Bangalore District Court
Smt.Lakshmamma vs Sri.K.Narasimhamurthy on 15 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this the 15th Day of November 2017
PRESENT: SMT. SUJATHA, S. B. COM., LL.B.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C. NO. 710/2016
PETITIONERS:
1. Smt.Lakshmamma
W/o Late.Lakshminarasapa
Aged about 40 years.
2. Kum.P.L.Ramanjinamma
D/oLate Lakshminarasappa
Aged about 17 years.
3. Master P.L.Chikkappaiah
S/oLate lakshminarasappa
Aged about 15 years.
Since Petitioners No.2 and 3
are minors represented by
their Mother and natural guardian
Petitioner No.1 herein.
4. Smt. Anjinamma
W/o Late Chinnappayya
Aged about 65 years.
All are residing at Pulaganahalli Village
Thondebhavi Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk
Chikkaballapura District.
(By Sri. Shambhulingaiah.C. Adv.)
2 M.V.C.710/2016
SCCH-7
-VS-
RESPONDENTS:
1. Sri.K.Narasimhamurthy
S/o Kadarappa,Major in age
Kotaladinne Village, Hosur
Gowribidanur Taluk
Chikkaballapura District.
2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office (TB Hub)
Krishi Bhavan Building, 6th Floor,
Hudson Circle, Bangalore-560 001.
Represented by its Manager.
(R1 By Sri.G.A.Srinivasa, Adv.)
(R2 by Sri. H.C.Nanjappa, Adv.)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Section 166 of I.M.V. Act.
2. The Brief facts of the petitioners' case is that: On 02.03.2014 at about 10.30 a.m., Narasimhamurthy was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-S- 4749 on Sosalu-Arudi Road, towards Arudi, near Muthurayaswamy Temple, slowly, cautiously on correct side of the road, when he reached near Muthurayaswamy Temple near Sosalu Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, a Force/Traveller Camper Van bearing registration No.KA-40-M- 2611, came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, went to wrong side of the road and dashed violently against the Motor Cycle in which 3 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 Narasimhamurthy was proceeding. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to General Hospital, Gouribidanur to take first aid treatment and then shifted to Nimhans Hospital. Further he was taken to Shushrusha Nursing Home, BB Road, Yelahanka, admitted as inpatient on 03.03.2014 and discharged on 07.03.2014. Subsequently he took treatment in number of hospitals, finally he was admitted as an inpatient in Gowribidanur General Hospital. During the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital on 06.10.2014. Petitioners stated that, deceased Narasimhamurthy was aged 23 years. The deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a painter earning a sum of Rupees 15,000/- per month. Petitioners stated that, Narasimhamurthy was the son of Lakshminarasappa and his first wife late Ramanujamma. She is the step mother, Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the brother and sister and Petitioner No.4 is the grand mother of deceased Narasimhamurthy. Petitioner stated that, they were entirely depending upon the income of deceased for their livelihood. They have incurred Rupees 1,50,000/- towards medical and hospital expenses of deceased Narasimhamurthy. They have also spent Rupees 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies. The Hosahalli Police have registered a case in crime No.13/2014. After investigation, the police have filed charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of Traveller Van. Petitioners stated that, the Respondent No.1 is the RC 4 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 owner and Respondent No.2 insurer of Force/Traveller Camper Van bearing registration No.KA-40-M-2611, hence they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. Under these circumstances, the Petitioners prayed to allow the petition.
3. In pursuance of summons, Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their Counsels. Respondent No.1 not filed objection statement. Respondent No.2 filed objection statement.
4. In the objection statement Respondent No.2 stated that, the petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable under law and facts. The Respondent No.2 denied entire petition averments. Respondent No.2 sought permission to defend the case under all grounds as per Section 170 of IMV Act. The Respondent No.2 stated that, the issuance of policy and its validity on the date of accident is not yet confirmed and if the policy is issued and valid on the date of accident, the liability of it if any, as per the terms and conditions of the said policy and provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, subject to the driver holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and subject to the validity of vehicle documents like RC, FC and permit of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 stated that it reserves its right to file additional objection if it is required. Respondent No.2 stated that the claim petition is filed by the step mother and her children are not maintainable and there is no relationship between the Petitioners and the deceased person. Respondent No.2 stated 5 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 that Petitioners have mentioned two different vehicle number as offending vehicle as Force/Traveller Campus Van bearing registration No.KA-40-M-2811 and Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-40-M-2611 and two different vehicle cannot cause an accident. Respondent No.2 stated that, Petitioner do not know the vehicle number which has caused the accident. Respondent No.2 denied the age, avocation and income of deceased Narashimamurthy. Respondent No.2 denied that the Petitioners are the legal representatives and dependants of deceased Narashimamurthy. Respondent No.2 denied that the Petitioners have spent amount towards transportation of dead body and funeral ceremonies of deceased. The re Respondent No.2 stated that, in the event of any award being passed against it the rate of interest cannot be in excess of 6% in view of the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Under these circumstances, the Respondent No.2 prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the dependents or legal representatives of deceased Sri.Narasimhamurthy?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry Force/Traveler Campus Van 6 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 bearing Reg.No.KA-40-M-2611 by its driver and Sri.Narasimhamurthy died due to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
6. In order to prove the case, the Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 31 documents as per Ex.P1 to P31. On behalf of Petitioners witness by name Neelavathi got examined as P.W.2 and got marked 6 documents as per Ex.P.32 to 37. Further one witness by name Venkateshappa, got examined as P.W.3. Respondent No.2 not adduced evidence.
7. Heard the arguments. The counsel for Petitioners relied on judgment passed in MFA No.122/2009 (MV) C/w MFA No.120/2009 (MV), MFA No.15488/2007 (MV) C/w MFA No.1357/2008 (MV), 2015 ACJ Page 1985 and MFA No.8092/2015 C/w MFA No.6173/2015 (MV). This court taken note of ratios laid down in these citations.
8. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No. 1: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No. 3: Partly Affirmative.
Issue No. 4: As per final order
7 M.V.C.710/2016
SCCH-7
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No. 1: P.W.1 deposed that, her late husband
Lakshminarasappa had two wives. P.W.1 stated that
Ramanujamma is the first wife and she is the 2nd wife of Lakshminarasappa. P.W.1 stated that Petitioners No.2 and 3 are her daughter and son respectively, and Petitioner No.4 is her mother-in-law. P.W.1 stated that deceased Narasimhamurthy is the son of first wife of Lakshminarasappa. After death of his first wife Lakshminarasappa married her and she was residing along with Narasimhamurthy and her children and her mother-in-law. P.W.1 stated that herself and other Petitioners were depending upon the earnings of deceased Narasimhamurthy. After his death they have no source of income for their livelihood. In support of her contention the P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.18 Death Certificate of Narasimhamurthy, Ex.P.18 Affidavit dated 11.07.2016 sworn by P.W.1 in respect of Genealogy, Ex.P.20 Ration Card, Ex.P.21 Election Identity card of Narasimhamurthy, Ex.P.25 Adhaar Card of Narasimhamurthy, Ex.P.26 Adhaar Card of P.W.1, Ex.P.27 Election Identity Card of P.W.1, Ex.P.28 Adhaar Card of Petitioner No.2, Ex.P.29 Adhaar Card of Petitioner No.3, Ex.P.30 SSLC Marks Card of Petitioner No.3 and Ex.P.31 Adhar Card of Petitioner No.4. In the cross-examination by the counsel for Respondent No.2 P.W.1 stated that she is the 2nd wife of Lakshminarasappa and name of his first wife is Ramanujamma. P.W.1 stated that 6 months after death of Ramanujamma, 8 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 Lakshminarasappa married her. P.W.1 stated that deceased Ramanujamma had only son. P.W.1 stated that her husband died about 7 years back. P.W.1 stated that, after death of his father Narasimhamurthy was residing along with her. P.W.1 stated that in that regard she has produced Ration Card and Aadhaar Card.
10. The Petitioners in order to prove that, they are dependants and legal representatives of deceased Narashimamurthy got examined one witness by name Venkateshappa as P.W.3. In the cross-examination by the Counsel for Respondent No.3, P.W.3 stated that, Lakshminarasappa and Narashimappa is the name of same person. P.W.3 stated that, father's name of deceased Narasimhamurthy is Lakshminarasimhappa. P.W.3 stated that Lakshminarashimappa is not his relative. P.W.3 denied the suggestion that, Narasimhamurthy was not residing along with Petitioner No.1 and there was ill-will between deceased Narasimhamurthy and Petitioner No.1.
11. This Court on going through Ex.P.18 Death Certificate of Narasimhamurthy it is noticed that name of father is mentioned as Lakshminarasappa and name of mother mentioned as Ramanjamma. Further in Election Identity Card of Narasimhamurthy the name of mother has been mentioned as Ramanujamma. In Ex.P.26 and Ex.P.27 the name of husband of Petitioner No.1 has been mentioned as Lakshminarasappa. In Ex.P.28 to Ex.P.30 name of father of Petitioner No.2 and 3 has 9 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 been mentioned as Lakshminarasappa. In Ex.P.20 Ration Card the name of Petitioner No.1 Lakshmamma and names of Petitioners No.2 and 3 entered along with name of Narasimhamurthy Though P.W.1 stated that her mother-in-law is residing alogn with her, name of mother-in-law is not mentioned in Ration Card. As per documents produced by the Petitioners it is clear that Petitioner No.1 is the step-mother of deceased Narasimhamurthy. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are children of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.4 is the mother of deceased Lakshminarasappa. The documents reveal that the Petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Narasimhamurthy. However Petitioners No.2 and 3 being the children of 2nd wife of deceased Lakshminarasappa and Petitioner No.4 being mother of Lakshminarasappa cannot be considered as dependent of deceased Narasimhamurthy and Petitioner No.1 being the step mother can be considered as dependant of deceased Narasimhamurthy. Accordingly, Issue No.1 answered Partly in the Affirmative.
12. Issue No. 2: P.W.1 deposed that, on 02.03.2014 at about 10.30 a.m., her deceased son Narasimhamurthy was proceeding in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-S-4749 on Sosalu-Arudi Road, towards Arudi, near Muthurayaswamy Temple, slowly, cautiously on correct side of the road, when he reached near Muthurayaswamy Temple near Sosalu Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, driver of 10 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 Force/Traveller Camper Van bearing registration No.KA-40-M- 2611, came from opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, with high speed, went to wrong side of the road and dashed against the Motor Cycle in which Narasimhamurthy was proceeding. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 stated that immediately after the accident, he was taken to General Hospital, Gouribidanur to take first aid treatment and then shifted to Nimhans Hospital. Further he was taken to Shushrusha Nursing Home, BB Road, Yelahanka, admitted as inpatient on 03.03.2014 and discharged on 07.03.2014. P.W.1 stated that subsequently he took treatment in number of hospitals, finally he was admitted as an inpatient in Gowribidanur General Hospital. During the course of treatment he succumbed to the injuries in the said hospital on 06.10.2014. P.W.1 stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act driver of Force/Traveller Camper Van bearing registration No.KA-40-M-2611.
13. To prove the case of petitioners, P.W.1 has produced Ex.P1- FIR, Ex.P2 - Complaint, Ex.P3 Statement of Narasimhamurthy @ Sanna, Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.7 Referral Card of Government Hospital, Gowribidanur, Ex.P.8 Emergency case record of Nimhans Hospital, Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary of Sushrusha Nursing Home, Ex.P.10 MRI Report, Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary of Victoria Hospital, Ex.P.13 Inpatient Case 11 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 Sheet of Government Hospital, Gowribidanur, Ex.P.14 UDR Report, Ex.P.15 Complaint, Ex.P.16 Inquest, Ex.P.17 Postmortem Report and Ex.P.18 Death Certificate relating to Narasimhamurthy.
14. In the cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that, she has not seen the accident. P.W.1 stated that, one Murthy informed her about the accident. P.W.1 stated that, Narasimhamurthy was admitted to Gauribidanur Government Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to Nimhans Hospital. P.W.1 stated that, after one day he was shifted to Shushruta Hospital wherein, he took treatment for a period of 5 to 6 days. P.W.1 stated that, thereafter he was shifted to Victoria Hospital wherein, he took treatment for 2 to 3 days, thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Gauribidanur wherein, he took treatment for a period of 6 to 7 months. P.W.1 stated that, thereafter Narasimhamurthy was taken to home and on the same day he had severe pain and hence again he was admitted to Government Hospital, Gauribidanur and died during the course of treatment.
15. Further, to prove that Narasimhamurthy died due to accidental injuries, Petitioners have examined Doctor Leelavathi as P.W.2. She has produced Ex.P.32 Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.33 Referral Letter, Ex.P.34 Emergency Case Record, Ex.P.35 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.36 MRI Report and Ex.P.37 Certified Copy of Inpatient Case Sheet. P.W.2 stated that cause of death is due to septic shock due to septicemia due to 12 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 accidental injuries. In the cross-examination by the Counsel for Respondent No.2, P.W.2 stated that she has conducted the post mortem of deceased Narasimhamurthy at Government Hospital, Gauribidanur. P.W.2 stated that Narasimhamurthy sustained Gulutea sacreal region injuries and there was spinal injuries. P.W.2 stated that, since there was no facility in the Government Hospital, Gauribidanur Narasimhamurthy was referred to Nimhans Hospital and thereafter, he was referred back to Government Hospital, Gauribidanur. P.W.2 admitted that, in Government Hospital, General physician has given treatment to Narasimhamurthy P.W.2 denied the suggestion that, if Narasimhamurthy had taken treatment with good orthopedic surgeon he would have survived. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that, the injuries sustained by Narasimhamurthy is curable. P.W.2 denied the suggestion that, Narasimhamurthy died in the Government Hospital as, necessary treatment facility was not available and not due to injuries sustained by him.
16. On going through Ex.P1 and 2, it is clear that, based on complaint lodged by one Narasimha S/o Late Gangappa, Hosahalli Police have registered Crime No.13/2014 against driver of Force/Traveller Camper Van bearing registration No.KA-40-M- 2611 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC. As per Ex.P.3 Narasimhamurthy has given statement before jurisdictional Police in connection to accident dated 02.03.2016. Ex.P4 - Spot Panchanama reveals that the accident occurred on 13 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 Sasalu - Arodi Road, near Mutharayaswamy Temple. Ex.P.5 IMV Report reveals that, front portion of Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA-40-S-4749 sustained complete damage and front bumper of vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-M-2611 sustained damage. Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet reveals that after investigation, Hosahalli Police have filed charge sheet against driver of vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-M-2611 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. Ex.P.7 Referral Card issued by Government Hospital reveals that immediately Narasimhamurthy was referred to Nimhans Hospital and Ex.P.8 Emergency Case Record of Nimhans Hospital reveals that, Narasimhamurthy taken treatment as inpatient from 03.03.2014 to 07.03.2014. Ex.P.10 MRI Report reveals that, Narasimhamurthy sustained comminuted fracture of C6 vertebral body with minimal retropulsion causing moderate thecal and spinal cord indentation, spinal cord contusions extending from lower end plate of C3 to upper end plate of D1 level, undisplaced fracture of C5 vertebral body with break in both anterior and posterior cortex and also associated laminar fractures of C5 and C6. Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate reveals that Narasimhamurthy sustained burst fracture of C-6 Vertebrae, traumatic quadri paresis and laceration over scalp, knees and right foot. The Doctor opined that, injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and Injury No.3 is simple in nature. Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary issued by Victoria Hospital reveals that, Narasimhamurthy taken treatment from 10.03.2014 to 12.03.2014. Ex.P.13 Case Sheet 14 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 issued by Gauribidanur reveals that Narasimhamurthy was admitted to Government Hospital, Gauribidanur and he was taking treatment as inpatient. Petitioners have produced Ex.P17-Post Mortem Report which discloses that, cause of death is due to septic shock due to septicemia and date of death is 06.10.2014. Further, Ex.P.18 Death Certificate also reveals that, the place of death is at Government Hospital, Gauribidanur. After the death, the jurisdictional Police have registered UDR as per Ex.P.14 based on Ex.P.15 complaint dated 06.10.2014.
17. In this case the evidence of P.W.2 Doctor, Ex.P.7 Referral Card of Gauribidanur Hospital, Ex.P.8 Emergency Case Record of Nimhans Hospital, Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary of Shushrutha Hospital, Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary of Victoria Hospital, Ex.P.13 Inpatient Case Sheet of Gauribidanur Hospital and Ex.P.17 P.M. Report makes clear that, Narasimhamurthy sustained Gulutea saceral region, injuries over right and left heel, right and left knee joint and spinal injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 02.03.2014 and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 06.10.2014. Under these circumstances, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners prove that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-M-2611 resulting which Narasimhamurthy sustained fatal injuries and died during the course of treatment. For the 15 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 aforesaid reasons, I have answered Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
18. Issue No. 3. The P.W.1 stated that, immediately after the accident, Narasimhamurthy was shifted to Government Hospital, Gauribidanur and thereafter he was shifted to Nimhans Hospital. P.W.1 stated that, as per the advice of Doctors Narasimhamurthy was shifted to Shushrutha Nursing Home, wherein, he took treatment as inpatient from 03.03.2014 to 07.03.2014 and thereafter, he was referred to Victoria Hospital wherein, he took treatment as inpatient from 10.03.2014 to 12.03.2014. P.W.1 stated that, subsequently he took treatment in number of hospitals and finally he was admitted to Gauribidanur Government Hospital. P.W.1 stated that, she spent more than Rupees 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses of Narasimhamurthy. P.W.1 has produced Ex.P.23 Medical Bills to the tune of Rupees to the tune of Rupees 40,129-79/- and Ex.P.24 Prescriptions- 13 in numbers. In the cross-examination by the Counsel for Respondent No.2, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that, she has not spent Rupees 2,00,000/- towards medical expenses of Narasimhamurthy. It is to be noted that as already discussed as per Ex.P.7 Referral Card of Gauribidanur Hospital, Ex.P.8 Emergency Case Record of Nimhans Hospital, Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary of Shushrutha Hospital, Ex.P.11 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.12 Discharge Summary of Victoria Hospital and Ex.P.13 Inpatient Case Sheet of Gauribidanur Hospital, Narasimhamurthy took continuous 16 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 treatment to the accidental injuries from the date of accident till his death. Petitioner No.1being the step mother looked after him. Under circumstances, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rupees 40,129-79 under the head of medical expenses, which is rounded off to Rupees 40,200/-.
19. P.W.1 deposed that, Petitioners have spent Rupees 25,000/- towards transportation of dead body, funeral and obsequies ceremonies. On perusal of Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet and Ex.P.4 Spot Mahazar, the accident occurred at Arudi Road, near Muthuswamy Temple. On going through Ex.P17 - Post Mortem Report it is clear that, Post Mortem was conducted at General Hospital, Gowribidanuru. After Post Mortem Report dead body was handed over to Petitioners and they performed funeral and obsequies ceremony of deceased Narasimhamurthy. Petitioner No.1, being Step mother lost her son in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred at Sosalu village and thereafter Narashimamurthy taken treatment in several hospitals and he died at Gauribidanur Government Hospital. After his death, post mortem was conducted and dead body was handed over to the Petitioners. Under the circumstances, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rupees 15,000/- under the head of funeral and obsequies ceremony.
20. P.W.1 stated that her son was working as a Painter and earning Rupees 15,000/- p.m. P.W.1 has stated that she and other Petitioners were wholly depending upon his earnings and 17 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 they have lost the sources of income for their livelihood due to the death of Narasimhamurthy. In the cross-examination P.W.1 stated that, she has not produced any document to show avocation and income of deceased. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that deceased was not earning income of Rupees 15,000/- per month. It is to be noted that, there is no evidence on record to show that prior to the accident, Narasimhamurthy was earning income of Rupees 15,000/- per month. Petitioner No.1 being the Step mother has lost her son in a road traffic accident. If Narasimhamurthy survived he would have earned income and looked after Petitioner No.1. Under the circumstances in order to assess the loss of dependency, this court thought fit to consider the notional income of deceased as Rupees 9,000/- p.m. Admittedly deceased was Bachelor. As such half of the income of deceased is to be deducted towards his personal expenses, which comes to Rupees 4,500/- per month. As per Ex.P.21 Election Identity Card of Narasimhamurthy as on the date of death, his age was 21 years. As per ruling reported in: 2009 ACJ 1298 Sarala Varma Vs.Delhi Transport Company, the Multiplier is "18". Hence, the loss of dependency would be Rupees 4,500/- x 12 x 18 = Rupees 9,72,000/-.
21. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rupees 10,27,200-00/-under different heads as below.
1. Medical expenses Rupees 40,200-00 18 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7
2. For funeral and obsequies Rupees 15,000-00 expenses
3. For loss of Dependency Rupees 9,72,000-00 Total Rupees 10,27,200-00
22. In this case, the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company denied issuance of Insurance Policy to vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-M-2611. However, Respondent No.2 filed application under Section 170 of IMV Act. Thereby Respondent No.2 indirectly admitted issuance of Insurance Policy to vehicle bearing registration No.KA-40-M-2611. This Court already come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of vehicle bearing registration No.KA-04-M-2611. Respondent No.2 not adduced evidence. There is no evidence on record to prove that the owner of offending vehicle violated terms and conditions of policy. Hence, Respondent No.1 being owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of the petition till realization. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No. 4: In view of above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners under Sec. 166 of I.M.V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for total compensation of Rupees 10,27,200/- along with future interest at the rate of 19 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of entire amount.
The respondent No.2 being the indemnifier of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of award.
Out of the compensation amount 50% is ordered to be released in favour of Petitioner No.1 by issuing an account payee cheque with proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in F.D in any Nationalized Bank of her choice for a period of three years. The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 1000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the steno, computerized by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on 15.11.2017).
(SUJATHA S), IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S;
P.W.1 Smt.Lakshmamma
P.W.2 Neelavathi
P.W.3 Venkateshappa
1. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/S:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Statement of
Narasimhamurthy@ Sanna
20 M.V.C.710/2016
SCCH-7
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P5 True copy of MVI Report
Ex.P6 True copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P7 Referral Card of Government Hospital,
Gowribidanur
Ex.P8 Emergency Case Record of Nimhans
Hospital
Ex.P9 Discharge Summary of Sushrusha
Nursing Home
Ex.P10 MRI Report
Ex.P11 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P12 Discharge Summary of Victoria Hospital
Ex.P13 Inpatient Case Sheet of Government
Hospital Gowribidanur
Ex.P14 True copy of UDR Report
Ex.P15 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P16 True copy of Inquest
Ex.P17 True copy of PM Report
Ex.P18 Death Certificate relating to
Narasimhamurthy
Ex.P19 Affidavit dated 11.07.2016 in respect
Genealogy
Ex.P20 Notarized Xerox copy of Ration Card
Ex.P21 Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity
Card relating to Narasimha Murthy
Ex.P22 X-ray Films ( 2 in nos)
Ex.P23 Medical Bills (20 in nos)
Ex.P24 Medical Prescriptions (13 in nos) Ex.P25 Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Narasimha Murthy Ex.P26 Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Lakshmamma Ex.P27 Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Lakshmamma Ex.P28 Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card Card relating to Ramanjanamma Ex.P29 Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card Card relating to Chikkappaiah.P.L Ex.P30 Notarized Xerox copy of SSLC Marks Card 21 M.V.C.710/2016 SCCH-7 Card relating to Chikkappaiah.P.L Ex.P31 Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card Card relating to Anjinamma Ex.P32 Post Mortem Report Ex.P33 Referral Letter Ex.P34 Emergency Case Record Ex.P35 Discharge Summary Ex.P36 MRI Report Ex.P37 Certified copy of Inpatient Case Sheet III. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
- NIL-
IV. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS:
-NIL-
(SUJATHA S),
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.