Bangalore District Court
Smt.Sujatha vs M/S Cab Experts on 6 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 6th day of January 2020
Present: SRI.MAHANTESH S.DARGAD
B.Sc., LL.B.,
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.119/2017
Petitioners 1.Smt.Sujatha,
Wife of Late Suresh H.S.,
Aged about 25 years,
2.Master Manvik S.,
Son of Late Suresh H.S.,
Aged about 1 year,
Since minor represented by his mother
Smt.Sujatha S.,
Wife of Late Suresh H.S.
3. Smt. Chandrakanthi H.S.
Wife of Late Shekar Shetty,
Aged about 55 years,
All are residing at No.21,
4th Cross, Ravi Layout,
Jai Maruthinagar,
Bengaluru-560 096.
2 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
(By Pleader Shri M.B. Muralidhara)
V/s
Respondents 1. M/s Cab Experts,
No.5, 1st cross,
Teachers Colony,
Opp. to PSIT,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru-560 070.
(R.C. Owner of the Tata Winger
bearing registration No.KA-05-AF-
5224)
(By Pleader Shri K.C.S.)
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.89, 2nd floor, S.V.R. Complex,
Hosur Main Road,
Madiwala,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(I/P No.3004/111566051/00/000 valid
from 8.1.2016 to 7.1.2017)
(By Pleader Shri M.N.K.,)
3. Shri Venkatachalapathi B.N.,
Son of Narayanappa C.,
No.540, 9th Main Road,
M.C. Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 040.
(R.C. Owner of the car No.KA-02-ML-
6895)
(By Pleader Shri R.V.)
3 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
4. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited,
No.89, 2nd floor, S.V.R. Complex,
Hosur Main Road, Madiwala,
Bengaluru-560 068.
(I/P No.3001/MI-03897296/00/000 valid
from 3.8.2016 to 2.8.2017)
(By Pleader Shri K.M.R.)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondent U/S. 166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the death of Suresh H.S., Son of Late Shekar Shetty in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
On 23.8.2016 at about 6.20 p.m. Suresh H.S. and his friends were proceeding in a car bearing NO.KA-02-ML-6895 from Bengaluru towards Dharmasthala side on nh-75 ROAD VIA Beechanahalli gate, Bellur Hobli, the car was driven by one Jagan Mohan slowly, carefully and cautiously by observing all the traffic 4 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 rules and regulations, when they reached near Beechanahalli gate, at that time, Tata Winger bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224 driven by its driver suddenly came on the said road from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety of others and lost his control and hit by the road median and came to the other side of the road and dashed against the car. Due to the impact, the Suresh sustained grievous injuries and fell unconscious. Immediately he was shifted to Adichunchanagiri hospital, Bellur cross, wherein first aid was given and then he was shifted to Sparsha hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 24.8.2016 to 7.9.2016 and again he was shifted to Mazumdhar Sha hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 7.9.2016 to 13.9.2016 and later he was shifted to Wenlock hospital, Mangalore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient, inspite of best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 16.9.2016. 5 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
3. The contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Suresh H.S., was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 33 years, Professional Photographer and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. The deceased was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Due to sudden demise of Suresh H.S. petitioners have suffered a lot and lost their bread earner. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Winger bearing Reg.No.KA-05-AF-5224 and as such, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the Tata Winger and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Tata Winger are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Contending the above facts, they pray for grant of compensation with interest and cost.
4. In response to the petition notice, the respondents have appeared before the court, inspite of sufficient opportunities given to the respondent No.3 has not filed his written statement, so the 6 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 written statement of the respondent No.3 is taken as not filed. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are filed their written statement.
5. The brief contents of written statement of respondent No.1 are as under:
The respondent No.1 has contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further contended that this respondent is the proprietary firm, has insured his vehicle with the respondent No.2 and it is valid as on the date of accident. Further, this respondent has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the petitioners upon the income of deceased and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and without any basis. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition with cost.7 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
6. The brief contents of written statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further admitted about the issuance of policy in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224 and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further contended that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have complied mandatory provision u/s 134(c) and S. 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars. Further contended that Tata Winger Maxi cab bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224 was not having valid permit and FC to ply in the public place. Further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Further contended that accident the vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224 was not at all involved in the accident. Further, this respondent has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and dependency of the petitioners upon the income 8 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 of deceased and relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and without any basis. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition with cost.
7. The brief contents of written statement of respondent No.4 are as under:
The respondent No.4 has contended that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further stated that this respondent has issued a policy in respect of car bearing No.KA-02-ML-6895. Further contended that the driver of the car had no valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle and the owner of the car knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the said car. Further contended that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have complied mandatory provision u/s 134(c) and S. 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars. Further contended that after detail 9 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 investigation the Bellur police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Maxi cab bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224. Further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-02-ML-6895. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Suresh H.S. Son of Late Shekar Shetty died due to injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that was taken place on 23.8.2016 at about 6.20 p.m. near Beechanahalli gate, on NH-75 road, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District involving TATA Winger Vehicle bearing No.KA-05-
AF-5224 belonging to respondent No.1 and the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle?
10 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
3. Whether the petitioners prove that, they are only the legal heirs and dependants of deceased?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate from whom?
5. What order or award?
9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 and examined another witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P21 to Ex.P30 and Ex.P34.
10. In order to disprove the contention of the petitioners, the respondent No.2 has examined its Legal Manager as RW1.
11. Heard the arguments.
11(a) The counsel for the petitioners have filed decisions reported in 1) AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5157 in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Prayan Sethi and others 11 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
2) CDJ 2019 SC 519 in case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Mannat Johal and others
3) 2019 ACJ 529 in case of Veena and another Vs. Vijendra and others
12. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 3: In the Affirmative Issue No. 4: In Partly in Affirmative Issue No.5: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
13. Issue No.1 & 2 : These issues are interconnected with each other, hence in order to avoid the repetition of facts, these issues are taken together for common consideration.
13. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW1 & PW2. Further contended that the petitioners have proved their case as contended in the petition by 12 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, they pray to allow the petition.
14. Per contra, the main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 & 2 is that the alleged accident was not taken place due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the petition against the respondent No. 1 & 2.
15. The counsel for the respondent No.4 has argued that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-02-ML-6895 and the Bellur police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the maxi cab bearing No.KA-01-AF- 5224, therefore, respondent No.4 is not liable to pay the compensation.
16. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I, intend to discuss the merits of the case.
13 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
16. On perusal of the evidence available on record, it reveals that, to prove the case, the petitioner No.1 has examined herself as P.W.1 and another witness is examined as PW2. Further in support of their case, petitioners have produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P34. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW1 at length, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his contention. Further to prove the defence the respondent No.1 has examined three witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to Ex.R7, but their evidence will not help the respondent No.1 to prove its defence.
17. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224, petitioner has produced the prosecution papers same are marked the as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 i.e., FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, rough sketch, inquest report, P.M.report and charge sheet. On perusal of Ex.P1 & Ex.P6, 14 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 copy of FIR, it reveals that Nagamangala police have registered case against the driver of the car bearing NO.KA-05-AF-5224 in CR.198/2016 and after completion of investigation, the I.O. has filed the charge sheet as against the driver of the Multi Axel Goods vehicle for the offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC.
18. Considering the above, facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of PW1 & PW2 coupled with documents and for the above, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has proved that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05- AF-5224 as contended in the petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
19. Further on perusal of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 Inquest report and P.M. report reveals that, deceased Suresh H.S., Son of Late 15 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 Shekar Shetty has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and succumbed to the injuries on 13.9.2016.
20. In addenda of this, in a claim for compensation U/S.166 of MV Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 319 (Kusum and others Vs. Satbir and others).
21. Looking to the oral evidence of PW1 and the documents placed before the court, I am of the opinion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224. Hence, I answer issue No.1 & 2 in the affirmative.
22. Issue No.3:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and the petitioner No. 2 is the daughter of the deceased and the petitioner 16 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 No.3 is the mother of the deceased. So, they are legal representatives and dependants of the deceased.
23. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
24. To prove the relationship of the petitioners, they have relied upon the documents marked at Ex.P18 to Ex.P30 such as Aadhar card of deceased, Election ID card of deceased, Pan card of deceased, driving licence of deceased, Marriage certificate, Aadhar card of petitioner No.1, election ID card of petitioner No.1, Pan card of petitioner No.1, birth certificate of petitioner No.2, Aadhar card of petitioner No.2, Aadhar card of petitioner No.3, Election ID card of petitioner No.3. On perusal of contents of these documents, it reveals that the petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased and the petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased Suresh H.S. and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Suresh H.S. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that 17 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 the petitioners are financial dependants of the deceased. Accordingly, I answer this issue in affirmative.
25. Issue No.4:- The specific contention of the petitioners is that, deceased Suresh H.S. was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 33 years , professional photographer getting an income of Rs.50,000/- per month. Further contention of the petitioners is that due to unexpected death of Suresh H.S. they have suffered a lot and lost their bread earner.
26. On the other hand, respondent No.2 has disputed the above contention of the petitioners in toto.
27. To prove the age, the petitioners have produced SSLC Marks card, which is marked at Ex.P15, in which it is mentioned that, deceased was born on 7.4.1982. The accident occurred on 23.8.2016. So as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years and the same is considered as age of the deceased, then the proper Multiplier applicable to the case on hand is "16". 18 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
28. Further to prove the occupation and income of the deceased, petitioners have produced bank statement marked at Ex.P30 & Ex.P31, but it does not disclose the exact monthly income of the deceased. Moreover he has not produced income tax returns to show that he was getting an income of Rs.50,000/- per month. In the absence of the positive documents with respect to his income, it is very difficult to believe the income of the deceased. Anyhow, the deceased was a photographer, definitely he has to lead his life with some handsome income. Therefore, if Rs.12,000/- per month is considered, it will meet the ends of justice. So, the same is considered as income of the deceased per month. Then the yearly income comes to Rs.1,44,000/-.
29. At this juncture the counsel for the petitioner has relied the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 in between National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others. In the said decision, it is held that; 19 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
Quantum---Fatal accident---Principles of assessment---future prospects----Whether legal representatives of the deceased who was on fixed salary or self-employed or aged between 50 and 60 would be entitled to benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of compensation--- Held: yes; case-law discussed.
While determining the income, an addition of 50 per cent of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30 per cent, if the age of the deceased was between 40 and 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 and 60 years, the addition should be 15 per cent. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.
In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40 per cent of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 year. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was 20 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 between the age of 40 to 50 years. An addition of 25 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 40 and 50 years and 10 per cent where the deceased was between the age of 50-60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.
30. In the instant case, the age of the deceased is considered as 34 years, he falls under the age group of below 40 years, 40% of the income of Rs.57,600/- is to be added to the income of Rs.1,44,000/- as future prospects, on such addition, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.2,01,600/- per annum.
31. As I have already discussed that the petitioners are financial dependants of the deceased. So, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 ACJ 1298 in between Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., if 2-3 dependants, 1/3rd shall be deducted towards the personal and living expenses. In the case on hand, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are financial 21 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 dependants of the deceased, so, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses, on such deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,34,400/-p.a.
32. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.1,34,400/- p.a. and the multiplier 16 is applied, then the loss of dependency comes to Rs.21,50,400/-. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.21,50,400/- under the head of loss of dependency.
33. At this juncture I relied 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 22 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 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.
Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband
-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-
operation, 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."
23 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
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 jurisdictions world- over have recognized that the value 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.
24 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
34. In the instant case, petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased is entitled for Spousal consortium, which can be compensated for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection and aid of the other in every conjugal relation and petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased is entitled for '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. The petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased is entitled for 'filial consortium, which is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. 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. Therefore, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioner No.1 to 3.
35. Further the petitioners are wife, son and mother of deceased, they are entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/-under 25 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 the head of loss of estate and also an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded under the head of transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
36.After the accident the deceased Suresh H.S. was shifted to Adichunchanagiri hospital, Bellur cross, wherein first aid was given and then he was shifted to Sparsha hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 24.8.2016 to 7.9.2016 and again he was shifted to Mazumdhar Sha hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 7.9.2016 to 13.9.2016 and later he was shifted to Wenlock hospital, Mangalore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient, inspite of best treatment, he succumbed to the injuries on 16.9.2016. The petitioners have spent huge amount towards medical expenses. PW1 has produced the medical bills, marked at Ex.P12 to the extent of Rs.12,14,634/-. To substantiate the said fact the petitioners have examined Orthopaedic surgeon of Sparsh Hospital as PW2. He has stated in his evidence that at Ex.P12 bill 26 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 No.5 to 38 are belongs to their hospital. He has produced inpatient record at Ex.P33. The respondent No.2 has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioners. But has not placed sufficient materials to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioners are fabricated and created for the purpose of this case. Further the petitioners have also produced ambulance bill marked at Ex.P13 to the extent of Rs.35,500/-. Therefore, I deem it fit to grant Rs.12,50,134/- (Rs.12,14,634+35,500) towards medical expenses.
37. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation under the following heads.
Compensation heads Compensation amount
Towards loss of dependency Rs.21,50,400-00
Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,20,000-00
Towards loss of estate Rs. 15,000-00
Towards transportation of dead body, Rs. 15,000-00 funeral & obsequies ceremony 27 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 expenses Medical expenses Rs.12,50,134-00 Total Rs.35,50,534-00
38. LIABILITY: The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued that the driver of the Tata vehicle bearing No.KA- 05-AF-5224 was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle. In this regard the Bellur police have conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet under section 181 of IMV Act. The respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW1. He has reiterated the said fact as stated in the written statement.
39. On going through the charge sheet, I.O. has filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Tata Winger bearing No.KA- 05-AF-5224 for not having valid and effective driving license for the offence punishable u/s 181 of IMV Act. But on perusal of Ex.P34 produced by the petitioner the driver of the Tata Winger bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224 had licence to drive LMV NT-CAR from 28 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 29.12.2014 to 28.12.2034. This shows that the I.O. has not properly investigated the said matter. Moreover, the respondent No.2 has also not cross-examined the petitioner in this regard. Further respondent No.2 also not examined author of the document to show that Ex.P34 is a fake document. Therefore, considering all these facts, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 holds no water.
40. As I have already discussed in issue No.1 & 2 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Winger bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224.
41. The respondent No.2 has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of vehicle bearing No.KA-05-AF-5224 and its validity. So, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation together with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of 29 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 deposit. The petition against the respondent No.3 & 4 is hereby dismissed. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.4 in the partly affirmative.
42. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act as against the respondent No.3 & 4 is hereby dismissed. The claim petition filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of MV Act as against the respondent No. 1 & 2 is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.35,50,534/- with interest @ 8% P.A. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy 30 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017 the respondent No.2 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner together with interest, 70% is allotted to the petitioner No.1 and 20% is allotted to the petitioner No. 2 and 10% is allotted to petitioner No.3.
With regard to the compensation amount together with interest of petitioner No.1 and 3, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in any nationalized/schedule bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years and remaining 60% of the amount shall be released to the petitioners through account payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
31 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017With regard to the compensation amount together with interest of petitioner No.2, entire amount shall be deposited in any nationalized/schedule bank of their choice till she attains age of majority, after attaining majority the entire amount shall be released to the petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner No.1 being the guardian of the petitioner No.2 is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on the deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer online, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of January 2020) (MAHANTESH S.DARGAD) III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BENGALURU.
32 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Smt.Sujatha S. PW2 Shri Nagaraj
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex-P3 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex-P4 True copy of Inquest report
Ex-P5 True copy of P.M.report
Ex-P6 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex-P7 True copy of complaint dated 11.9.2016
Ex-P8 & Discharge summaries
Ex.P9
Ex.P10 Lab report
Ex.P11 Prescriptions
Ex.P12 Medical bills
Ex.P13 Ambulance bill
Ex.P14 Notarised copy of death certificate
Ex.P15 Notarised copy of SSLC Marks Card of
deceased
Ex.P16 Notarised copy of PUC Marks card
Ex.P17 Notarised copy of B.Com Marks card
Ex.P18 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of deceased
Suresh
Ex.P19 Notarised copy of Election ID card of deceased
Ex.P20 Notarised copy of Pan card of deceased
Ex.P21 Notarised copy of driving license of deceased
Suresh
33 SCCH-18 MVC 119/2017
Ex.P22 Notarised copy of Marriage certificate
Ex.P23 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
No.1
Ex.P24 Notarised copy of Election ID card of
petitioner No.1
Ex.P25 Notarised copy of Pan Card of petitioner No.1
Ex.P26 Notarised copy of Birth certificate of
petitioner No.2
Ex.P27 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
No.2
Ex.P28 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
No.3
Ex.P29 Notarised copy of Election ID card of
petitioner No.3.
Ex.P30 Notarised copy of Ration Card
Ex.P31 & Pass book of SBI bank
Ex.P32
Ex.P33 Inpatient record
Ex.P34 Driving license of Lokesh S.J.
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Shri S.Prathvi raj List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
NIL III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, Bengaluru.