Bangalore District Court
Gangadevi.V vs Ravanappa on 27 January, 2025
KABC020057752023
IN THE COURT OF XXI ADDL.SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
(SCCH-23)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY - 2025
PRESENT: Sri. Shreyansh Doddamani
B.Com. LL.B, (Spl)
XXI ADDL. SCJ & ACJM
MEMBER - MACT, BENGALURU.
MVC. No.1226/2023
Petitioners : 1. Smt. V. Gangadevi,
W/o Veda Subbaiah,
Aged about 47 years.
2. Sri. Veda Subbaiah,
S/o Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 51 years.
3. V. Ramesh,
S/o Veda Subbaiah,
Aged about 27 years.
All are R/at : C/o S. Krishnaprasad,
1st Floor, No.1370, 6th Main, 12th Cross,
Mahalakshmipura, Bengaluru-560086.
Permanent Address :
No.3-19, G. Bameapalli,
Guttepalem,
Chittor,
Andhra Pradesh-517234
(By Advocate: Sri. M. Bheema Reddy)
2 SCCH-23
MVC-1226/2023
v/s
Respondents : 1) Sri. Ravanappa,
S/o Rangappa,
Major in age,
5th Ward, Byyappanahalli,
V.Bagepalli,
Kolar District,
Now Chikkaballapura District-561207
(RC owner of Tata Ace vehicle
No.KA-40-B-0127)
(By Advocate: Sri. N.A)
2) Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
RGTC-28, East Wing,
5th Floor,
Centenary building,
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560001.
(Insurer of Tata Ace bearing
Reg.No.KA-40-B-0127)
Policy No.733922223340000540
valid from 12.03.2022 to 11.03.2023
(By Advocate: Sri. H.C.Betsur)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed under Sec.166 of M.V Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death caused in a Road Traffic accident.
3 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023
2. The case of the petitioners in the nutshell is that, on 11.02.2023 at about 8.00 a.m, the deceased was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.AP-39-EQ-1246, on the left side infront of People Tree School, on Madanapalle to Bengaluru Main road in slowly by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, when he reached near Kannemaduguvaripalli village, Madanapalli Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, at that time a Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0127 came from opposite direction with high speed, in rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and dashed to the deceased's motorcycle. As a result of impact deceased fell on the road and sustained fatal injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to District Hospital, Madanapalli, where the duty doctor declared as died. Postmortem was conducted and corpse was handed over to the family members, who conducted funeral and other ceremonies by spending substantial amount. The accident was caused due to the sole negligence of driver of the Tata Ace vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending Tata Ace and 4 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 the Respondent No.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
3. Notice was duly served to respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel, he failed to contest the matter by filing the written statement.
4. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by contending that the petition is not maintainable either law or on facts. The respondent denied the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0127. However the liability if any is pleaded to be subject to the terms & conditions of the policy. Further the respondent has contended that, the owner and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provision of 64-VB of Insurance Act and Sections 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V.Act. The petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This respondent specifically and empathically denied the occurrence, mode and manner of accident and also involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Negligence on the part of the driver of its insured Tata Ace is denied by this respondent. Per contra it is alleged that the rider of 5 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 motorcycle / deceased who was riding the said vehicle without having a proper lookout at the vehicular movement on the road was solely responsible for the occurrence of the accident. Further the deceased was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. Without prejudice to the said contention it is averred that the driver of the Tata Ace did not possess valid & effective DL as on the date of accident. Despite knowing the said fact the owner thereof had handed over its possession to such a driver. On account of willful breach of the terms & conditions of the policy by the insured, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify him. Further denied all the allegations made in the petition. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal heir and dependents of the deceased ?
2) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 11.02.2023 at about 8.00 a.m., infront of People Tree school on Madanapalle - Bengaluru main road, near Kannemaduguvaripalli village, Madanapalli Mandal, Andhra Pradesh, due to actionable
6 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 negligence of the driver of Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0127 ?
3) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and from whom ?
4) What order or award ?
6. Petitioner No.2 examined himself as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 24 were marked on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners have also examined the employer of the deceased ie., Senior Manager, HDFC Bank as PW.2 and through him got marked Ex.P.25 to 30 documents. In order to prove the defence, the Deputy Legal Manager of respondent No.2 insurance company has examined as RW.1 and through him got marked Ex.R.1 & 2 documents.
7. Heard erudite counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.2 counsel on merits. Perused the entire materials placed on record.
8. This tribunal answers to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
7 SCCH-23
MVC-1226/2023
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.2 : The occurrence of the accident on the relevant date, time and place is not in dispute. The parties are also not at variance with regard to the factum of the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. The conflict is with respect to actionable negligence. The petitioners plead that the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the driver of Tata ACE. Whereas the Insurance Company contends that the accident in question occurred because of negligence of the deceased.
10. The brother of deceased set the criminal law into the motion by lodging Ex.P.2-First information statement. Based on the said FIS, the jurisdictional police registered FIR as per Ex.P.1, investigated the matter and laid charge sheet (Ex.P.7) against the driver of Tata Ace for the offences punishable under section's 279, 304(A) of IPC. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive.
8 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023
11. Further more on perusal of Ex.P.3 being the Spot sketch prepared at the time of drawing spot mahazar. Further the spot sketch it reflects that the accident happened near People Tree school. On close perusal of the same it reflects that, the motorcycle in which the deceased was traveling was hit by the Tata Ace on opposite direction. If the driver of the offending Tata Ace vehicle was coming in a normal speed then he would certainly avoided the accident. Above all even the charge sheet was also filed as against the driver of the Tata Ace for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 304A of IPC.
12. The Learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that deceased was not wearing helmet and he has contributed for negligence. In order to controvert the above said contention, the it is relevant to relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.79/2020 (Mohammad Siddique & another V/s National Insurance Company Ltd & others), wherein it is held that "Simply because there is a violation of Section 129 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 by a victim in an accident, there is no presumption that there is 9 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 contributory negligence on the part of the person who was not wearing the helmet. It is to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case". That is to say, some other additional evidence is necessary to attribute contributory negligence of the deceased which is not adduced in this case. All the mist of doubt created by the respondent No.2 during the course of trail is demystified by the petitioners. Added more further it is also relevant to rely on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in MFA.101144/2020 (MV-I) in the case of Anand v/s Arjun and The Oriental Ins.Co.Ltd., wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, had interpreted Sec.129 of IMV Act had also held that non wearing of helmet is not a ground to deny the compensation. As such this aspect puts a last nail to the coffin for the contention urged by the respondent No.2.
13. It is necessary to reassert that in a claim for compensation filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is expected to prove the incident on basis of principle of preponderance of probabilities and the view taken by 10 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 this Court is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum and others V/s Satbir and others which is reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319. Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 has observed that, it is necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely required to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishnappa and another reported in 2001 ACJ 1105, where the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka considering the fact that the rider of the offending vehicle was not examined to prove any contributory negligence on the part of scooterist held that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the rider of the offending van. Even in the instant case the driver of the Tata Ace is not examined to show that there 11 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 was no negligence on his part and even otherwise the IO, as already observed, has clearly opined that the accident occurred only due to the fault of the driver of the Tata Ace and he was charge sheeted. Another important aspects to be noted here is, respondent No.2 did not made any endevour to examine the driver of the insured vehicle. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law. Under such circumstances the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0127. As such, this Tribunal answers issue No.2 In the Affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.1 : The petitioners claim that, petitioner No.1 is the father, petitioner No.2 is the mother and petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. To prove the same, petitioner No.2 filed affidavit-in-lieu of his chief-examination and deposed about the above relationship. The ration card, Aadhar cards marked at Ex's.P.8 to 12 and contents of the 12 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 police papers do fortify the said fact. This Court will not loose sight of the fact that, the petitioner No.1 & 2 are the parents and petitioner No.3 is the brother of deceased. The evidence discloses that deceased is the eldest son who is a one of the bread winner to the family and as such the petitioners were dependent on deceased. It is pertinent to note that, this relationship of the petitioners with the deceased has not been disputed by the respondent. Since the evidence led by the petitioners is satisfactory and also taking into consideration the fact that there are no rival claimants, this Tribunal hold that the petitioners are the legal representative of the deceased. Further when its comes to the dependency of the petitioner No.3, it is relevant to note that the petitioner No.3 is the brother of the deceased. Petitioner No.3 has attained majority. Added more there is nothing placed on record before the court that the petitoner No.3 was the dependent of the earning of the deceased when such being the case he cannot be considered as a dependent on the deceased. Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the legal heirs and dependents of deceased. Hence, this Tribunal answers to issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative.
13 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023
15. ISSUE NO.3 : In this case the petitioners have claimed the compensation of Rs.2.50 crores on the death of deceased in the RTA. The petitioners contended that, deceased was appointed as Bank Manager, vide employee ID-G9893 in HDFC Bank, Marathahalli, Bengaluru and he was drawing a net salary of Rs.76,273/- and other perks per month. Further the PW.1 stated that the deceased was appointed as Senior Sales Executive, vide Employee ID No.3T1504 in Teletech Technologies, Bengaluru. Therefore he was appointed as a sales Officer-CA in IDFC First Bank Ltd., Mumbai and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.36,000/- and other perks. Then he was appointed as TEAM Lead in M/s One97 Paytm Communications Ltd., Noida and drawing a monthly salary of Rs.42,534/- and during his life time one more company was offered for higher salaries. In order to substantiate the avocation and income of the deceased, the petitioner No.1 produced the Ex.P.19-Pay slip, Ex.P.20-Resignation letter, Ex.P.21-Relieving and experience letter, Ex.P.22 -Salary slips, Ex.P.23-Relieving Letter and Ex.P.24 salary slips. On perusal of Ex.P.20 is the Resignation letter submitted by deceased to the 14 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 Teletech and the said company has accepted the resignation of the deceased. Ex.P.21 is the Relieving letter and experience letter issued by IDFC First Bank to the deceased. Ex.P.22 are the pay slips of the IDFC First Bank. Ex.P.23 is the Relieving letter issued by Paytm to the deceased. Ex.P.24 is the salary slip of One97 Communications Ltd.,
16. Further in order to prove that the deceased was working as Bank Manager HDFC Bank, the petitioners have examined the Senior Manager of HDFC Bank, Bengaluru as PW.2. He has produced the Appointment letter of deceased, Attendance Report, Salary slips for the months of January and full and final settlement report at Ex.P.27 to 30. In fact PW.2 is the employer, he has produced Ex.P.27 to 30 and has deposed that the deceased was working as Manager at PB Sales Division, HDFC Bank, Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru. He was working for 2 months. He was permanent employee. Increment was fixed on the basis of performance. The settlement paid to him as per Ex.P.30 - group insurance. During the course of his cross examination he admitted that the date of joining of the deceased 15 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 was 22.12.2022 and as per Ex.P.27, the probationary period was 6 months. From the date of joining within 2 months he died during probationary period. He further denied the suggestion that in order to help the legal heirs of the deceased the PW.2 has created the Ex.P.28-Attendance sheet by showing that the deceased was permanent employee. It is pertinent to note herein that on perusal of Ex.P.27 being the appointment letter of deceased, it clearly discloses that the letter issued on 07.12.2022. Further on perusal of Ex.P.29 pay slip for the month of January-2023, wherein the date of joining is mentioned as 22.12.2022. It is further disclosed in attendance report the last working day of the deceased is mentioned as 09.02.2023. Further in the appointment letter at page No.3 it is mentioned the Probationary period : "You will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of your joining. Subject to satisfactory performance during the probationary period you will be confirmed in the services of the Bank. During probationary period either party may terminate the services by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof at the bank's discretion. However, after confirmation either party will be 16 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 required to give three month's notice or salary in lieu of notice at the bank's discretion".
Further the Probation period is also read as :
. No, a person who dies before completing their probation period will not be considered a permanent employee.
Explanation A probation period is a period of time when an employee is assessed to determine if they are suitable for the role.
An employee is only confirmed after they have successfully completed their probation period.
An employer can extend a probation period if they are not satisfied that the employee is ready for confirmation.
If an employee dies before completing their probation period, they will not be considered a permanent employee.
The word PROBATION PERIOD further reads as under :
1. What is Probation Period?
Probation period is a period of engaging an employee to test his/her performance on the suitability of a position. If an employee's 17 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 performance is found to be unsatisfactory, the employer can terminate the employee's services and the same cannot be construed illegal.
1. What is a Probation Period?
A probation period is a "trial period" in employment where the employee's ability to hold the position permanently is assessed before confirmation. Regular employees with an organization enjoy various protection including protection against indiscriminate termination of employment and termination benefits . However, an employee on probation can be terminated during the probation period due to unsatisfactory performance of the employee and the employer would be justified in the termination.
2. Rules & Regulations - Relating to Probation Period The status of a probationer has been made clear in a plethora of judicial cases and pronouncements. The following are excerpts of a landmark judgment by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court on the status of a probationer and his/her termination from service: "An appointment to a permanent post in Government service on probation means, as in the case of a person appointed by a private employer, that the servant so appointed is taken on trial. The period of probation may, in some cases, be for a fixed period, i.e., six months or for one year or it may be expressed simply as "on probation" without any specification of any period. Such an employment on probation, under the ordinary law 18 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 of master and servant, comes to an end if during or at the end of the probation the servant so appointed on trial is found unsuitable and his service is terminated by a notice." "Thus, where a person is appointed to a permanent post in a Government service on probation, the termination of his/her service during or at the end of that period of probation will not ordinarily and by itself be a punishment, for the Government servant, so appointed, has no right to continue to hold such a post any more than the servant employed on probation by a private employer is entitled to do. Such a termination does not operate as a forfeiture of any right of the servant to hold the post, for he has no such right and obviously cannot be a dismissal, removal or reduction in rank by way of punishment." In addition to the above, the Supreme Court through another order has clarified that an employee on probation can be terminated summarily by the employer in clarifying as under: "There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of probation, the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If his services are not satisfactory which means that he is not suitable for the job, then the employee has a right to terminate the services as a reason thereof. "
19 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023
3. Extension of Probation Period In the absence of rules, if the contract of employment has fixed or a particular period of probation and on expiry of the probation period the employee still continues in services then the implications are that he/she continues as a probationer. A probationer continuing past the probation period will not automatically become a permanent employee and the employer has rights to extend the probation period till it is satisfied the probationer is fit for confirmation. Thus, a probationer will be on probation until he/she is confirmed by the employer.
4. Termination During Probation Period As mentioned above, a probationer has no lien on the job, his/her service can be terminated at the discretion of the employer. It is advisable that while terminating the services of a probationer, the language should be simple, unambiguous and non-stigmatic. It will be appropriate to state that in accordance with the terms and condition of the appointment, the probationary services are terminated with immediate effect, or, as the case may be.
As per the meaning of the probationary the deceased was not a permanent employee.
17. Further the PW.2 has produced the salary slip of the deceased for the month of January-2023, wherein shows that 20 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 the monthly gross salary of the deceased is mentioned as Rs.76,273/-. In the said salary slip it is mentioned basic and arrears of all heads. Hence arrears of allowances not considered. Further on going through the appointment letter it is clearly mentioned that his total fixed pay as Rs.60,277/- per month and Rs.7,45,049/- per annum.
18. Generally it is the last drawn salary that needs to be taken into consideration for the calculation of compensation. But in this case as the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident that occurred on 11.02.2023. As per Ex.P.27- Appointment letter at page No.1 wherein the total salary is mentioned as Rs.57,670/- excluding PF. As per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v/s Pranay Sethi and others. Be that as it may, annual income works out to Rs.6,92,040/- (Rs.57,670 X 12). Out of the said annual income, professional tax and income tax needs to be deducted. The calculation table for which stands as follows :
21 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 Annual Gross Salary (Rs.57,670) 57,670 Annual Professional Tax (less) 200 Total 57,470 Income tax (57670 X 5%) (less) 2,883 Total 54,587 In the case on hand the deceased income is taken as Rs.54,587/-
p.m.
19. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the petitioners have produced the Driving Licence to show the age of the deceased as per Ex.P13 wherein the date of birth of deceased is shown as 26.06.1993, which indicates that he was aged (29 years 7 months 16 days) 30 years on the date of accident. Therefore the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case for the said age group is '17'.
20. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others), if the person died in the motor accident, the income with respect to the future prospect has to taken into consideration while awarding compensation. The Hon'ble Apex Court has provide the chart for age of the 22 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 deceased and percentage for future prospects in between below the age of 40 years 40%, 40 years to 50 years 25% and 50 to 60 years 10%. The deceased is not a permanent Employee and not a fixed salary person and he died at the age of 30 years. Therefore, in this case, 40% income has to be taken into consideration for future prospects. Further as stated above that, as on the date of accident, deceased aged about 30 years and as such, 40% is added to the income of the deceased, then it comes to Rs.76,422/- p.m. (Rs.54,587 + 21,835/- i.e. 40%).
21. Further as stated above that, deceased was a bachelor, as per the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in between Sarla verma V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation, the 50% of the income of the deceased shall be deducted towards his personal expenses as the deceased unmarried, thereby the 50% income of the deceased has to be deducted for his personal expenditure. On such deduction, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.38,211/- p.m. (Rs.76,422/- X 50/100).
22. The income of the deceased is taken as Rs.38,211/- p.m. and the multiplier '17' is applied, then the loss of 23 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 dependency comes to Rs.77,95,044/- (Rs.38,211/- X 12 X 17) Considering the above facts, this Tribunal deems it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.77,95,000/- under the head of loss of dependency.
23. In this case, petitioners No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased and as per the decision reported in (2018) 12 SCC 130 between Magma General Insurance Company Limited V/s Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, the petitioner is entitled for filial consortium, as the 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 of their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their oral in the family unit. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the 24 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 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. Children are valued for their love and affection, and their role in the family unit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in (2020) 9 SCC 644 in the case of the New India Assurance Company Ltd V/s Smt.Somwati & others, has held that the claims Tribunal shall award Parental and Filial Consortium in a sum of Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each under the head of Filial consortium.
24. Further, as Law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, the compensation towards loss to estate, funeral expenses and consortium is to be awarded. The petitioners contended that they have spent substantial amount towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies etc., but no documents are produced. Hence this Tribunal award Rs.18,150/- towards loss to estate and Rs.18,150/- towards funeral expenses as enhanced at the rate of 10% on every 3 years.
25 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023
25. The calculation table stands as follows :
Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Towards loss of dependency Rs.77,95,000/-
2. Towards loss of Consortium Rs. 80,000/-to the petitioners No.1 & 2
3. Towards loss to estate Rs. 18,150/-
4. Towards transportation of Rs. 18,150/-
dead body funeral and
obsequies ceremony expenses
Total Rs.79,11,300/-
26. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY : Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% per annum is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
27. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on the date of accident.
Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-40-B-0127 and respondent No.2 being the insurer thereof are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However the respondent No.2 26 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 being the insurer is primarily liable to satisfy the award amount together with interest within one month from the date of this order. Hence issue No.3 is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
28. ISSUE NO.4 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act 1988, is hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.79,11,300/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
On deposit of the award amount together with interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 - 30%
Petitioner No.2 - 70%
27 SCCH-23
MVC-1226/2023
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 & 2 a sum equal to 25% shall be deposited in their names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 75% shall be released to them through E-payment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer & printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of January - 2025).
(Shreyansh Doddamani) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACJM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Sri. Veda Subbaiah PW.2 : Sri. Sujith S Ganjam
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint and the translated version is marked as Ex.P2(a) Ex.P.3 True copy of Sketch which was drawn at the time of Spot Mahazar 28 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 Ex.P.4 True copy of Accident report Ex.P.5 True copy of PM Report Ex.P.6 True copy of Inquest and the translated version is marked as Ex.P6(a) Ex.P.7 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.8 Notarized copy of ration card after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.9 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner No.1 after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner No.2 after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of petitioner No.3 after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.12 Notarized copy of the Aadhaar card of deceased after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.13 Notarized copy of DL of deceased after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of DL of deceased after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.15 Notarized copy of the PAN card of deceased after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.16 Notarized copy of Death Certificate of deceased after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of TC of deceased after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of marks cards (8 in Nos.) after comparing with the original found correct Ex.P.19 Pay slip Ex.P.20 Resignation letter Ex.P.21 Re-leaving and experience letter Ex.P.22 Salary slips (3 in Nos.) 29 SCCH-23 MVC-1226/2023 Ex.P.23 Re-leaving letter Ex.P.24 Salary slips (3 in Nos.) Ex.P.25 Notarized copy of ID card of witness (verified along with original and original is returned to the witness) Ex.P.26 Covering letter addressing to Court Ex.P.27 Appointment letter of deceased (6 pages) Ex.P.28 Attendance report Ex.P.29 Salary slip for the month of January 2023 and full and 30 and final settlement report List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
RW.1 : Mrs. Thrishi Subbaiah List of documents got marked for the respondent/s :
Ex.R.1 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 : True copy of insurance policy
(Shreyansh Doddamani)
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACJM, Bengaluru.