Bangalore District Court
Smt. Kempamma vs Smt. Radha Balakrishna on 22 February, 2021
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH5) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT: SMT.SHARMILA S. B.Com., LLB.,
VIII ADDL. SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.3360/2017
PETITIONER : Smt. Kempamma
W/o. Late. Nanjaiah
Aged about 50 years
No.4, 13th Cross,
Pipeline Road,
Near Vidyaranya School,
Cholurpalya, Magadi Road,
Bengaluru - 560 023.
(By Sri.M.Manjunath, Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Radha Balakrishna
W/o. Balakrishna
Residing at 555/H,
4th Cross, Nasarabad,
Mysore.
(R.C.Owner of Car bearing
Reg.No.KA55M0123)
(Exparte)
2
MVC No.3360/2017
SCCH5
2. The IFFCOTOKIO General
Insurance Company Limited,
No.141, 5th Floor,
III Main, Shanthi Towers,
NGEF Layout, Kasturi Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
Represented by its Manager
(Policy No.
13ANT67S040090787760
Valid from 19.01.2015 to
18.01.2016)
(By Sri.B.T.Rudra Murthy, Adv.,)
3. Sri. Arun Kumar
S/o. Ramamurthy
No.61/A, 7th Cross,
8th Main, Thunganagara,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru - 560 091.
(R.C.Owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA04P0088)
(Exparte)
****
::JUDGMENT::
This petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 163A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/, for the death of 3 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 Sri.Mahadeva.N, S/o. Late. Nanjaiah, in a road traffic accident.
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that:
On 09.01.2016 around about 00.10 a.m., the deceased Mahadeva N. was travelling as an occupant with other inmates in a Car bearing Reg. No.KA04P 0088 which was driven by its driver near Venkateshwara Service Station, Sunkadakatte, Bangalore at that time while so proceeding the Car met with an accident by colluding with another Car bearing No.KA55M0123 due to the forced impact, the Mahadeva sustained grievous fatal injuries all over the body.
3. Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Lakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital with the help of public for treatment wherein he succumbed to the injuries on the same day in spite of best 4 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 treatment given by the Doctors. Later on post mortem was conducted at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and the body was handed over to the Petitioner for cremation. The Petitioner has spent around about Rs.50,000/ towards the treatment of her son and Rs.50,000/ towards funeral and obsequies, transportation of body and other incidental expenses.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, the deceased Mahadeva was aged about 25 years and working as Helper at Mahadeswara Traders and earning Rs.40,000/ per annum. The Petitioner being mother of the deceased entirely depending upon the earnings of her son. Hence, she has filed this claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ against Respondents.
5. After service of summons, Respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed its objection 5 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 statement. In spite of service of summons, Respondent No.1 and 3 remained absent, hence placed exparte.
6. Respondent No.2 in its objection statement by denying the entire averments of the petition and contends that, this Respondent is the insurer of Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KA55M123 and the liability of this Respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance, provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and valid and effective driving licence held by the driver of Innova Car as on the date of accident. Further the 2nd Respondent contends that, the Petitioner has already filed a claim petition in M.V.C.No.3968/2016 under Section 166 of M.V.Act against the Respondents and RC Owner of Esteem Car bearing Reg.No.KA04P88 i.e., Arun Kumar S/o.Rama Murthy through her advocate Sri.K.Venkata and contended that her son was working in 6 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 Sri.Mahadeshwara Traders and drawing a sum of Rs.10,000/ per month and the said petition has withdrawn by the Petitioner. This Respondent contends that, now the Petitioner has come up with a new story and claiming under Section 163(A) of M.V.Act by restricting her son's income from Rs.10,000/ per month to Rs.40,000/ per annum against the Respondents without impleading RC Owner of Charge sheeted vehicle.
7. Further the 2nd Respondent contends that, as per Police documents the entire negligence on the part of driver of Esteem Car which was driving at a very high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in a wrong side dashed against the Innova Car bearing Reg.No.KA55M123 which was moving on the extreme left side of the said road, with right direction due to the said impact the deceased Mahadeva N. died in the 7 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 hospital. Further this Respondent seeks protection available Under Section 134(c) of M.V.Act. Except this all other defences are formal in nature and accordingly prays to dismiss the claim petition filed against it.
8. On the basis of above said facts, I have framed the following:
::ISSUES::
1. Whether Petitioner proves that, her son Mahadeva, S/o.
Late.Nanjaiah, died due to
the injuries sustained by him
in the road traffic accident
that occurred on 09.01.2016,
due to the use and
involvement of the Car
bearing Reg. No.KA55
M0123?
2. Whether Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in 8 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 the petition? If so, from which Respondent?
3. What Order or Award?
9. In order to prove the above Issues for consideration, Petitioner got examined herself as PW1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. Per contra, the Assistant Manager in the 2nd Respondent's Company examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 documents and closed its side.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents.
11. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Partly Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
9
MVC No.3360/2017
SCCH5
::REASONS::
12. Issues No.1 and 2: As these issues are interlinked with each other, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
13. In order to prove issue No.1 Petitioner has stated that deceased died in accident as per the legislative requirement u/s.163A petitioner if she chooses to contest the petition u/s.163A is not required to plead or establish death injury in respect of which a claim has been made was due to any wrongful act, neglect or default of owner of the vehicle or of any other person. Under the circumstances there is no need to discharge the burden shifted on the Petitioner to prove Issue No.1 since the statute 163A sub clause II does not demand the Petitioner.
10
MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5
14. In order to prove these issues, the Petitioner herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 documents. If we carefully peruse the oral evidence of PW1, admittedly she is not an eyewitness to the alleged accident.
15. The contention of the Respondent No.2 is that, the Petitioner has already filed a claim petition in M.V.C.No.3968/2016 under Section 166 of M.V.Act against the Respondents and R.C. Owner of Esteem Car bearing Reg.No.KA04P88 i.e., Arun Kumar S/o.Rama Murthy through her advocate Sri.K.Venkata and contended that her son was working in Sri.Mahadeshwara Traders and drawing a sum of Rs.10,000/ per month and the said petition has withdrawn by the Petitioner. Now the Petitioner has come up with a new story and claiming under Section 163(A) of M.V.Act by restricting her son's income from 11 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 Rs.10,000/ per month to Rs.40,000/ per annum against the 2nd Respondent. Now the 2nd Respondent has impleaded the R.C. Owner of Charge Sheeted vehicle and the Petitioner can claim against the 3 rd Respondent.
16. In this regard the 2nd Respondent has examined the Asst. Manager as RW1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.4 documents i.e., copy of the Policy, certified copy of the Order Sheet, Claim Petition and Written Statement of the 2nd Respondent in MVC No.3968/2016. During the course of crossexamination RW1 admits that, as per Police records the deceased was travelling in a Car and also in this case two vehicles were involved. This accident occurred due to the involvement and use of vehicles.
17. On perusal of the Charge Sheet marked at Ex.P.6, the IO has charge sheeted against the driver of 12 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 the vehicle in which the deceased was the occupant for the offences punishable Under Section 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC R/w. Section 115, 177, 146, 196, 56 and 192 of I.M.V.Act.
18. At this juncture this Court has drawn the attention on the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9393 OF 2019 decided on January 7, 2020 between Ramkhiladi & Anr. V/s. The United India Insurance Company & Anr. wherein it was observed that:
"5.5 It is true that, in a claim under Section 163A of the Act, there is no need for the claimants to plead or establish the negligence and/or that the death in respect of which the claim petition is sought to be established was due to wrongful act, neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle concerned. It is also true that the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is based on the principle of no fault liability. However, at the same time, the deceased has to be a third party and cannot maintain 13 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner/insurer of the vehicle which is borrowed by him as he will be in the shoes of the owner and he cannot maintain a claim under Section 163A of the Act against the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. In the present case, the parties are governed by the contract of insurance and under the contract of insurance the liability of the insurance company would be qua third party only. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, the deceased cannot be said to be a third party with respect to the insured vehicle bearing registration No. RJ 02 SA 7811. There cannot be any dispute that the liability of the insurance company would be as per the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance. As held by this Court in the case of Dhanraj (supra), an insurance policy covers the liability incurred by the insured in respect of death of or bodily injury to any person (including an owner of the goods or his authorized representative) carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle. In the said decision, it is further held by this Court that Section 147 does not require an insurance company to 14 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 assume risk for death or bodily injury to the owner of the vehicle.
5.6 In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, in the present case, as the claim under Section 163A of the Act was made only against the owner and insurance company of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased himself as borrower of the vehicle from the owner of the vehicle and he would be in the shoes of the owner, the High Court has rightly observed and held that such a claim was not maintainable and the claimants ought to have joined and/or ought to have made the claim under Section 163A of the Act against the driver, owner and/or the insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. RJ 29 2M 9223 being a third party to the said vehicle.
5.7 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon by the learned Advocate for the claimants on the decision of this Court in the case of Naveen Kumar (supra), on considering the issue involved in that decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the claimants. In that case, the issue was as to who could be said to be the registered owner of the vehicle and the liability of the 15 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 owner who sold the vehicle, but his name continued to be as the owner with the registering authority. To that, it was held that the person in whose name the motor vehicle stands registered is the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of the Act.
5.9 Now, so far as the submission made on behalf of the claimants that in a claim under Section 163A of the Act mere use of the vehicle is enough and despite the compensation claimed by the heirs of the owner of the motorcycle which was involved in the accident resulting in his death, the claim under Section 163A of the Act would be maintainable is concerned, in view of the decision of this Court in Rajni Devi (supra), the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In Rajni Devi (supra), it has been specifically observed and held that the provisions of Section 163A of the Act cannot be said to have any application with regard to an accident wherein the owner of the motor vehicle himself is involved".
19. After considering the decisions of this Court in the cases of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Jhuma Saha (2007) 9 SCC 263; Dhanraj (supra); National 16 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 and Premkumari v. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 SCC 193, it is ultimately concluded by this Court that the liability under Section 163A of the Act is on the owner of the vehicle as a person cannot be both, a claimant as also a recipient and, therefore, the heirs of the owner could not have maintained the claim in terms of Section 163A of the Act. It is further observed that, for the said purpose, only the terms of the contract of insurance could be taken recourse to. In the recent decision of this Court in the case of Ashalata Bhowmik (supra), it is specifically held by this Court that the parties shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance".
20. On perusal of the said decision it is observed that, claimants are entitled to compensation without a finding negligence. Once the claimants proved the 17 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 involvement of the vehicle in the accident, they need not prove the negligence of the other side of the vehicle driver. The compensation claimed Under Section 163A legislature never wanted the claimant to plead or establish negligence of owner or driver, otherwise it would defeat the very object and purpose of the provision.
21. In another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 ACJ 1 in between United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sunil Kumar and another wherein it was held that:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163 A(1)...Claim applicationNegligence of victim Whether in a claim proceedings under section 163A is it open to the insurance company to raise the defence/plea of negligence of victim Held No; permitting the insurance company to raise defence of negligence would bring proceedings under Section 163A at par with proceedings under section 166 which would 18 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 not only be self contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention".
22. On perusal of the said decision it is observed that, 'S.163A (2) of the Act, does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the insurer based on negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section 140(4) to permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer and/or to understand the provisions of Section 163A of the Act to be contemplating any such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction of Section 163A of the Act, viz., final compensation within a limited time frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability was taking an unduly long time. For the said reasons, in a proceeding under Section 163A of the Act 19 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 it is not open for the insurer to raise any defence of negligence on the part of the victim'.
23. In the instant case, though the FIR registered against the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA04P88 in which the deceased was the occupant, even if the charge sheet is also filed against him, U/Sec.163A of the Act, rash and negligent need not be proved, the Petitioner has to prove only involvement of the vehicle. So, as per the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 ACJ 1 grant of compensation Under Sec.163A of the Act on the basis of structured formula is in the nature of a final award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicles involved in the accident and under this Section, it is not open for the insurer to 20 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 raise any defence of negligence on the part of the owner of the vehicle as the legislature has intention to provide compensation without making the question of negligence an issue and that is why Section 163A of the Act has been introduced. It is no doubt, the accident occurred due to the involvement of both the vehicles, the Respondent No.2 need not raise any defence of negligence.
24. Further the counsel for the 2 nd Respondent has argued that the Petitioner has filed the petition claiming compensation for the death of her son in a road traffic accident in which he has mentioned monthly income at Rs.10,000/ per month and now she has filed this petition by restricting the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/ per annum. According to 2nd Respondent, once she has stated higher income in the claim petition as well as affidavit evidence and she 21 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 cannot say lower income, it is against second schedule of M.V. Act.
25. At this juncture it is useful to refer a decision reported in ILR 2009 KAR 501 between New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Shri Abdul Bhasheer @ Basheer and others wherein it was held that:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Sec.163A Application of the provisions with regard to the income of the deceasedSpecial provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basisHeld, where the claimants have restricted the income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/ p.a, or less, though initially they stated more than Rs.40,000/ p.a. they can maintain the claim petition under Section 163A of the ActOn facts, held, as the claimants have restricted the income of the deceased at Rs.40,000/ per annum, the claim petition under Section 163A of the Act is maintainable".22
MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5
26. In a decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court decided on 5th December 2014 between United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Rita Devi & Ors wherein it was observed that:
"This court in the case of Rukmani Devi V/s. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., 2009 ACJ 2202 has held that there cannot be a bar that the claimant cannot choose at any stage of the case to convert his petition under Section 166 to 163A of the M.V. Act, in that case this court held as follows:
"7. Based on the above discussion and after considering the ratio of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it becomes manifest that the bar is on taking simultaneous remedies under Section 163A and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but there cannot be any bar that the claimant cannot choose at any stage of the case to convert their petition from Section 166 to Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Denying such right of conversion during the pendency of the case would defeat the very social objective of granting speedy and expeditious compensation to the victims of the accident cases.23
MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 "9. Another question which is of vital importance is whether the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be allowed to be converted in to a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act or vice versa and if the answer is yes, then what should be the stage for allowing such a petition. There cannot be any dispute that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and therefore, endeavour has to be as to how best the intention of the legislation can be achieved so as to safeguard the interest of the victims of the accident rather than defeating the same. The statue has to be construed according to the intent of the makers and it is the duty of the courts to interpret the statue to see that true intention of legislature is achieved".
27. On going through the above citations, it is clear that, in case the person with the higher income notionally brings down his income to Rs.40,000/ per annum, in order to present his claim under Section 163A, the same can be permitted and the claimants 24 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 have restricted the income at Rs.40,000/ per annum the claim petition Under Section 163A is maintainable.
28. In the instant case, the Petitioner has filed a petition Under Section 166 of M.V.Act in MVC No.3968/2016 by contending that her son was drawing a sum of Rs.10,000/ per month and the said petition has withdrawn by the Petitioner and filed this petition by restricting the income of the deceased as Rs.40,000/ per annum. As admitted by the 2 nd Respondent the said petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner and it was not contested. Hence, the arguments advanced by the 2nd Respondent's counsel that the petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted.
29. Looking to the evidence of both the sides and the documents placed before the Court it is clear that, the accident occurred due to the involvement of the 25 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 vehicle bearing No.KA55M0123. Hence, I answer the Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
30. The specific contention of Petitioner is that, the deceased is the son of the Petitioner. She has produced Ration Card to show the relationship with the deceased.
31. Further on perusal of the evidence of PW1 it reveals that, the deceased was working as Helper at Mahadeshwara Traders and was earning Rs.40,000/ per annum. She is depending on the income of the deceased.
32. To compute the quantum of compensation, as per S.164 of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019, sub clause (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorized insurer 26 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 shall be liable to pay in the case of death or grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim as the case may be.
33. On applying the said provisions, it is just and proper to award Rs.5,00,000/ towards loss of dependency. Further the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,500/ under the head of loss of estate and Rs.2,000/ under the head of funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses.
34. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,04,500/ under the following heads.
27
MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount/Rs.
1. Loss of dependency 5,00,00000
2. Loss of estate 2,50000
4. Funeral & Obsequies 2,00000 ceremony expenses Total 5,04,50000
35. In all, Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,04,500/ with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization, for the death of Mahadeva.
36. As far as awarding of interest on the compensation amount is concerned, in a recent decision reported in 2018 ACJ 1300 between Mangla Ram V/s. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., and others (in CA Nos.2499 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) Nos.2814142 of 2017 decided on 06.04.2018) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation 28 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 amount, in para No.28 of the judgment held that, 'The appellant would also be entitled to interest on the total amount of compensation at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of realization" and also by following the principles laid down in (2018) ACJ 1020 in between ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co., Ltd., V/s. Ajay Kumar Mohanty and another decided on 6.3.2018 (in CA Nos.7181 of 2015 and 1879 of 2016) at para No.1 and 12 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: "Quantum InterestTribunal allowed interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent which was reduced by High Court to 7 per centApex Court allowed interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application". In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate 29 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 of interest and also it is settled principles of law that, while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into account the rate of interest on the Nationalized Bank and the rate of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. cannot said to be on the higher side. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a.
37. Coming to the question of fixing the liability to pay the compensation to the Petitioner is concerned, as this petition is Under Section 163A of M.V.Act, involvement of the vehicle is sufficient, one's claimant proved the accident, she need not prove the negligence of the other side of the vehicle driver. Therefore, I have already discussed in Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA55M0123. Though the charge sheet has filed against the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA04P88, but she 30 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 cannot claim compensation against the said vehicle as the deceased was the occupant of the said vehicle. In the instant case, the deceased being the occupant of the Car, so he cannot claim compensation on the said vehicle. Therefore, petition against the 3rd Respondent is hereby dismissed. In view of the involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA55M0123, the 1 st and 2nd Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, Respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of Policy vide No.1 3ANT67SO40090787760, in favour of the 1 st Respondent and it was valid from 19.01.2015 to 18.01.2016 which is valid and effective as on the date of accident, it has to indemnify Respondent No.1. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in affirmative and Issue No.2 in partly affirmative. 31
MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5
38. Issue No.3: On the basis of discussions made on Issue Nos.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
The petition filed under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act, 1989 as against Respondent No.3 is hereby dismissed.
The petition filed under Sec.163A of the M.V. Act, 1989 as against Respondents No.1 and 2 is partly allowed with cost.
Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,04,500/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Four Thousand Five Hundred Only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization.
The Respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner and shall deposit the said amount within 60 days from the date of this order.32
MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 On deposit of compensation amount, 75% of the amount to be released in her favour through epayment directly to the Petitioner's account by obtaining the Bank A/c details, on proper identification. Remaining 25% to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in her name.
Fee of counsel for Petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2021) (SHARMILA. S) VIII ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.
::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: PW1 : Smt. Kempamma 33 MVC No.3360/2017 SCCH5 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P.2 : Copy of Mahazar Ex.P.3 : Copy of Sketch Ex.P.4 : Copy of IMV Report Ex.P.5 : Copy of P.M. Report Ex.P.6 : Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.7 : Notarized copy of Ration Card Ex.P.8 : Copy of Inquest Report LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW1 : Sri. S. Narendran LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Ex.R.1 : Copy of the Policy Ex.R.2 : C.C. of Order Sheet in MVC No.3968/2016 Ex.R.3 : C.C. of Claim Petition in MVC No.3968/2016 Ex.R.4 : C.C. of W/S of 2nd Petitioner in MVC No.3968/2016 (SHARMILA.S) VIII ADDL. SCJ & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.