Bangalore District Court
Smt.Usha.K vs Mr.Suresh Babu on 5 June, 2015
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
BEFORE THE MOTOR
DATED THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C NO.6396/2013
PETITIONERS: 1. Smt.Usha.K,
W/o. Late Eshwar Nayak,
Aged about 27 years.
2. Smt.Shantha Bai,
W/o.Late Hanumantha Naik,
Aged about 48 years.
Both are presently residing at
C/o.Rangachari Complex,
Near Milk Dairy, No.111,
Kannamangala Village,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
(By pleader - Sri.Rajashekhar.K)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1.Mr.Suresh Babu,
S/o.Chikkanarayanappa,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at Andarahalli Village,
Patrenahalli (P),
Chikkaballapura (Tk. & District)
(By pleader - Sri.Chandrasekhar
Rodnavar)
2. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,
SCCH-11 2 MVC 6396/2013
Regional Office, No.44/45,
Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road,
Bangalore - 560 025.
(Cover Note No.992546,
Policy No.432404/31/2014/847,
Valid from 13.5.2013 to 12.5.2014)
Policy Issued at;
Branch office C.B.No.13,
Door No.16-1-25, T.T.Complex,
1st Floor, M.F.Road,
HINDUPUR - 515201.
(By pleader - Sri.S.V.Sudhakar Reddy)
*********
JUDGMENT
Petitioners have filed this claim petition against the respondents claiming the compensation for the death of deceased Eshwar Nayak, S/o. Late Hanumanth Naik in the road traffic accident.
2) It is averred that, on 01.10.2013 at about 4.10 pm, the deceased Eshwar Nayak was proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No.KA- 40-U-416 as a pillion rider which was driven by its rider by name Suresh Babu on Bangalore-Bellary road in rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, without observing any traffic rules and regulations near Bypass Coffee Day, Opp. Car Detailer Garage, Yelahanka, Bangalore and caused the accident.
SCCH-11 3 MVC 6396/2013
Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Baptist Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore and took treatment as an inpatient from 1.10.2013 to 8.10.2013. During the course of treatment, X-rays, C.T.Scan, MRI Scan was done and multiple fracture injuries were confirmed, due to which the deceased underwent surgeries and for further treatment, he was referred to Mamatha Hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore, wherein the deceased took treatment for one day. Thereafter for better treatment, he was referred to Government Hospital, Mudgal town, Lingasuguru Taluk, Raichur District, but on the way to Hospital, the deceased Eshwar Nayak succumbed to fatal injuries on 9.10.2013 at about 4 am., The petitioners have spent Rs.6,00,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral expenses etc.,
3) The deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was working as a Executive-Airport Operation in M/s.Bengaluru Mega Cabs Pvt.Ltd., Opposite to Country Club, Bengaluru Cross, Yelahanka, Bangalore and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners have lost sole bread earning member of the family. The accident taken place due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of offending vehicle and jurisdictional police have registered case against the rider of offending vehicle in Cr.No.116/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. Both respondents being owner and insurer of SCCH-11 4 MVC 6396/2013 offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence the petitioners have claimed the compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- under different heads.
4) The respondent No.1 has filed Written Statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is admitted that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA-40-U-416 and RC holder is respondent No.2, is insured with cover note No.992546, under policy bearing No.432404/31/2014/847 and policy was in force for the period from 13.5.2013 to 12.5.2014. It is denied that, rider of the said vehicle was ridden the same in rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life. The respondent No.1 was holding valid and effective driving licence and the liability to be fixed against respondent No.2. Therefore it is prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.
5) The respondent No.2 has filed Written Statement and denied the contents of claim petition. It is contended that, petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that, petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased and at the time of accident, deceased was aged about 30 years and working as an Executive in Mega Cabs Pvt Ltd., and earning Rs.15,000/- per month are not within the knowledge of the respondent and petitioners are called upon to prove the same. It is admitted that, respondent has issued a policy of insurance in respect of motor cycle SCCH-11 5 MVC 6396/2013 bearing No.KA-40-U-416, the liability of this respondent if any is limited subject to the terms and conditions of insurance policy and compliance of Section 64 VB of Insurance Act and subject to valid and effective driving licence. It is submitted that, as on the date of accident, the motor cycle was ridden in a reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. The petitioners are put to strict proof of either rashness or negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. It is submitted that, the accident in question is solely occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and not due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle as alleged by the petitioners. It is submitted that, the jurisdictional police with undue influence and with out proper investigation have filed charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle and the crime records cannot be relied upon and hold rider of the motor cycle was negligent and caused the accident. It is submitted that, there is no nexus between the death of the deceased and the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The death is caused due to some other reasons and not due to injuries sustained in the accident. It is submitted that, the compensation amount of Rs.40,00,000/- claimed in the petition is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and exorbitant and the same is against the principle of computation of damages. The claim is also bad for non-compliance of Section 158(6) of 134(c) of MV Act and respondent seeks permission of Hon'ble court to contest the SCCH-11 6 MVC 6396/2013 matter on all the grounds that are available to the insured under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act, if the owner/insured fails to contest the matter in collusion with the petitioners. If Hon'ble Court award compensation, then the rate of interest shall not be more than 6% as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Geetha's case. It is contended that, respondent reserves its rights to file additional written statement in the changed position of law, facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore it is prayed for dismissal of claim petition with costs.
6) The petitioner No1 herself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 36 and also examined PW.2 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.37 and 51(a) closed the evidence. Though sufficient time has been granted to the respondents, they have not adduced their evidence. Hence respondents side evidence is taken as nil
7) Heard the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No2 and 3. Though sufficient time has been granted to respondent No1, he has not addressed arguments. Hence respondent No1 side arguments are taken as not addressed and petition is taken for disposal on merits.
8) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:
SCCH-11 7 MVC 6396/2013
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, 01.10.2013 at about 4.30 p.m., when deceased Eahwar Nayak was proceeding on motor cycle, bearing Regn.No.KA-40-U-416 as pillion rider on Bangalore-Bellary road, at that time, rider of motor cycle ridden by the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering human life and when the said vehicle came near Bypass Coffee Day, Opposite to Car Dealer Garage, Yelahanka, Bangalore, due to negligent driving, the said vehicle fell down and husband of petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and died on 09.10.2013 at 4.30 a.m.,?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, what is quantum of compensation amount?
3. What award or order?
9) My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative; the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.20,71,423/- with interest @ of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation, from respondent No.2.
Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
: REASONS :
10) ISSUE No.1: PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, on 01.10.2013 at about 4.00 p.m., her deceased husband Eshwar Nayak was proceeding on Motor cycle bearing No.KA-40-U-416 as pillion rider which was ridden by respondent No.1 on Bangalore-Ballary road in rash SCCH-11 8 MVC 6396/2013 and negligent manner, endangering human life without observing traffic rules and regulations. She has stated that, when they reached near By-
pass Coffee day opposite CAR Detailer Garage, Yelahanka, Bangalore, at that time, due to the negligent driving by the respondent No.1, Motor cycle fell down by which respondent No.1 and deceased husband fell down and sustained grievous injuries. She has stated that, Yelahanka traffic police registered crime No.116/2013 against the respondent No.1 and after investigation, they have filed charge sheet against him for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304-A of IPC.
11) In the cross-examination of PW.1, she has admitted that she has not witnessed the accident. She has stated that some unknown persons called through mobile phone of her husband and informed about the accident and she went to Baptist Hospital and person who gathered at the place of accident informed her about the vehicle number which caused the accident. She has also admitted that in the discharge summary it is mentioned about alleged history of skid and fall from the two wheeler and in the discharge summary, it is not mentioned as pillion rider. She has admitted in her cross-examination that, in the Ex.P.10, the respondent No.1 Suresh Babu stated before police that on the date of accident, one TVS star city Motor cycle came a cross his vehicle and he suddenly applied break and vehicle skid and fell down. SCCH-11 9 MVC 6396/2013
12) The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended in his arguments that, the accident taken place due to skid and fall and said fact has been noted in the discharge summary and the case sheet of Baptist hospital. He has also submitted that, the PW.1 admitted this fact in her cross-examination which reveals that there is no rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No.1. But this contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not acceptable. Because, the petitioners have produced certified copy of FIR, charge sheet and complaint which are marked as Ex.P.1 to 3 and as per the said documents, on 01.10.2013 at about 4.10 p.m., near Car Detailed Garage at Bypass Coffee Day, the respondent No.1 and deceased Eshwar Nayak were proceeding on Bangalore-Bellary road and even though said road was one way road, the respondent No.1 ridden his motor cycle in wrong way and due to his negligent riding, the motor cycle skid down and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. This fact has been clearly mentioned in the complaint filed by the PW.1 to the jurisdictional police on the same day of the accident. Even in the Ex.P.10, the respondent No.1 has given reply stating that, he was riding his motor cycle in one way by violating the traffic rules and one TVS Motor cycle came a cross and he immediately applied the brake and vehicle skid and fell down. In case, the respondent No.1 had not driven Motor cycle in one way against the traffic rules, this unfortunate accident would not have occurred. Since the respondent No.1 was riding motor cycle in wrong way and SCCH-11 10 MVC 6396/2013 against the traffic rules and due to his negligence, accident taken place. Even in Ex.P.10, he has clearly admitted that he was riding the motor cycle. This goes to show that the accident taken place due to rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No.1. The petitioners have produced police documents about rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No.1 which clearly reveal that the accident taken place due to rash and negligent riding by the respondent No.1. So, I answered issue No.1 in Affirmative.
13) ISSUE No.2 : PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, her deceased husband was shifted to Baptist Hospital, Hebbal, Bangalore and he was admitted as inpatient from 01.10.2013 to 08.10.2013 and during the period of treatment, he underwent surgeries and thereafter he was referred to Mamatha Hospital, Bangalore where he took treatment for one day i.e., on 07.10.2013 to 08.10.2013 and later on, he was referred to Government Hospital, Mudagal town, Lingasuguru Taluk, Raichur district, where he died on 09.10.2013. She has stated that, she has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment, conveyance, nourishment, funerals and other incidental charges and medical reimbursement was claimed to the extent of Rs.50,000/- from TTK Health Care, TPA Private Limited. She has stated that, she has spent Rs.1,07,355/- for treatment of her deceased husband in Baptist hospital. SCCH-11 11 MVC 6396/2013
14) The petitioners have produced medical bills of Mamatha Hospital, which is marked as Ex.P.28 and as per the said document, the petitioners have spent Rs.16,000/- for the treatment of deceased in the said hospital. The petitioners have also produced medical bills of Bangalore Baptist hospital which is marked as Ex.P.32 and 33 and as per the said documents, they have spent Rs.1,02,355/-. So, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,18,355/- under the head of Medical Expenses.
15) PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, they have spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards funerals obsequies, conveyance, transportation of dead body, medical expenses. The petitioners would have spent some amount towards funerals obsequies as per the customs and rituals of their community. Considering this fact and also following the principles laid down in the decision reported in Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- is awarded under the head of Transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies.
16) The petitioner No.1 being wife of the deceased lost her loving husband in middle age and petitioner No.2 has lost her loving son at her old age and they have lost love and affection of the deceased. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of love and affection. Hence SCCH-11 12 MVC 6396/2013 petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the said head.
17) Due to the sudden demise of the deceased Eshwar Nayak in the road traffic accident, the petitioners have lost some income towards estate. PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, deceased was working as Executive Airport Operations in M/s Bangalore Mega Cabs Private Limited and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident, the petitioners would have lost some income towards loss of estate. Considering this fact, I feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of estate. Hence petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of Loss of Estate.
18) Due to the sudden demise of the deceased at middle age, petitioner No.1 has lost love and affection. The petitioner No.1 has lost her husband at her young age and she has lost companionship, love, affection, care and protection etc as being wife of the deceased. It is the right of the petitioner No.1 to the company, society, solace, affection, and sexual relations with her deceased husband and it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of consortium and compensate the loss of spouse's action, comfort, solace, companionship, society, assistance protection, care and sexual relations SCCH-11 13 MVC 6396/2013 in future days as held in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403. Hence the petitioner No.1 is awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of loss of consortium. Hence petitioners are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head.
19) PW.1 has stated in her evidence that, prior to the accident her deceased husband was hale and healthy and aged about 30 years and he passed B.A, B.Ed with first class and worked in Air India, Air India SATS, Airport Service Private Limited from 01.02.2012 to 01.02.2013 and later on, he joined as Executive Airport Operations in M/s Bangalore Mega Cabs Private Limited and getting salary of Rs.15,000/- per month which was being credited to his S.B. Account in HDFC Bank. She has also stated that the deceased was only bread earning member in the family and due to his death, they have been put to great financial hardship.
20) The learned counsel for petitioners have submitted that, the deceased was working in M/s Bangalore Mega Cabs Private Limited as Executive Airport Operations and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and to that effect, his Bank statement has been produced to show that, he was getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and also adduced the evidence of PW.4 to prove his salary. He has submitted SCCH-11 14 MVC 6396/2013 that, his gross salary is to be taken into consideration and the future prospectus may be awarded under the head of loss of dependency. He has also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Verma Case), Santhosh Devi V/s National Insurance Company Limited, 2013 (2) KLJ 673; Rajesh and others V/s Rajbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1403; Yerramma and others V/s G. Krishna Murthy AIR 2015 SC 1145; Minu Rout and another V/s Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others 2013 AIR SCW 5375; Krishnamma and another V/s A.L. Shankrappa and another 2014(4) KLJ 452(DB); A. Arun and another V/s H.B. Pushpa and another ILR 2014 KAR 5169; Surendrakumar V/s Dinesh and another, ILR 2012 KAR 1171; APSRTC V/s Sri. Rathnakar ILR 2014 KAR 6083 and ILR 2011 KAR 4845 in support of his contention regarding the income of deceased.
21) The petitioners have produced educational certificates of deceased to show his educational qualification which reveal that the deceased passed B.A, B.Ed from Kalburgi University with first class and he was having good educational career. The petitioners have also produced post mortem report and death certificate which reveal that the deceased Eshwar Nayak died in the hospital of Mudugal town, Lingasaguru Taluk in Raichur District on 09.10.2013. The petitioners have also produced the appointment letter and resignation letter issued SCCH-11 15 MVC 6396/2013 by Air India and as per the said documents, deceased was working as Baggage handyman in Air India for the period from 01.02.2012 to 01.02.2013 and he resigned the job with effect from 01.02.2013. The petitioners have produced offer letter and salary certificate issued by Bangalore Mega Cabs Private Limited and as per the said documents, the deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and he was working in the said Company from 01.07.2013 to 30.09.2013. The petitioners have produced account extract, which is marked as Ex.P.17 and as per the said document, deceased was getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, which has been credited in the account of deceased on different dates. As per the SSLC marks card, which is marked as Ex.P.20, deceased born on 18.04.1984 and as on the date of death, the deceased was aged about 29 years.
22) I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioners. In the decision reported in Yerramma and others V/s G. Krishna Murthy AIR 2015 SC 1145, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the salary of the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deceased deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/-SCCH-11 16 MVC 6396/2013
per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of dependency is erroneous as it is not in accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside as it has to be properly determined by taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that a just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of dependency has not been determined by the courts below. Thus the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs.21,168/- per month, thereby the Court below have erred in making deductions from the gross salary of the deceased towards P.T. of Rs.200/- and other statutory deductions and therefore, arriving at Rs.21,168/- per month as the net salary of the deceased is erroneous in law. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the rules laid down by this Court in Indira Srivastava's (A.I.R 2008 SC 845: 2008 A.I.R SCW 143) (supra) in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency".SCCH-11 17 MVC 6396/2013
Even in one more decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in Krishnamma and another V/s A.L. Shankrappa and another 2014(4) KLJ 452(DB); wherein it is held as under:
" (A) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Section 168 -
Fatal accident - Assessment of compensation for - Incremental enhancement of income of deceased to provide for future prospectus, held, cannot be denied to those on fixed wages or self-employed, as rise in cost of living affects everyone across the board - Rule of awarding 30% rise in income over period of times, to be applied in all cases - Tribunal therefore, erred in taking only Rs.3,750/- as monthly income of deceased at time of his death from all sources of his income, without addition of 30% thereof which works out to Rs.1,125/- - As age of deceased at time of his death was 46 years, multiplier applicable for capitalization is 13 - As number of dependants were only two, one-third of income to be deducted towards personal expenses of deceased - Hence, compensation awarded by Tribunal towards loss of dependency has to be enhanced by Rs.1,17,000/- as worked out below".
Even in one more decision of A.Arun and another V/s H.B. Pushpa and another ILR 2014 KAR 5169 wherein it is held as under:
"The MACT while functioning under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, which is an independent beneficial legislation introduced for the benefit of victims in road SCCH-11 18 MVC 6396/2013 traffic accidents has to independently decide the question relating to negligence on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed before it.
Except income tax and professional tax, no other amount is liable to be deducted from the salary of the deceased for the purpose of taking the income of the deceased to determine the compensation payable to the claimants under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act as has been repeatedly held by the High Court and the Apex Court. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in deducting Rs.35 lakhs paid to first claimant husband of deceased by the employer of deceased under 'Personal Accident Insurance' from the compensation payable to the claimants.
Loss of dependency need not necessarily be confined to money payments. It also includes goods and services. The loss of services of the deceased as wife and mother would also require to be sounded in terms of money. The loss of a mother for children of infant age and the areas in which the loss would be felt are such as cannot possibly be compensated in terms of money at all. But awards in money are given for some aspects of the loss recognized in law because the award of money compensation is the only manner in which law compensates for the loss. Therefore, the claim made by the minor daughter for compensation on account of death of her mother alone is sufficient to deduct 1/3rd income of the deceased towards her personal expenses and to take 2/3rd of her income as her contribution towards family. Apart from that, in the instant case, all three of them namely deceased, her husband and daughter were residing in a common roof by sharing the income of the deceased and her husband towards payment SCCH-11 19 MVC 6396/2013 of house rent, discharge of housing loan, site loan and car loan etc., - The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,24,74,632/- as against Rs.58,41,000/- awarded by the Tribunal".
As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Santhosh Devi V/s National Insurance Company Limited, 2013 (2) KLJ 673, the 30% increase in total income is now available to the persons working in private sector or self employment. Even in the Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 decision also, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the future prospectus at 30% as addition to the salary.
23) In this case, the deceased was getting fixed salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. In the light of the principles laid down in the above referred decisions, there shall be addition of 30% to the salary of the deceased without any deductions. Then, the actual salary will be Rs.13,000/-. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the dependants of the deceased. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma case, there shall be 1/3rd deduction towards personal expenses. Then it will be as under:
Rs.8,667/- x 12 x 17 = Rs.17,68,068/-
So, I hold that petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,68,068/- under the head of loss of dependency.SCCH-11 20 MVC 6396/2013
The petitioners are entitled for compensation under different heads which is calculated as under:
1) Loss of dependency Rs. 17,68,068/-
2) Transportation of dead body Rs. 25,000/-
and funeral expenses
3) Loss of love and affection Rs. 30,000/-
4) Loss of estate Rs. 30,000/-
5) Loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
6) Medical expenses during Rs. 1,18,355/-
hospitalization
Total Rs. 20,71,423/-
Therefore, in total the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 20,71,423/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation.
24) The respondent No.1 is the owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and as on the date of accident, the insurance policy was inforce. Hence respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the respondent No.1. So, I hold that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Hence, I hold that, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,71,423/-
along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum till its realization. So, I answered issue No.2 in partly affirmative.
SCCH-11 21 MVC 6396/2013
25) ISSUE No.3: In view of answers to issue No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.
20,71,423/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realization.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.
Out of the awarded compensation amount, Rs.12,00,000/- is apportioned to the share of petitioner No.1 including compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the head of consortium and Rs.8,71,423/- is apportioned to the share of petitioners No.2.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation amount by respondent No.2, Rs.8,00,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 5 years, out of the share of petitioner No.1 SCCH-11 22 MVC 6396/2013 and remaining amount of Rs.4,00,000/- shall be released along with accrued interest on awarded amount by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
In the apportioned amount of Rs.8,71,423/- to the petitioner No.2, Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposited in FD in any nationalised or scheduled bank for a period of 5 years in the name of petitioner No.2 and remaining amount of Rs.3,71,423/- shall be released to the petitioner No.2 by way of account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer and corrected by me, then pronounced in Open court on this 5th day of June 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 - Smt.Usha.K
PW.2 - Vimal Raj
SCCH-11 23 MVC 6396/2013
PW.3 - Md.Waseemulla
PW.4 - Amarbabu G.N.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 - CC of FIR
Ex.P.2 - CC of charge sheet
Ex.P.3 - CC of complaint
Ex.P.4 - CC of statement
Ex.P.5 - CC of IMV report
Ex.P.6 - CC of Panchanama
Ex.P.7 - CC of PM report
Ex.P.8 - CC of hand sketch map
Ex.P.9 - CC of notice
Ex.P.10 - CC of reply to the notice
Ex.P.11 - CC of death extract
Ex.P.12 - Notarised copy of marriage registration copy
Ex.P.13 - CC of certificate issued by Air India
Ex.P.14 - CC of letter of acceptance of resignation
Ex.P.15 - CC of Offer letter
Ex.P.16 - CC of certificate issued by Bengaluru Mega Cabs
Ex.P.17 - CC of Bank statement
Ex.P.18 - Notarised copy of provisional certificate
Ex.P.19 - Notarised copy of provisional certificate
Ex.P.20 - Notarised copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P.21 - Notarised copy of PUC marks card
Ex.P.22-24 - Notarised copy of B.A marks cards Ex.P.25 - Notarised copy of first semester Bachelor of education Ex.P.26 - Notarised copy of second semester Bachelor of education Ex.P.27 - Copy of discharge summary Ex.P.28 - Final bill of Mamatha Hospital Ex.P.29 - Receipt of Mamatha Hospital SCCH-11 24 MVC 6396/2013 Ex.P.30 - Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.31 - Notarised copy of election identity card Ex.P.32 - Duplicate copy of medical bill Ex.P.33 - Final medical bill Ex.P.34 - Notarised copy of election identity card Ex.P.35 - Notarised copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P.36 - Notarised copy of Ration card Ex.P.37 - Attested Copy of MLC extract Ex.P.38 - Case sheet of patient Ex.P.39 - Authorising letter Ex.P.40 - In-patient records Ex.P.41 - DMS controlled copy Ex.P.42 - Authorisation letter Ex.P.43 - Offer letter Ex.P.44 - Curriculum Vitae Ex.P.45 - Police Verification Certificate Ex.P.46 - 48- Salary slips Ex.P.49 - Original attendance register & attested copy Ex.P.49(a) - Concerned portion Ex.P.50 - Original attendance register & attested copy Ex.P.50(a) - Concerned portion Ex.P.51 - Original attendance register & attested copy Ex.P.51(a) - Concerned portion WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
- NIL -
I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.