Bangalore District Court
Kum.Eekshitha S vs The Icici Lombard General on 5 July, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.1915/2015
Dated this the 5th day of JULY 2016
Petitioner/s : Kum.Eekshitha S.
D/o Sathyanarayana B.R
Aged about 11 years,
(Represented by her natural guardian
father Sathyanarayana B.R)
No.49, 2nd main,
Manjunathanagar,
Ittamadu, Bangalore-85.
(By pleader Sri GKY)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL
INS.,CO.LTD.,
No.89, 2nd floor,
SVR Complex, Madiwal,
Hosur main road,
Bangalore-560 068.
2. SRI. SRINIVASA
S/o Shekar,
No.77, Sanyasi Kunte Slum,
K.G.Nagar,
Bangalore-560 019.
(R1-By pleader Sri GS
R2-Exparte)
SCCH-14 2 MVC NO.1915/2015
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Since, the petitioner is minor, she is represented by her next friend i.e., father by name Sathyanarayana.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 12.02.2015 at about 08.35 a.m., the petitioner was going as a pillion rider on Scooter bearing No.KA-05-HL-8458 along with her father to go to Prarthana School. When they reached near Kidney Foundation, Chikkakalsandra main road, BSK 3rd stage, Bangalore and at that time, Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC- 1868 driven by its driver at high speed, in rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the petitioner's scooter. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to D.G Hospital, Bangalore, wherein first aid treatment was given and then, she was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore wherein she was treated as an inpatient from 12.02.2015 to 13.02.2015. The petitioner sustained crush injury to right ring finger tip and injury to other parts of the body. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged 11 years, was studying in 5th std., in Prarthana School, Padmanabhanagar, Bangalore. She is very brilliant student. Due to accidental injuries, she could not attend to her classes and has become permanently disabled. Banashankari Traffic police have SCCH-14 3 MVC NO.1915/2015 registered Cr.No.23/2015 against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The respondents are the insurer and owner the said Autorickshaw and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent no.1 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed written statement. Inspite of service of notice, the respondent no.2 remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. The respondent no.1 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868, but he has denied the averments of the petition as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable, that the insured has not informed about the accident and not submitted claim form and other documents for verification, that the driver of the insured Autorickshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving license and the said vehicle was not having valid permit and FC on the date of accident, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the insured vehicle, that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of scooter i.e., of the petitioner's father, that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that he is not liable to indemnify the insured, that the insured and concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, SCCH-14 4 MVC NO.1915/2015 arbitrary and disproportionate to the age and avocation of the petitioner. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him. At the first instance, the respondent no.1 has denied the issuance of policy, but later he got his written statement amended by admitting the issuance of policy.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 13.02.2015 at about 08.35 a.m., Near Kidney Foundation, Chikkalasandra Main Road, Banashankari 3rd stage, Bangalore in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined his next friend i.e., her father as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P11. The respondent no.1 has examined two witnesses as RW.1 and 2 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 and 2.
SCCH-14 5 MVC NO.1915/20156. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following rulings:
1. AIR 2013 SCW 3941:Iyyapan Vs., M/s United India Ins.,Co.Ltd., & Anr.,
2. 2005 ACJ 438: Mannulal Vs., Chhagan Lal Chauhan & Ors.,
3. 2006 ACJ 1076:New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs., Bhimavarapu Prathap & Ors.,
4. AIR 2008 SC 1418: National Ins., Co.Ltd., Vs., Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., The counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon Judgment Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil appeal No.5826/2011:(Mukund Dewangan Vs., Oriental Ins.,Co.Ltd., etc.,). I have gone through the said rulings, Judgment and perused the records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In Affirmative. For Rs.2,05,000/-
from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3: As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 : The petitioner is a minor and she is represented by her next friend i.e., father by name Sathyanarayana. The petitioner is claming compensation for the injury sustained by her in the accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868. The respondents are the insurer and owner of said autorickshaw. The respondent no.2 is exparte and the respondent no.1 has contested the matter by SCCH-14 6 MVC NO.1915/2015 stating that the accident has not occurred due to negligence of the driver of insured vehicle and it has occurred due to sole negligence of the rider of Scooter bearing No.KA-05-HL-8458, that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and as such he is not liable to indemnify him and to compensate the petitioner.
9. The petitioner has relied upon oral evidence of her father i.e., PW.1:Sathyanarayana and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to 11 to prove her case. The respondent no.1 has placed reliance on the oral evidence of RW.1 and 2 to prove his defence and to disprove the case of the petitioner. He has got marked DL extract of autorickshaw driver and copy of policy as Ex.R1 and 2. The policy was in force as on the date of accident as per Ex.R2.
10. PW.1: Sathyanarayana has reiterated the averments of the petition and stated that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868 in which his daughter sustained grievous injuries. He was cross examined at length by the counsel for the respondent no.1 by taking up a defence that he rode the scooter in rash and negligent manner and dashed against Autorickshaw on its rear portion, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of autorickshaw. PW.1 has denied the said suggestions and stated that front portion of autorickshaw has dashed back portion of his scooter. PW.1 withstood cross examination and the denials extract from him are not sufficient to disprove his evidence.
SCCH-14 7 MVC NO.1915/201511. Copies of police records namely FIR with complaint, sketch, charge sheet, panchanama, IMV report are at Ex.P1 to 5. Copy of wound certificate, discharge summary and photographs are got marked as Ex.P6, 7 and 10. On perusal of medical records, it reveals that the petitioner has sustained crush injury to her right ring finger tip leading to shortening of distal phalanx of right ring finger. Shortening ring finger can be seen from photographs at Ex.P10. Shortening of ring finger results in permanent disability as per provisions of Employees Compensation of Act. History of injury of the petitioner is shown as RTA in wound certificate. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury leading to permanent disability in road traffic accident.
12. On perusal of police records, it reveals that Banashankari Traffic police have registered Cr.No.23/2015 on 13.02.2015 at 02.30 p.m., on the basis of information give by PW.1 Sathyanarayana, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 338 of IPC and U/Sec.134, 187, 146, 196, 3(1), 181, 56, 192, 5 and 180 of MV Act. These police records corroborate the evidence of PW.1 regarding manner of accident, negligence of the driver autorickshaw for the occurrence of the accident and causing of grievous injury to the petitioner. IMV report at Ex.P5 discloses that there were no visible damages on the autorickshaw, but that itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1. IMV report goes to show that brake system of autorickshaw was in order and the accident was not due to any SCCH-14 8 MVC NO.1915/2015 mechanical defects of the vehicle. It means, there was human error for the occurrence of the accident. Evidence of PW.1 and police investigation reveal that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of autorickshaw. There is no evidence to believe that PW.1:Sathyanarayana has contributed for the occurrence of the accident. The respondent no.1 has not examined the driver of autorickshaw to prove his contentions. Hence, the defence of the respondent no.1 regarding manner of accident and negligence of PW.1 is liable to be rejected.
13. Copy of sketch and copy of panchanama are at Ex.P2 and 4 wherein the place of accident is described. The sketch makes it clear that the driver of autorickshaw deviated the direction of his vehicle and dashed against the rear portion of the scooter. Both the vehicles were moving in the same direction on the correct side of the road, but the autorickshaw appears to have been driven in rash and negligent manner and as result, the accident has occurred. If the driver of autorickshaw had driven his vehicle with little care and caution and had applied brakes, the accident would not have occurred. There was a delay of a day in lodging complaint, but the petitioner was admitted to the hospital and PW.1 was attending her in the hospital. Hence, the delay in lodging complaint is reasonable and acceptable. Evidence of PW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 to 7 and 10 substantiate averments of the petition.
14. RW.1:Ashok Kumar is working as RTO Jnanabharathi, Bangalore. He has deposed regarding driving license of the driver of SCCH-14 9 MVC NO.1915/2015 autorickshaw. He is not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, his evidence is not helpful to decide this issue.
15. RW.2:Nagendra is the legal manager of the respondent no.1 and he has deposed as per the written statement of the respondent no.1. He has stated only regarding the liability of the respondent no.1 to compensate to the petitioner. He has not deposed about the manner of accident. Moreover, he was not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, evidence of RW.2 is also not helpful for the respondent no.1 to prove his defence. On the basis of oral and documentary evidence, it can be held that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of autorickshaw and the petitioner has sustained grievous injury leading to permanent disability in the accident. Hence, I answer the issue no.1 in affirmative.
16. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents for the injury sustained by her in the accident. The respondent no.1 has denied the claim of the petitioner as highly excessive and exorbitant. The petitioner has examined her father as PW.1 and got marked copy of wound certificate, discharge summary, prescriptions, medical bills amounting to Rs.4,444/-, photographs with CD and copy of progress reports to prove the nature of injury caused to her in the accident which are marked as Ex.P6 to 11. The respondent no.1 has not adduced any evidence to disprove the case of the petitioner SCCH-14 10 MVC NO.1915/2015 regarding injury caused and result of such injury upon the petitioner.
17. PW.1:Sathyanarayana has deposed that his daughter sustained grievous injury to her right ring finger tip and injury to all over the body, that the petitioner was taken to D.G Hospital, Bangalore for first aid and later, she was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore wherein she was treated as an inpatient from 12.02.2015 to 13.02.2015. He has further deposed that he spent Rs.50,000/- towards treatment, medicine, conveyance and nourishment and some of the bills have lost, that inspite of best available treatment, the petitioner is suffering from disability, that the petitioner has severe pain and difficulties in writing. He has admitted in cross-examination that his daughter was studying in 5th Std., Prarthana School, Bangalore at the time of accident and now she is in 6th standard. The said admission indicates that the petitioner has not lost her academic year.
18. Copy of wound certificate and discharge summary at Ex.P6 and 7 reveal that the petitioner has sustained crush injury to her right ring finger tip, that there is shortening of distal phalanx of right ring finger of the petitioner. She was admitted in Hosmat Hospital for 2 days and underwent wound debridement. She was advised to take follow up treatment. Shortening of right ring finger can be seen from the photographs at Ex.P10. The petitioner might have not attended her classes and might have taken follow up treatment and rest after discharge. The petitioner has produced SCCH-14 11 MVC NO.1915/2015 medical bills amounting to Rs.4,444/- which are supported by the prescriptions at Ex.P8. Final bill of Hosmat Hospital is not produced which corroborates the evidence of PW.1 that he lost some of the bills. There is nothing on record to believe that the petitioner has incurred Rs.50,000/- towards treatment, medicine, conveyance and nourishment. However, the petitioner is entitled for reasonable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment. PW.1 might have not attended to his duty for about a week due to accident as he was attending his daughter and might have lost income. PW.1 might have spent amount for the coaching of the petitioner to cope with her absence to the school. There is no specific evidence regarding income of PW.1 and amount spent for coaching of the petitioner. In the absence of positive evidence, reasonable amount shall be awarded under those heads. The petitioner has not examined any doctor to prove the disability of the petitioner, but provisions of Employees Compensation Act reveal that shortening of one phalanx of ring finger results in disability of 5%. The petitioner is suffering from several difficulties due to said injury. Her difficulties may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities. Her marriage prospects may be affected. She may not be able to participate in sports activities as efficiently as before. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under all those heads.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in ruling reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4891 (Master Mallikarjun Vs. Divisional Manager) as under:
"Though it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of compensation in the case of SCCH-14 12 MVC NO.1915/2015 children suffering disability on account of a motor vehicle accident, having regard to the relevant factors, precedents and the approach of various High Courts, that the appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10% and up 30% to the would body, Rs.3 lakhs; upto 60% Rs.4 lakhs; upto 90%, Rs.5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be 6 lakhs,. Fore permanent disability upto 10%, it should be Rs. 1 lakh, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take different yardstick. In the instant case, the disability is to the tune of 18%. Appellant had a longer period of hospitalization for about two months causing also inconvenience and loss of earning to the parents".
The said ruling is applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/- 3 Nourishment, conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
and attendant charges 4 Special coaching charges Rs. 5,000/- 5 Disability Rs.1,00,000/-
6 Loss of income of the Rs. 5,000/-
parents 7 Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 15,000/- 8 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.2,05,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.SCCH-14 13 MVC NO.1915/2015
19. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AC-1868. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said autorickshaw. The policy was in force on the date of accident. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner as calculated above. The respondent no.1 has denied his liability to compensate the petitioner and to indemnify the respondent no.2 on the ground that the driver of autorickshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. The respondent no.2 is exparte. The respondent no.1 has examined RW.1 and 2 and got marked driving license extract of the driver of insured vehicle as Ex.R1 to prove his defence. The petitioner has relied upon rulings and contended that the driver of autorickshaw was authorised to drive the autorickshaw on the date of accident and her counsel has argued that the respondent no.1 cannot be absolved from payment of compensation and sought for fixing the liability on the respondent no.1.
20. RW.1:Ashok Kumar has deposed that the driver of autorickshaw by name Srinivasan was holding a license to drive a motorcycle with gear, a LMV and 3 wheeler non transport vehicle as on 12.02.2015, that a person holding 3 wheeler (NT) license is not permitted to drive a 3 wheeler cab, that the driver of autorickshaw has obtained 3 wheeler cab license on 30.07.2015. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from him in cross-examination. Hence, I believe the evidence of RW.1 regarding the license of autorickshaw driver.
SCCH-14 14 MVC NO.1915/201521. RW.2:Nagendra is the legal manager of the respondent no.1 and he has deposed that the insured vehicle is a passenger carrying commercial vehicle and it can be driven by a driver holding license to drive transport vehicle. He has further deposed that the charge sheeted driver Srinivasan was not holding a valid driving license and he was permitted to drive transport vehicle involved in the accident, that the respondent no.2 has entrusted the vehicle to a driver who was not holding a valid and effective driving license and as such, he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the respondent no.1 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.2. He has further stated that the insured vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate to ply in public place on the date of accident, that since, the respondent no.2 has committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy, the respondent no.1 is not liable to compensate the petitioner. In cross-examination, he has admitted that RTO Jnanabharathi, Bangalore has produced DL extract of the driver of insured vehicle. He has shown ignorance that the insured vehicle is a LMV, but he has denied the suggestion that the driver of insured vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident.
22. DL extract of charge sheeted driver Srinivasan is at Ex.R1. On perusal of said license, it reveals that Srinivasan is holding a license to drive a motorcycle with gear, a LMV, a 3 wheeler (NT) and a 3 wheeler (cab), but he has obtained 3 wheeler cab license on 30.07.2015. The accident has occurred on SCCH-14 15 MVC NO.1915/2015 12.02.2015. It means, the driver of autorickshaw has obtained cab license subsequent to accident. He was not holding 3 wheeler cab license as on the date of accident.
23. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the charge sheeted driver was holding 3 wheeler (NT) license on the date of accident and he was authorised to drive 3 wheeler cab and as such there is no violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Ex.R2 is copy of policy in which there is condition regarding driver's clause which reads as under:
"Driver's Clauses: Any person including the insured: Provided that a person driving holds an effective Driving License at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license, Provided also that the person holding an effective Lerner's License may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989".
The charge sheeted driver was not holding 3 wheeler cab license on the date of accident. He is charge sheeted by the police for the offence punishable U/Sec. 181 of MV Act for not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. RTO has given evidence as RW.1 regarding non existence of 3 wheeler cab license to Srinivasan on the date of accident. There is no evidence to rebut the oral evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.P3 and R1. The rulings relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of this case. Iyyapan case was pertaining to the accident occurred SCCH-14 16 MVC NO.1915/2015 prior to amendment of MV Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Oriental Ins., Co.Ltd., Vs., Angad Kol and Ors., by considering the ruling at Sl.No.4 as relied by the petitioner that the driver was not holding a valid and effective license on the date of accident. Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed in detail about the amendment of MV Act in Civil Appeal No.5826/2011 and referred the matter to larger Bench. Angad Kol case was decided in 2009. Iyyapan case was decided in 2013, but the accident in Iyyapan case was prior to amendment of MV Act. Hence, the rulings relied by the petitioner cannot be applied to this case.
24. Evidence of RW.1 and 2 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.P3 and Ex.R1. The said oral and documentary evidence substantiate the defence of the respondent no.1. I am of the opinion that the respondent no.1 has proved that the charge sheeted driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. He was holding 3 wheeler (NT) license on that date and he obtained 3 wheeler cab license subsequent to accident i.e., on 30.07.2015. If 3 wheeler (NT) license is sufficient to drive a 3 wheeler cab, the said driver would not have obtained 3 wheeler cab license on 30.07.2015. Charge sheet at Ex.P3 reveals that the respondent no.2 was charge sheeted for violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act including violation regarding fitness certificate. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy regarding driving license and fitness certificate. Under the circumstances, the respondent no.1 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent no.2 and to compensate SCCH-14 17 MVC NO.1915/2015 the petitioner. The respondent no.2 alone is liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioner as stated above. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
25. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- to the petitioner with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner under the guardianship of PW.1:Sathyanarayana in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till she attains majority. Balance amount and the interest shall be released in favour of minor guardian of the petitioner.SCCH-14 18 MVC NO.1915/2015
The claim petition as against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 5th day of JULY 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 19 MVC NO.1915/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Sathyanarayana. B.R
Respondent' s
RW.1 Ashok Kumar
RW.2 Nagendra.R
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 - Copy of Sketch
Ex.P3 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P4 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P5 - Copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 - Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P7 - Discharge Summary
Ex.P8 - Prescriptions (2 in nos.)
Ex.P9 - Medical bills (7 in nos amounting to Rs.4,444/-)
Ex.P10 - Photographs (3 in nos) and CD
Ex.P11 - Copies of progress reports (2 in nos)
Respondent's
Ex.R1 -Copy of driving license
Ex.R2 -Copy of policy
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 20 MVC NO.1915/2015
Dt.05.07.2016
P-GKY
R1-GS
R2-Exparte
For Judgment
[
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- to the petitioner with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award.
After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner under the guardianship of PW.1:Sathyanarayana in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till SCCH-14 21 MVC NO.1915/2015 she attains majority. Balance amount and the interest shall be released in favour of minor guardian of the petitioner.
The claim petition as against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 22 MVC NO.1915/2015
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.1915/2015 Petitioner/s : Kum.Eekshitha S. D/o Sathyanarayana B.R Aged about 11 years, (Represented by her natural guardian father Sathyanarayana B.R) No.49, 2nd main, Manjunathanagar, Ittamadu, Bangalore-85.
(By pleader Sri GKY) V/s Respondent/s 1. THE ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INS.,CO.LTD., No.89, 2nd floor, SVR Complex, Madiwal, Hosur main road, Bangalore-560 068.
2. SRI. SRINIVASA S/o Shekar, No.77, Sanyasi Kunte Slum, K.G.Nagar, Bangalore-560 019.
(R1-By pleader Sri GS R2-Exparte) SCCH-14 23 MVC NO.1915/2015 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.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI 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 petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- to the petitioner with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award.
SCCH-14 24 MVC NO.1915/2015After deposit, Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner under the guardianship of PW.1:Sathyanarayana in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till she attains majority. Balance amount and the interest shall be released in favour of minor guardian of the petitioner.
The claim petition as against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 25 MVC NO.1915/2015By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ----------------------------------
DecreeDrafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 26 MVC NO.1915/2015
SCCH-14 27 MVC NO.1915/2015