Bangalore District Court
Sri.Bharath Kumar.M vs The Managing Director on 20 January, 2023
KABC020082372019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.1671/2019
PETITIONER/S: Sri.Bharath Kumar.M
S/o Muniraju
Aged about 22 years,
Occ:Ward boy and security guard,
R/at #785/50, 8th cross,
7th main road,
Srinagar, Bengaluru560050.
(By Sri.Suresh M.Latur,
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S: The Managing Director,
B.M.T.C, K.H.road,
Shanthinagar,
Bengaluru560027.
(Bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F
3394)
(By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju,
Advocate.)
2 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 23.01.2019.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, on 23.01.2019 at about 7.10 a.m., the petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA41EC0504 from his home towards KIMS Hospital, when he reached near National College Metro Station, at that time a BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F3394 came in high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed against him from opposite, as a result he sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was taken to KIMS Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein first aid treatment was given and later he admitted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he is still under treatment. So far he spent Rs.1,00,000/ towards medical and conveyance expenses and also spent Rs.35,000/ towards motor vehicle damage.
3 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
3. The petitioner further submitted that, at the time of accident he was hale and healthy and was working as ward boy cum security at KIMS Hospital and Bank of Maharastra and earning sum of Rs.26,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries, he will get the permanent disability and he will be disabled to do his occupation, apart from loss of earnings. The Respondent being the Insurer cum owner of BMTC bus is liable to pay compensation to him.
4. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal, the Respondent has appeared and filed Written Statement. In the written statement they denied the case of the petitioner as false and submitted that on the date and time of the alleged accident, the bus in question was on its scheduled trip from K.R.Market to Allalsandra, the bus was being driven by its driver slowly and cautiously on the left side of the road by observing all the traffic rules and 4 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 regulations, when it reached K.R.Road, which is double road, but as the one part of double road was under repair, the same was blocked and all the vehicles were proceeding on the other path of the road, at that time the petitioner riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA41EC0504 came from the opposite side, in a rash and negligent manner with terrific speed and further in order to overtake a vehicle, which was proceeding ahead of him came to the extreme left side of the road, observing the same the driver of the bus sensing some mishap took the bus to the extreme left side of the road and stopped the bus, but due to over speed, the petitioner lost the control over the same and dashed against the bus in question and caused the alleged accident. Further submitted that petitioner himself was wholly and solely responsible but the driver of the bus in question was no way responsible. The petitioner is trying to make a wrongful gain from the respondent by false implicating the BMTC bus. Hence the respondent is not at 5 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 all liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F3394 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries ?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
6. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.16. Dr.Ramachandra Assistant Professor of Orthopedics at Victoria Hospital, is examined as PW.2 and produced documents as per Exs.P17 to P19. Sri.Chandrashekar Eye witness of the accident, is 6 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 examined as PW.3 and produced Aadhar card as per Ex.P.20. On the other side the Respondent has examined Mr.Uma Shankar Driver of the BMTC Bus as RW.1.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the petitioner has relied up decisions as follows (1) 2014 ACJ 627 (SC): Syed Sadiq & Ors., Divisional Manager, United India Ins.Co.Ltd., (2) 2015 ACJ 721 (SC):Jakir Hussein Vs. Sabir & Ors., (3) 2004 ACJ 1109(KANT): Narasimha Murthy Vs. Manager, Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., & Anr., (4) 2004 ACJ 1091(KANT):
A.Anandan Vs. Abdul Azeez & Ors., (5) 2007 ACJ 13 (KANT) New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Papamma & Anr.. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon a decision rendered in MFA No.2921/2012 (MV):
Smt.Vijayalakshmi K.N & Ors., Vs. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).7 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
8. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence on record this court answers the above issues as follows: Issue No.1: In the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
9. Issue No.1: The Petitioner in order to prove that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA57F3394 has examined himself as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. He has specifically deposed in his evidence that, on 23.01.2019 at about 7.10 a.m., he was riding motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA41EC0504 from his home towards KIMS Hospital, when he reached near National College Metro Station, at that time a BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA 8 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 57F3394 came in high speed with rash and negligent manner and dashed against him from opposite, as a result he sustained grievous injuries and caused the accident. The Respondent have denied that, the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and contended that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner himself. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is elicited that when the accident occurred on the National College Metro Station road it was a single road as one road was closed for road repair, the BMTC bus was coming from opposite direction, he has seen the bus before the occurrence of accident.
10. The petitioner has also examined the eyewitness as PW.3 who has deposed in support of the case of the petitioner. In the cross examination of PW.3 it is elicited that on that day in one way only the vehicles had to move as there was repair in another side of the road. Except this nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. 9 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 Though he is examined as an eye witness before the court but his name does not find place in the witness list of charge sheet/Ex.P.3, which creates some doubt about this witness witnessing the accident.
11. The respondent has examined its driver as RW.1 who has deposed in support of their defence. In the cross examination of RW.1 it is elicited that at the time of accident it was 07.00am, usually at that time there will be no rush of vehicles, on that day he was coming in one way, as per Ex.P.5 the accident took place in the middle of road, he has not lodged any complaint against the rider of bike, the bus did not sustained any damages and admits that charge sheet filed against him.
12. The Ex.P.2 is the First Information lodged by mother of the injured after causing almost 21 days delay stating that when the petitioner was coming on his Pulsar bike on 23.01.2019 met with an accident caused by BMTC 10 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 bus who after causing the accident went away from the spot and later petitioner shifted to hospital and underwent surgery and as they were not knowing the bus number and hence did not lodge the first information immediately. It is admitted fact that the Ex.P.3 is filed against the driver of BMTC and it is not challenged. The Ex.P.6 shows damages to the bike and one damage to the bus and from this it is clear that the involvement of the bus can be gathered. The counsel for the respondent though contends that there was negligence on the part of the petitioner and lead evidence of their Driver but in view of chargesheet filed against the RW.1 his evidence is not much helpful to the respondent to prove either whole negligence or some contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The decision relied upon by the counsel for the respondent which is referred above is also not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case and hence not applicable. 11 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
13. Further, the Petitioner apart from his oral evidence has produced the documents such as FIR in Cr.No.0014/2019 of V.V.Puram Police Station, Complaint, chargesheet, spot mahazar, spot sketch, IMV report and petitioner statement before the police spot as per Exs.P.1 to P.7 and they are public documents which have got presumptive value under law. Ex.P.3 which is the copy of charge sheet filed in Cr.No.0014/2019 clearly discloses that the investigation officer has filed charge sheet after detail investigation holding that the driver of the offending BMTC has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The contents of documents produced by the Petitioner as per Exs.P.1 to P.7 are fully and completely corroborated with oral evidence of the Petitioner. There is nothing contrary elicited from the mouth of PW.1 in the crossexamination in so far as the alleged negligence of the Petitioner is concerned. As such, there are no reasons to disbelieve the version of the Petitioner and accept the 12 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 version of the Respondent. The wound certificate produced by the Petitioner as per Ex.P.8 clearly discloses that due to the accident the Petitioner has sustained simple and grievous injuries. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.7, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bus bearing Reg.no.KA57F3394 and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, issue No.1 held in the affirmative.
14. Issue No.2: The Petitioner has further averred that, on account of accident, he cannot walk, if he walks he will get pain and swelling at his right leg, cannot stand for longer period, he cannot squat on ground, cannot move his right leg freely as before as the movements of the same is restricted, cannot use Indian type of toilet, he do not get proper sleep in the 13 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 night due to pain and it has caused him permanent disability and hence he is unable to do his earlier work/occupation. The Petitioner in this regard has entered into witness box and deposed that due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from permanent disability. Apart from that, he has produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P.8. As per Ex.P.8, the Petitioner has sustained abrasion of 10x4 cm in the lateral aspect of upper 1/3rd right leg, abrasion of 3x2cm over medial aspect of upper 1/3rd of right leg and abrasion of 3x2 cm over anterior aspect of right ankle joint and the doctor opined that injury no.1 is grievous and injury nos.2 and 3 is simple in nature. The petitioner has got examined Mr.Ramachandra as PW.2 and produced documents at Exs.P.17 to 19. This court while considering the Issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bus. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Respondent. 14 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 DISABILITY:-
15. In the chiefexamination, the PW.2 has deposed that, as per oral statement by the patient xerox copy of discharge summary along with original copy of Hospital Admission case record from Victoria Hospital, a male patient by name Sri.Bharath Kumar M., aged about 25 years old whom we have treated is said to have had RTA on 23.01.2019 at about 7.00 p.m., did sustain closed fracture both bones (tibia with wedge fragment and head on fibula) of right leg and underwent CRIF with ILN for tibia done on 24.01.2019 and discharge on 03.02.2019 and he recently, examined the petitioner at General Hospital on 17.08.2021 for disability assessment and the petitioner suffered the permanent residual physical disability is at 34.99% and whole body disability is about 17.50% which is permanent in nature and with the above said disabilities it is difficult for the petitioner to work as delivery boy and as a security guard, and also difficult for him to do any other manual or 15 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 physical work and he needs to undergo another operation for removal of implants from right tibia. In the cross examination of PW.2 it is elicited that the condition of the petitioner at the time of discharge was stable, the fractures are united, he has only assessed the physical disability, the petitioner can ride two wheeler and perform his avocation with certain difficulty, he is personally not aware about the avocation of the petitioner, the implant can be removed now and he has not produced radiological report with Xray. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the period of treatment that he has undergone, his age, the disability assessed by the PW.2 appears to be on higher side and hence on considering the evidence on record his functional disability is considered at 12% to the whole body.
Monthly income.
16. The Petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, he was working as ward boy at KIMS Hospital and security 16 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 guard in a Bank of Maharashtra, Benglauru, and earning a sum of Rs.26,000/ per month. In this regard he has produced his employment cards, salary certificate and bank statement as per Ex.P.12 to 15. In the cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited that he was working on contract basis and he was not issued with any appointment letter, except salary slips he has not produced the documents to prove his avocation and not examined the issuer of Ex.P.14. On perusal of Ex.P.12 the employee ID cards of petitioner shows that he was working as Ward Boy in KIMSH and care taker in SLSPL but the issuer of said documents is not examined and hence they cannot be considered. The petitioner has also not examined the issuer of Ex.P.14 or not examined the employer in order to prove that he was getting income from said works. From Ex.P.15 the salary cannot be ascertain unless the employer is examined. Therefore, in the absence of specific evidence for proof of income, the 17 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 version of the Petitioner that he was earning Rs.26,000/ per month is not acceptable but the notional income needs to be considered. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 23 years as could be make out from Ex.P10/Notarized copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner. He was hale and healthy before the accident. The accident took place in the year 2019 and therefore the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident needs to be considered as 23 years. In absence of specific evidence for proof of income and hence by taking judicial notice of hike in the cost of living and also relying upon the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda &Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) wherein the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and taking judicial notice of the said notional income chart of KSLSA and accordingly the monthly notional income of the petitioner is considered as 18 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 Rs.14,000/ per month. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions which are referred above but with due respect to them this Tribunal is of the opinion that they are not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances are different. As such, Petitioner is entitled for the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING: After the accident, the Petitioner was taken to Victoria Hospital, wherein treated as an inpatient from 23.01.2019 to 03.02.2019 for 12 days as per Ex.P.9/Discharge summary. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment he has underwent, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/ under this head.
ii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD: As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the Petitioner was taken treatment in the above mentioned hospital. 19 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment it can be said that the Petitioner has required at least one month time for recovering from the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, he is only entitled for a sum of Rs.14,000/ under this head.
iii) MEDICAL EXPENSES: The Petitioner has pleaded and deposed that he has spent more than a sum of Rs.60,000/ towards hospitalization and medicines. In this regard, he has produced 31 medical bills for a sum of Rs.42,813/ as per Ex.P.16. On perusal of Ex.P.16, the bill at Sl.No.1 is dated 22.01.2019 but the accident took place on 23.01.2019, hence said bill cannot be considered. Accordingly, the Sl.No.31 bill is only given in a white sheet and the author is not examined and said bill is not considered. Further the Sl.No.5 bill is an advance receipt which is paid by the petitioner which is at Sl.No.8B and at Sl.No.8 the another bill of Rs.800/ is considered. On further perusal it is 20 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 clear that the petitioner appears to have taken treatment at Victoria hospital in KPTCL Block and from this it appears that the petitioner might have got some exemption in hospital charges but there is no evidence lead by the respondent to this effect and hence same is not considered. By deducting the above bills the petitioner is only entitled for a sum of Rs.26,638/ under the heads of Medical Expenses.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: In so far as age of the Petitioner is concerned, the Aadhar card is produced as per Ex.P10. As per this document his age was 23 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the Petitioner's age is considered as 23 years. As per Sarala Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 18. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.3,62,880/ 21 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 (Rs.14,000/ x 12 x 18 x 12% = Rs.3,62,880/) under this head.
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS: The Petitioner was aged about 23 years at the time of accident. He has sustained grievous injuries and as per consideration of this Tribunal, he is suffering from 12% permanent disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability throughout his life. Because of this he will have to lose some amenities and comforts. Therefore, considering the age and nature of injuries that the Petitioner has suffered a sum of Rs.17,000/ is awarded under this head.
vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner took treatment in two hospitals. He was treated as an inpatient and underwent surgery. Even though the petitioner claimed that he spent huge amount towards food and nourishment but not lead any evidence in that regard. Therefore, as during this period 22 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 he must have spent considerable amount on his conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment etc.. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.17,000/ under this head.
vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: As per the version of the PW.2, the Petitioner need another surgery for removal of implants from right tibia. But in this regard no estimation is produced and the PW.2 has not deposed anything in this regard. Therefore, looking to the earlier treatment cost and nature of injuries and cross examination of PW.2, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.10,000/ is awarded to the Petitioner under this head. Therefore the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/ under this head.
17. The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.50,000/
2. Loss of income during laid Rs.14,000/ up period 23 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24
3. Medical expenses Rs.26,638/
4. Loss of future income Rs.3,62,880/
5. Loss of future amenities Rs.17,000/ and happiness
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.17,000/ nourishment charges
7. Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/ TOTAL Rs.4,97,518/ If it is rounded off total compensation comes to Rs.4,97,600/ and same is awarded to the petitioner under different heads.
LIABILITY:
18. As discussed above the Respondent has failed to prove its defence about negligence on the part of the petitioner and therefore, the Respondent being the owner/insurer of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has claimed for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/ but he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.4,97,600/ alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part.
Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative. 24 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
19. Issue No.3: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,97,600/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand and Six Hundred only) from the Respondent along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
The Respondent insurer cum owner of the offending BMTC bus is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within sixty days from the date of this judgment.
25 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% of compensation shall be deposited in any nationalized or schedule bank in the name of the Petitioner for period of 3 years and balance amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 20th day of January 2023).
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Mr.Bharath Kumar M.
26 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
PW.2 Dr.Ramachandra
PW.3 Mr.Chandrashekar
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 True copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.4 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.5 True copy of Spot Sketch
Ex.P.6 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.7 True copy of my statement before the police
Ex.P.8 True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.9 Discharge summary
Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of my Aadhar card
(Original compared and returned)
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of my DL
(Original compared and returned)
Ex.P.12 & My employment cards (2 in nos)
P13
Ex.P.14 Salary certificate
Ex.P.15 Bank statement
Ex.P.16 31 Medical bills amounting to Rs.42,813/
Ex.P.17 OPD Slip
Ex.P.18 Case sheet
Ex.P.19 Xray
27 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.3
(Original compared and returned)
List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Mr.Uma Shankar List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Nil (Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.28 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,97,600/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand and Six Hundred 29 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 only) from the Respondent along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
The Respondent insurer cum owner of the offending BMTC bus is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within sixty days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% of compensation shall be deposited in any nationalized or schedule bank in the name of the Petitioner for period of 3 years and balance amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw decree accordingly.
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
30 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY (SCCH24) MVC No.1671/2019 PETITIONER/S: Sri.Bharath Kumar.M S/o Muniraju Aged about 22 years, Occ:Ward boy and security guard, R/at #785/50, 8th cross, 7th main road, Srinagar, Bengaluru560050.
(By Sri.Suresh M.Latur, Advocate.) V/S RESPONDENT/S: The Managing Director, B.M.T.C, K.H.road, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru560027.
(Bus bearing Reg.No.KA57F 3394) (By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Advocate.) 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 )
31 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24
for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up on for final disposal before Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari, C/c XXII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,97,600/ (Rupees Four Lakhs Ninety Thousand and Six Hundred only) from the Respondent along with interest 32 MVC 1671/2019 SCCH- 24 at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
The Respondent insurer cum owner of the offending BMTC bus is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within sixty days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% of compensation shall be deposited in any nationalized or schedule bank in the name of the Petitioner for period of 3 years and balance amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per finance rules.
33 MVC 1671/2019
SCCH- 24 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 20th day of January 2023.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _________________________________ Total Rs.
_________________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T.METROPOLITAN:
BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR