Bangalore District Court
Smt.Jalajakshi vs Cholamandalam Ms General on 1 October, 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.3764/2015
Dated this the 1st day of October 2016
Petitioner/s : 1. SMT.JALAJAKSHI
Aged about 44 years
W/o late Basavaraju G.M
2. SRI. LINGARAJU
Aged about 25 years,
S/o late Basavaraju G.M
3. SRI SHASHIDHAR
Aged about 22 years,
S/o late Basavaraju G.M
4. SMT. SHIVAMMA
Aged about 85 years,
W/o late Mallappa. S.B
All are R/at No.E-105,
Ramesh Building
Near Eshwar Temple,
Doddathogur,
Electronic City Post,
Bangalore-560 100.
(By pleader Sri KMP)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.3764/2015
V/s
Respondent/s 1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL
INS.,COL.LTD.,
No.9/1, Ulsoor road,
Bangalore-42.
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
S/o Thimmanna
No.31, Halli Kallalgatta Post,
Nelamangal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(R1- By pleader Sri YPV,
R2-Exparte)
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.3764/2015
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the death of Basavaraju S/o Mallappa in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Basavaraju who was aged 50 years, was a security supervisor at Garudu Security Agency, Bangalore and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. Apart from salary, he has an agricultural income from agricultural lands and coconut trees to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- per year. On 16.06.2015 at about 3.30 p.m., the deceased Basavaraju was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA- 01-Y-6868 with his wife from Yadavanahalli to Doddathogur slowly and carefully by observing all the traffic rules. When they reached Kuluvanahalli lake, Thymagondlu Hobli, on Tumkur-Bangalore NH-4 road and at that time, Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-06-TC- 05 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner endangering to human life came and dashed against the motorcycle from behind. Due to impact, the said Basavaraju and his wife fell down and Basavaraju sustained grievous head injury and succumbed to injuries on the spot. After post mortem, dead body was handed over to the petitioners who have conducted funeral and obsequious ceremonies. The petitioners spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The deceased was the only bread earner of the family. Due to his sudden death, the petitioners have suffered mental shock and agony, lost love SCCH-14 4 MVC No.3764/2015 and affection. The petitioner no.1 lost her beloved husband, the petitioner no.2 to 4 lost their father and the petitioner no.5 lost her son's shelter and care at her old age. Nelamangala police have registered Cr.No.232/2015 against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-06-TC-05. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the said vehicle and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have sought for awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent no.1 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the averments of the petition as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-06-TC- 05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and Chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757, but he has denied the involvement of the said vehicle in the alleged accident and contended that the said autorickshaw was implicated in the case with the active connivance of the insured, the abettors and police, that the driver of the autorickshaw and the deceased had no valid and effective driving license and the autorickshaw was played on the road without permit and fitness certificate on the date of accident, that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exaggerated and baseless. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition. In spite of service of notice, the respondent no.2 remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte.
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.3764/20154. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Basavaraju G.M s/o Mallappa S.B. died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 16.06.2015 at about 03.30 p.m., on Tumkur-Bangalore Road, NH-4, Kuluvanahalli Lake, Tyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No. KA-06-TC-05?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 21. The respondent no.1 has examined his officer as RW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 6.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon following rulings:
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.3764/20151. MFA No.4003/2012 ()
2. 2006 ACJ 2771: New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs., G.N Gopalagowda and Anr.,
3. ILR 1998 KAR 2391: C.N Krishna Murthy Vs., O.Shashidhara Murthy
4. ILR 2000 KAR 1817: Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs., Smt.Laxmibai
5. ILR 2009 KAR 3562: Veerappa and Anr., Vs., Siddappa & Anr., I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In negative.
Issue No.2 : In negative Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: It is an admitted fact that the Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 is owned by the respondent No.2 and was insured with the respondent No.1 and the policy was in force on the date of accident. There is no dispute that Basavaraju S/o Mallappa died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident occurred on 16.06.2015 at about 03.30 pm., on Tumkur-Bangalore road, near Kuluvanahalli lake, Nelamangala taluk, that Nelamangala police have registered Cr.No.232/2015, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05.
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.3764/20159. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the wife, children and mother of the deceased Basavaraju, that on 16.06.2015 and said Basavaraju was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-01-Y-6868 with his wife i.e., petitioner No.1 slowly and carefully by observing all traffic rules, that when they came near Kuluvanahalli lake, at that time, Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the motorcycle from behind, that the deceased Basavaraju and the petitioner No.1 fell down on the road and the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The respondent No.1 has contested the matter and the respondent No.2 remained exparte. It is the defence of the respondent No.1 that the insured autorickshaw was not involved in the accident, but it is falsely implicated in the case in collusion with the driver of the said vehicle and the police.
10. The petitioners have relied up on the oral evidence of PW-1 and documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to 21 to prove their case. The respondent No.1 has examined his officer as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1 to 6 to prove his defence and disprove the case of the petitioners. The respondent No.1 has taken summons to investigating officer in Cr.No.232/2015 of Nelamangala police, but he could not secure his presence and he is not able to examine him as witness.
11. PW-1 Jalajakshi is the petitioner No.1 and she has reiterated the entire averments of the petition and stated that the SCCH-14 8 MVC No.3764/2015 accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No. KA-06-TC-05 in which her husband sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. In cross-examination, she has admitted that she has not observed the registration number of the autorickshaw, that she has not mentioned the registration number of the autorickshaw in her complaint, that the police have not called her during investigation. However, she has denied the suggestions that the autorickshaw shown in her petition and in her affidavit, has not caused any accident, that the said autorickshaw not at all came out of showroom and was not plying on the road on the said date.
12. RW-1 G.Suresh is the officer of the respondent No.1 and he has deposed as per the defence of the respondent No.1 and stated that autorickshaw fitted with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757 was insured with the respondent No.1 and its policy was in force on the date of accident, that the said vehicle is falsely implicated in the case in collusion with police and others, that autorickshaw with engine No.A22WFR54556 and chassis No.MD-2A45B23FWB08648 was detained from the place of accident which was not insured with him, that post mortem was done on 17.06.2015 at about 10.20 pm., which is unusual, that the insured vehicle was plied without permit and violating law and as such, respondent No.1 is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.2. In cross-examination, he has admitted that the vehicle mentioned in charge sheet was duly insured with the respondent No.1, that the vehicle mentioned in SCCH-14 9 MVC No.3764/2015 the charge sheet and in IMV report are one and the same, that the policy was in force on the date of accident. However, he has denied the suggestions that engine and chassis number are wrongly mentioned in panchanama, that the vehicle described in panchanama belongs to one Nagaraj and not to Krishnappa.
13. The petitioners have produced copies of police records namely FIR with complaint, charge sheet, panchanama, sketch, inquest panchanama, PM Report, Statement of R.C. Owner, Statement of Charge Sheeted Driver and IMV Report which are marked as Ex.P1 to 9. The petitioners have produced death certificate and copy of driving license of the deceased which are marked at Ex.P10 and 12. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has produced copy of policy with conditions, Copy of Notice to respondent no.2, Postal Receipt, Postal Cover, Copy of Wound Certificate of the petitioner no.1 and Copy of Panchanama which are marked as Ex.R1 to 6. On perusal of copy of policy at Ex.R1, it reveals that the Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No. KA-06-TC-05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757 was insured with the respondent No.1 and its policy was in force on the date of accident. Ex.P12 goes to show that the deceased was holding driving license to drive a motorcycle on the date of accident. Ex.P5, 6 and 10 disclose that the said Basavaraju died on 16.06.2015 due to the accidental injuries. Ex.R5 discloses that PW-1 sustained simple injury in the accident. Post mortem examination of dead body of Basavaraju was done on the night of 16.06.2015 and it went beyond 11.59 pm., That is why timing of post mortem is shown as 17.06.2015 at SCCH-14 10 MVC No.3764/2015 12.15 am., The respondent No.1 has misconceived the date and time and contended that time of post mortem is unusual. But, there is nothing on record to suspect anything regarding PM examination. On perusal of other records at Ex.P1 to 4, 7 to 9, it reveals that Nelamangala police have registered Cr.No.232/2015 on 16.06.2015 at about 05.00 pm on the basis of information given by the petitioner No.1, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757. There was no delay in lodging complaint. Autorickshaw number is not mentioned in the complaint, but it is described as a passenger autorickshaw without having registration number. Both the vehicles involved in the accident were detained from the place of accident under panchanama. The autorickshaw is identified with engine and chassis numbers while drawing panchanama as per Ex.P3. Sketch at Ex.P4 goes to show that the accident has occurred on the left side of the road leading to Bangalore and the autorickshaw was found in front of the motorcycle. The respondent No.2 and charge sheeted driver Hanumantharayappa have given statement as per Ex.P7 and 8 which go in favour of the petitioners. IMV report at Ex.P9 discloses that both the vehicles were damaged in the accident and brake system of the same was in order. It is opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. The autorickshaw is identified by its engine and chassis number in Ex.P9. Copy of charge sheet at Ex.P2 supports the version of PW-1 that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing Temporary SCCH-14 11 MVC No.3764/2015 Registration No.KA-06-TC-05. The charge sheet filed by the police is prima facie evidence as to negligence of driver of said autorickshaw. But, it is settled law that charge sheet is not a conclusive proof of involvement of a particular vehicle and of negligence on the part of the driver shown therein. The respondent No.1 has contended that Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 was not involved in the accident. His counsel has drawn my attention to the copy of spot panchanama at Ex.P3 and Ex.R6 and argued that the vehicle detained from the place of accident is different from the vehicle mentioned in IMV report and in charge sheet. On the other hand, the counsel for the petitioners has argued that engine and chassis number are wrongly mentioned in panchanama. He has impliedly admitted by making specific suggestion to RW-1 that the vehicle shown in panchanama is not the vehicle mentioned in charge sheet and it does not belong to the respondent No.2. He has suggested that the vehicle detained from the place of accident is of one Nagaraj. The said portion of cross-examination of RW-1 is as under:
"It is false to suggest that engine and chassis number of the vehicle are wrongly mentioned in the panchanama. I do not know that the vehicle described in panchanama belongs to one Nagaraj and not to Krishnappa".
I have carefully gone through the contents of spot panchanama, IMV report and charge sheet. All the police records except spot panchanama reveal that Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757 was SCCH-14 12 MVC No.3764/2015 involved in the accident. The said records corroborate the evidence of PW-1 regarding involvement of said vehicle and negligence of its driver for the occurrence of accident. Contents of spot panchanama at Ex.P3 and Ex.R6 corroborate the evidence of RW-1 regarding involvement of autorickshaw with engine No.A22WFR54556 and chassis No.MD-2A45B23FWB08648 in the accident and false implication of Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757 in the accident. Vehicle number is not mentioned in the complaint. PW-1 is not able to identify the autorickshaw by its engine and chassis number. There was no delay in lodging complaint. The police went to place of accident at 05.30 pm., on the date of accident and drawn mahazar as per Ex.P3. The IO has mentioned in the mahazar as under:
"F ¸ÀÞ¼ÀzÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PÀqÉ ºÉƸÀ ¥Áå¸ÉAdgï CmÉÆà APEE ªÀÄÄRªÀiÁr ¤AwzÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ »AzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £ÀA§gï §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ºÉƸÀ DmÉÆà DVgÀÄvÉÛ EzÀgÀ JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ PÀA© ¸Àé®à ¨ÉAqÁVzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÄ »A¨ÁUÀzÀ JqÀ¨sÁUÀ dRAUÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛ DmÉÆà »A¨sÁUÀ TVS Victor KA-01-Y-6868 ¤AwzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ §A¥Àgï ªÀÄqÀUÁqïð¥ÀÅlgɸïÖ qÁªÉÄÃeï CVgÀÄvÉÛ F ºÉƸÀ C¥Éà CmÉÆà £ÀA§gï §gÉ¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è EAf£ï £ÀA§gï ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV A22WFR54556 DVgÀÄvÉÛ ªÀiÁqɯï 2015 CVzÀÄÝ ZÁ¹ì £ÀA§gï MD2A45B23FWB08648 CVgÀÄvÉÛ".
14. There is no evidence to support the contention of the petitioners that engine and chassis number of autorickshaw are wrongly mentioned in the panchanama. There was no reason for the IO to mention the engine and chassis number of a different vehicle than the one detained from the place of accident. Therefore, SCCH-14 13 MVC No.3764/2015 it can be believed that the engine and chassis number shown in panchanama are pertaining to the autorickshaw which caused accident to the motorcycle bearing No.KA-01-Y-6868. IMV report and charge sheet are subsequent to spot panchanama which disclose the involvement of an autorickshaw with different engine and chassis number. It means, the autorickshaw inspected by the IMV authority is different from the autorickshaw which was detained from the place of accident under Ex.P3. The autorickshaw shown in charge sheet is the same autorickshaw which was shown in IMV report, but the said autorickshaw is not the autorickshaw which was detained from the place of accident. It implies that the autorickshaw shown in the charge sheet has not caused accident. Evidence of RW-1 and contents of panchanama at Ex.P3 and Ex.R6 clearly go to show that autorickshaw with engine No.A22WFR54556 and chassis No.MD-2A45B23FWB08648 has caused accident and it was detained from the spot. The insured autorickshaw is shown in charge sheet which indicates that it is implicated in the case on the later date. However, it is evident from the oral evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P1, 2, 4 to 9 that Basavaraju S/o Mallappa died due to accidental injuries, that an autorickshaw without having registration number has caused accident, that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said autorickshaw. Ex.P3 and Ex.R6 establish that autorickshaw with engine No.A22WFR54556 and chassis No.MD-2A45B23FWB08648 was involved in the accident and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said autorickshaw. There is no evidence as to sole or contributory negligence of the deceased. But, the autorickshaw of SCCH-14 14 MVC No.3764/2015 the respondents is different from the autorickshaw which caused accident. The evidence adduced by the petitioners suffers from material contradictions. Evidence of RW-1 and contents of Ex.R6 disclose that Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No. KA-06-TC-05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757 has not caused any accident, that the accident has not occurred due to negligence of its driver. I am of the opinion that the autorickshaw of the respondents is falsely implicated in the case. Hence, I hold that the petitioners have failed to prove the involvement of Autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 with engine No.BBZWFA05755 and chassis No.MDZA41AZXFWA06757 in the accident and to prove that the driver of said autorickshaw was responsible for the occurrence of accident. Consequently, I answer the issue no.1 in negative.
15. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioners have failed to prove issue No.1. They have not established the involvement of autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06-TC-05 in the accident and negligence of its driver for the occurrence of accident. Hence, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. If the petitioners had succeeded to prove issue No.1, to prove involvement of said autorickshaw and to prove the negligence of its driver for the occurrence of accident, then the petitioners would be entitled for compensation as under:
16. The petitioners are claiming to be the wife, children and mother of the deceased. PW.1 has deposed in that regard. Copy of SCCH-14 15 MVC No.3764/2015 voter ID of the deceased, of the petitioner No.1 are at Ex.P13 and
15. Copy of Adhaar card of the deceased, of the petitioner No.1, 4, 2 and 3 are at Ex.P14, 16, 17, 19 and 21. Copy of driving license of the deceased, of the petitioner No.2 and of petitioner No.3 are at Ex.P12, 18 and 20. These documents coupled with inquest panchanama at Ex.P5 reveal that the petitioners are the wife, children and mother of the deceased. They are the Class I heirs and legal representatives of the deceased. They were depending upon the income of the deceased. Hence, they would be entitled for compensation.
17. Copy of driving license, copy of Voter ID and copy of Adhaar card of the deceased disclose that the deceased was born on 01.06.1967. It means, he was aged about 48 years. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of said documents. Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 48 years on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier is 13.
18. The petitioners have produced wage slips to corroborate the evidence of PW-1 regarding occupation and income of the deceased which are marked as Ex.P11. The IO has recorded the occupation of the deceased as security supervisor in Garuda agency while drawing inquest mahazar. These documents corroborate the evidence of PW-1 as to occupation and income of the deceased. There is no evidence to disbelieve the contents of inquest mahazar and wage slips. On perusal of wage slips, it reveals that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.9,500/- pm., The said salary is reasonable. The wage slips have got all SCCH-14 16 MVC No.3764/2015 particulars and same can be relied upon. Hence, I hold that the deceased was working as security supervisor in Garuda agency, Bangalore and was drawing a salary of Rs.9,500/- pm., His annual income comes to Rs.1,14,000/-. The deceased was aged 48 years. 30% amount shall be added towards future prospects as per ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munnalal Jain case. After addition of 30% amount, gross income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,48,200/-. There were 4 dependents. Hence, 1/4th amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. On such deduction, the net income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,11,150/-. It can be rounded to Rs.1,11,000/- pa., Then, loss of dependency of the petitioners would be Rs.1,11,000/-X13=Rs.14,43,000/-. The petitioner would be further entitled for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 would be further entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the petitioner would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,18,000/-. But, the petitioners have failed to prove that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of autorickshaw bearing Temporary Registration No.KA-06- TC-05. Hence, the respondents are not liable to pay any compensation much less the one calculated above. Evidence on record reveal that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of autorickshaw with engine No.A22WFR54556 and chassis No.MD-2A45B23FWB08648. The owner and insurer of said autorickshaw are not party to this SCCH-14 17 MVC No.3764/2015 petition. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioners shall fail and is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
19 ISSUE NO.3: 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 dismissed.
Under the peculiar circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 1st October of 2016).
(Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 18 MVC No.3764/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Jalajakshi Respondent' s G.Suresh RW.1 Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 - Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P3 - Copy of Panchanama Ex.P4 - Copy of Sketch Ex.P5 - Copy of Inquest Report Ex.P6 - Copy of PM Report Ex.P7 - Copy of Statement of R.C. Owner Ex.P8 - Copy of Statement of Charge Sheeted Driver Ex.P9 - Copy of IMV Report Ex.P10- Death Certificate Ex.P11- Wage Slips (3 in nos.) Ex.P12- Copy of Driving Licence of Deceased Ex.P13- Copy of Voter ID of Deceased Ex.P14- Copy of Adhaar Card of the Deceased Ex.P15- Copy of Voter ID of petitioner no.1 Ex.P16- Copy of Adhaar Card of petitioner no.1 Ex.P17- Copy of Adhaar Card of petitioner no.4 Ex.P18- Copy of Driving Licence of petitioner no.2 Ex.P19- Copy of Adhaar Card of petitioner no.2 Ex.P20- Copy of Driving Licence of petitioner no.3 Ex.P21- Copy of Adhaar Card of petitioner no.3 Respondent's Ex.R1- Copy of Policy with conditions Ex.R2 - Copy of Notice to respondent no.2 Ex.R3 - Postal Receipt Ex.R4 - Postal Cover Ex.R5 - Copy of Wound Certificate of the petitioner no.1 Ex.R6 - Copy of Panchanama XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 19 MVC No.3764/2015
Dt.01.10.2016 P-KMP R1-YPV R2-exparte 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 dismissed.
Under the peculiar circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own cost.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 20 MVC No.3764/2015
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.3794/2015 Petitioner/s : 1. SMT.JALAJAKSHI Aged about 44 years W/o late Basavaraju G.M
2. SRI. LINGARAJU Aged about 25 years, S/o late Basavaraju G.M
3. SRI SHASHIDHAR Aged about 22 years, S/o late Basavaraju G.M
4. SMT. SHIVAMMA Aged about 85 years, W/o late Mallappa. S.B All are R/at No.E-105, Ramesh Building Near Eshwar Temple, Doddathogur, Electronic City Post, Bangalore-560 100.
V/s (By pleader Sri KMP) Respondent/s 1. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INS.,COL.LTD., No.9/1, Ulsoor road, Bangalore-42.
2. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/o Thimmanna No.31, Halli Kallalgatta Post, Nelamangal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(R1- By pleader Sri YPV, R2-Exparte) SCCH-14 21 MVC No.3764/2015 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 petitioners U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed.
Under the peculiar circumstances, I direct the parties to bear their own cost.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.3764/2015By 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. ---------------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR