complaint filed by one Venkataramanappa. Ex.P2 is Mahazar, which shows the place, occurrence of accident and involvement of the vehicle. Ex.P4 is the IMV report, in which IMV Inspector has opined that, the accident is not due to any mechanical defects of the said motor vehicle. Ex.P6 is Post mortem report, in which the doctor opined that, the cause of death is cardiac arrest due to Haemorrhage shock, sustained because of crush injuries. Ex.P7 is the charge sheet filed by the Investigation officer against the driver of the offending KSRTC bus for the offense punishable under section 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
12. To rebut the case of the petitioners, the respondent examined Manjunatha C. V, driver of B.No.2157, KSRTC, Srinivasapura Depot, Kolar Division as RW1 and he has not produced any document on his behalf.
13. The learned advocate for respondent submitted that, admittedly there were two pillions riders, which is prohibited in law and accident was due to negligence of motorcycle bearing No. KA 07L2147. So, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
14. The driver of the alleged bus has been examined as RW1 who has stated that, accident was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of motorcycle bearing No. KA07L2147. So, the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The RW1 who is driver of the KSRTC bus, admitted that police have filed charge sheet against him, alleging that the rash and negligent driving by the RW1. This accident was taken place if there was rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motorcycle or there was contributory negligence on part of the driver of the motor cycle, then police would have filed charge sheet against the driver of the motor cycle. In this case police have not filed charge sheet against the driver of the motorcycle. RW1 has stated in his evidence that, he lodged complaint against the driver of the motor cycle, but the copy of the said complaint is not produced before this court/tribunal and no further action has been taken by RW1 and have not filed any case against the driver of the motorcycle.
15. Moreover, the respondent has not questioned the charge sheet filed against him. Naturally the RW1 is interested witness in this accident. So, he will give evidences which is favorable to him. But he has not produced any other evidence to corroborate his testimony. So, RW1 himself is accused in this accident case. His oral evidence without corroborative evidence can not be believable upon. Hence, for the above stated reasons I answer the issue No.1 and 2 in affirmative.
16. ISSUE NO.3: The specific contention of the petitioners is that, the petitioner No.1 who is the father of the deceased Anji. V, petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased Anji. V, petitioner No.3 is the elder brother of the deceased Anji. V and petitioner No.4 is the unmarried elder sister of the deceased Anji and as such they are the legal representatives of deceased. It is the further contention of the petitioners is that due to untimely death of the deceasd Anji. V they were put into great mental shock and agony. On the other hand the respondent has denied the above contention of the petitioner in toto. To prove the relationship of petitioners they have produced the notarized copy of aadhar card of deceased Anji. V marked at Ex.P8, Notarized copies of Aadhar card of 1 st to 4th petitioners marked at Ex.P9 to Ex.P12. On perusal of the contents of these documents, it reveals that petitioners are the father, mother, elder brother and elder sister of deceased Anji. V and they are the legal representatives of deceased Anji. V. Considering the above facts and on perusal of evidences of PW1 coupled with documents, the petitioners have proved this issue by producing oral and documentary evidences. Therefore, I answer the issue No.3 in affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.4: This issue is related to dependency, quantum of compensation to be awarded to petitioner and who is liable to pay the same, which is answered under the following heads:
18. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the actual loss of dependency, the age, income of deceased and the number of dependents of the deceased are to be taken into consideration. It is the contention of the petitioners that, they were solely depending upon the income of the deceased and due to his death, they have lost love and affection of the deceased Anji. V.
19. The petitioner No.1 is father of deceased, petitioner No.2 is the mother of deceased Anji. V, petitioner No.3 is the elder brother of the deceased Anji. V and petitioner No.4 is the unmarried elder sister of the deceased Anji. V which is not in dispute. The Ex.P8 to Ex.P12 disclosed the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. As such, the petitioner No.1 and 2 being the parents of the deceased Anji. V are entitled for compensation on the ground of loss of dependency. The claim of the petitioners that, they were depending upon the income of the deceased has not been proved contrary by the respondent. Under such circumstances, the claim of the petitioners in this regard can be accepted. Hence, it is clear that, petitioner No.1 and 2 are depending on the income of the deceased Anji. V. Hence, 1/3rd of the income should be taken towards personal expenses of the deceased.
20. Considering recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Special leave petitioner (Civil No.25590/2014 dated 31.10.2016 (National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others), in which it is observed that, "in case if the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necesarry method of computation".
21. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & Others), wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that, there can not be distinction where there is evidene of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork, as such addition on account of future prospects is admissible where in the absence of proof of income.
22. The petitioners contended that, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 19 years and working as mason and earning Rs.20,000/ per month. On perusal of the P.M. report marked at Ex.P6 and notarized copy of Aadhard card of deceased Anji. V marked at Ex.P8, the age of the deceased is mentioned as 19 years. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 19 years as on the date of accident. Since, the accident took place in the year 2018, the income of the deceased is considere as Rs.10,000/ per month. As per the decision stated above, it is clear that, the tribunal has to consider future prospects on actual salary less tax and even for selfemployed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly, the age of the deceased falls below the age group of 40 years. So, 40% of the future prospects is taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the same, if 40% is added to the income of the deceased it would be Rs.10,000/+40%(4,000/) = Rs.14,000/ per month. There are two dependents. Hence, 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. So, 1/3rd of Rs.14,000/ would be Rs.4,667/. Income for consideration (Rs.14,000 - Rs.4,667/) is Rs.9,333/. Therefore the annual income (Rs.9,333/x12) is Rs.1,11,996/. The appropriate multiplier is "18". Thus the loss of dependency works out to (Rs.1,11,996/ x 18) is Rs.20,15,928/
23. TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY, FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF ESTATE: The petitioners have spent the amount towards shifiting the dead body and performing funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme court judgment passed in Special Leave petitioner (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated 31 102017 (National Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others), wherein it is held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the petitioners are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/ and under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/.
24. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: The counsel for petitioners relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No.9581/2018 (Arising out of SLP (civil) No.3192/2018) in case of Muama General Insurance co. Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others.
In which it is held in para No.8.7 that:
"A constitution bench of this court in pranay sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which the compensation it so be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is "Loss of consortium".
In legal parlance "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses spousal consortium; parental consortium and filial consortium.
The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse.
Spouse consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husbandwife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company", society, cooperation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation".
Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training".
Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflection changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationship. Modern jurisdictional worldover have recognized that the value further on perusal of child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in case of death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child.
The amount awarded to the parents is a compensating for loss of love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
25. The petitioners are the father, mother, elder brother and unmarried sister of the deceased are entitled for consortium for loss of "protection, affection, society, discipline, gruidance and trainng". Therefore, Rs.40,000/ each is awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 4 under the head of loss of consortium.
26. Considering the above facts and for the above reasons, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1 Loss of dependency (only to 1st Rs. 20,15,928/ and 2nd petitioner) 2 Loss of consortium (Rs.40,000/ Rs.1,60,000/ each to all petitioners) 3 Towards transportation of dead Rs.15,000/ body and funeral expenses 4 Loss of estate Rs.15,000/ Total Rs.22,05,928/ Hence, this Tribunal feels to award just and proper compensation of Rs.22,05,928/ to the petitioners.
27. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and contents of objection statement and from the discussion stated above, I have already come to conclusion that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing No. KA07AF1672. The respondent being the owner of the said vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
28. INTEREST: As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, I have relied decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and other (in CA Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2814142 of 2017 decided on 06042018) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a., on the compensation amount. In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into another the date of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the court has to take into another the date of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a., cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. Under the circumstances, respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, point No.4 is answered in partly affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.5: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.22,05,928/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest. The respondent being the owner is liable to deposit the amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, the compensation amount is apportioned as under:
Petitioner No.1 Rs.10,62,964/-
Petitioner No.2 Rs.10,62,964/-
Petitioner No.3 Rs.40,000/-
Petitioner No.4 Rs.40,000/-
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% shall be deposited as FD in their names in any nationalzed or schedule bank for a period of three years and remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2, through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Entire compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be released through account payee cheque on proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 23rd day of January 2020.) (Shanthala Ramesh Dodwad) IV ADDL.JUDGE & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW.1 Venkataronappa PW.2 Narasimhamurthy LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: ExP1 Copy of FIR with complaint ExP2 Copy of Mahazar Ex.P3 Copy of Sketch Ex.P4 Copy of IMV report ExP5 Copy of Inquest Mahazar ExP6 Copy of Post Mortem report Ex.P7 Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P8 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of deceased Anji. V (Original verified and returned) Ex.P9 to P12 Notarized copies of Aadhar Card of Petitioner No.1 to 4 (Originals verified and returned) WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT:
RW.1 Manjunatha. C. V DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENT: Nil.
IV ADDL.JUDGE & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. Dt.23012020 PML RMSB For Judgment (Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment) ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.22,05,928/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest. The respondent being the owner is liable to deposit the amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, the compensation amount is apportioned as under:
Petitioner No.1 Rs.10,62,964/-
Petitioner No.2 Rs.10,62,964/-
Petitioner No.3 Rs.40,000/-
Petitioner No.4 Rs.40,000/-
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% shall be deposited as FD in their names in any nationalzed or schedule bank for a period of three years and remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2, through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Entire compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be released through account payee cheque on proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw award accordingly.
IV ADDL.JUDGE & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore. AWAR D SCCH NO.6 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE MVC No.1979/2018 Petitioners : 1. Sri. Venkataronappa S/o Late Ramappa, Aged about 48 years,
2.Smt. Eswaramma W/o Venkataronappa, aged about 42 years,
3. Naresh. V S/o Venkataronappa, Aged about 23 years,
4. Kum. Lakshmidevi. V D/o Venkataronappa, Aged about 20 years.
All are residing at:
Tapatheshwara Colony, Chinthamani Town, Chikkaballapur District, V/s PIN No. 563125.
(By pleader L. Manjunatha) Respondent/s The Managing Director, KSRTC, Central Office, Shanthi Nagar, Double Road, Bengaluru.
(Owner of Bus Bearing No. KA07AF1672) (By pleader M. S. Basavaraju) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.....
(Rupees for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Shantala Ramesh Dodwad, IV Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.22,05,928/ with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest. The respondent being the owner is liable to deposit the amount before Tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, the compensation amount is apportioned as under:
Petitioner No.1 Rs.10,62,964/-
Petitioner No.2 Rs.10,62,964/-
Petitioner No.3 Rs.40,000/-
Petitioner No.4 Rs.40,000/-
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% shall be deposited as FD in their names in any nationalzed or schedule bank for a period of three years and remaining 50% balance amount with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner No.1 and 2, through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Entire compensation amount awarded to petitioner No.3 and 4 shall be released through account payee cheque on proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw award accordingly.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the day
of 2020.
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL,BENGALURU.
By the
________________________
Petitioner/s Respondents
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
___________________________
Total Rs. ___________________________
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER M.A.C.T
METROPOLITAN AREA