Bangalore District Court
Gangamma @ Bhajanthri vs Shriram General Insurance on 3 March, 2022
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT : Smt. PRABHAVATI M. HIREMATH,B.A., L.L.B.(Spl.)
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No.4013/2019
PETITIONERS: 1. Gangamma @ Bhajanthri
Gangamma,
W/o.Late B.Anjappa,
Aged about 42 years.
2. Gangadhar,
D/o. Late B.Anjappa,
Aged about 23 years.
All are R/o at:
No.2180, Manuru (Village),
Madakasira, Ananthapur District,
Andrapradesh515 303.
And also R/o at:
Bettahalasur (Village),
Chikkajala (Post),
Bangalore Rural.
(By Sri. V.Somashekar , Advocate)
Respondents: 1. Shriram General Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
No.4/5, 3rd Floor, S.V.Arcade,
Bilakahalli Main Road,
Opposite B.G.Road, IIM (Post),
SCCH-1 2 MVC No.4013/2019
Bangalore 560 076.
Policy No.418005/31/19/006891
Valid from :31.08.2018 to 30.08.2019
(By Sri B.N.Manjunatha Gupta,
Advocate)
2. Ilyaz Pasha,
S/o.Ameer Jansab,
Aged about 40 years,
No.18/53, 4th Cross,
Doddabettahalli Layout,
Vidyaranyapura (Post),
Bangalore560 097.
(Owner of the vehicle bearing No.KA
04JF3191)
... Exparte
*******
JUDGMENT
This is a petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 by the petitioners for awarding compensation of Rs.18,00,000/ with interest and costs for the death of B.Anjappa, S/o Hanumantharayappa in the Road Traffic Accident. The petitioner No.1 is wife and petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased Anjappa.
SCCH-1 3 MVC No.4013/2019
2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
On 27.03.2019 , Anjappa was proceeding as a pillion rider in Motorcycle bearing No.KA50AC1456 on B.B.Service Road, near Ganesha Temple , Venkatala, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. When they were proceeding near Ganesha Temple , Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF3191 came in a high speed, rash or negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the Motorcycle. As a result of the impact, Anjappa was thrown out from the Motorcycle , fell down and sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body.
3. Immediately, after the accident, he was shifted to Apurva Hospital, Yelahanka, Bangalore, wherein he took first aid treatment and then admitted as an inpatient as he had sustained grievous injuries. Surgery was done and discharged on 05.04.2019. He was shifted to his house and he died on 15.04.2019. Thereafter dead body was shifted to native place and SCCH-1 4 MVC No.4013/2019 funeral was conducted. The petitioners have spent Rs.1,30,000/ for transport of dead body and funeral expenses and Rs.3,00,000/ towards medical treatment.
4. At the time of death, deceased was 45 years old, he was hale and healthy. He was the bread earner of the family. He was working in Saloon shop and earning a sum of Rs.800/per day. Due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF3191 accident occurred. Therefore, respondent No.1 being the insurance company , respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. This petition is filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.18,00,000/.
5. After service of notice of this petition, respondent No.2 remained absent and placed exparte. Respondent No.1 insurance company appeared SCCH-1 5 MVC No.4013/2019 through its Advocate and filed written statement as follows: The petition is not maintainable . The petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased. The rider was not having driving licence to ride the vehicle. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled for the compensation. The entire averments in the petition are denied in toto. The Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF 3191 was insured with the first respondent in between 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2019. The owner of the vehicle has not informed about the accident and furnished the required documents. The petition is not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties. The owner of the vehicle in which deceased was travelling and its insurance company are the necessary parties. There is no negligent act of riding of the Motorcycle by the insured vehicle driver, due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle in which deceased was travelling accident occurred. There is violation of SCCH-1 6 MVC No.4013/2019 policy conditions , therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. There is no nexus between the death and injury sustained in the accident and prays to dismiss the petition.
6. From the above stated pleadings of the parties, following issues have settled for trial by my predecessor in office as under :
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 27.03.2019 at about 09.00 p.m. at B.B.Service Road, near Ganesha Temple, Venkatala, Yelahanka, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of Yelahanka Traffic Police station on account of rash and negligent riding of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA04JF3191 by its rider when the deceased was proceeding as pillion rider in the Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA 50AC1456 ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?SCCH-1 7 MVC No.4013/2019
7. In support of the petitioners case, petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1, one witness is examined as PW2, got marked in all 18 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.18. In support of the second respondent's case two witnesses are examined as RW1 and 2 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.1 to R.3.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 has filed written arguments on 14.12.2021.
9. For the reasons stated in the subsequent paras, I answer issues as follows:
Issue No.1 ... In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 ... Accordingly, Issue No.3 ...As per final order for the following: REASONS
10. Issue No.1 : It is the case of the petitioner that due to rash or negligent act of riding on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF 3191 accident occurred. Due to the impact between SCCH-1 8 MVC No.4013/2019 the two Motorcycle the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and subsequently, he succumbed to the injuries.
11. To prove the rash or negligent act of driving on the part of rider of the offending vehicle the petitioner relied on evidence of PW1 and police records. Ex.P.1 is the FIR along with complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P.3 is spot sketch, Ex.P.4 and 5 are IMV reports (2), Ex.P.7 discharge summary. On the contrary to prove that there is no negligent act on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA 04JF3191 , respondent No.1 insurance company relied on the evidence of RW2 . In this case either PW1 or RW2 are not the eye witnesses , therefore, negligent act of riding of the vehicle is required to be considered from other documentary evidence available on record.
12. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in the written arguments as well as in the oral SCCH-1 9 MVC No.4013/2019 submissions has taken a specific contention that RW1 and 2 have deposed before the Court with reference to history of injuries mentioned in the M.L.C. which is marked as Ex.R.2. There is no reference regarding R.T.A., it is printed form with reference to accident, the word accident may include other accident also apart from R.T.A.
13. When the case is posted for judgment , Advocate for petitioner has filed an application to re open the case to adduce evidence of PW2 , M.R.O. , Apurva Mother and Child Hospital. He has produced Ex.P.16 to 18 documents. Ex.P.17 is the police intimation as well as M.L.C. RW1 is also from Apurva Mother and Child Hospital, working as a Record Keeper. In the chief examination of RW1, he has deposed that he has produced authorization letter and M.L.C. extract with reference to Anjappa. They are marked as Ex.R.1 and R.2. The Ex.P.17 and Ex.R.2 are the M.L.C. issued by the same hospital. In the evidence SCCH-1 10 MVC No.4013/2019 of PW2 police intimation as well as M.L.C. are marked as Ex.P.17 and in the evidence of RW1, M.L.C. only is marked as Ex.R.2. In between these two M.L.C.'s issued by Apurva Mother and Child Hospital, there is no difference , they are one and the same. But in the police intimation issued by Apurva Mother and Child Hospital on 27.03.2019 , "It is mentioned that alleged history of R.T.A. near Venkatala at around 8.45 p.m. has been brought into this hospital on 27.03.2019 at 9.40 p.m." In the bracket it is mentioned as collision of the two ...). PW2 has also produced Ex.P.18 case sheet.
14. As the documents produced by RW1, as per Ex.R.2 and documents produced by PW2 as per Ex.P.17, there is no difference. Ex.P.17 was got marked by comparing with the original book having carbon copy of the such intimation was got marked. During the course of crossexamination of PW2, it was SCCH-1 11 MVC No.4013/2019 suggested to him that on behalf of your hospital another witness is examined , he has shown his ignorance. But to dispute the genuinity of police intimation produced by PW2 nothing is elicited. Therefore, only on the ground that when the case was posted for judgment, PW2 was got examined by re opening the case , his evidence cannot be doubted.
15. From going through Ex.P.18, case sheet of Anjappa, maintained by Apurva Mother and Child Hospital, it is clear that it contains the entire case sheet including Admission card, consent for anaesthesia and surgery , High Risk informed consent , Anaesthetic record, operation record, doctor's Record and Nurse Records.
16. From going through the entire Ex.P.18, case sheet, it is clear that on several places the history is mentioned as "R.T.A." . In preoperative anaesthetic Evaluation form , yellow pages in the second column it is mentioned as "H/o R.T.A.". In Doctor's Record dated SCCH-1 12 MVC No.4013/2019 27.03.2019, Dr.Mandeep has recorded that "alleged history of R.T.A., sustained injury to head, chest and right hip". So also in the next page of Doctor's Record, Dr.P.Sujatha has recorded "reason for ICU admission as R.T.A., with head injury" . In the same page under background it is mentioned as "alleged history of R.T.A. while travelling in two wheeler, hit by another two wheeler , sustained fall with head injury and injury to right hip". On 28.03.2019 in the Doctor's record Dr.Krishna Prasad has recorded the history as "history of R.T.A.". So also on 29.03.2019 at 3.40 p.m. , it is mentioned as " R.T.A. with injury to head, femur ". So also on 30.03.2019, it is mentioned as "R.T.A. with head injury".
17. From going through the above referred entries in the case sheet which are made by different doctors in an undisputed point of time , it cannot be said that Ex.P.18 case sheet is created for the purpose of this SCCH-1 13 MVC No.4013/2019 case, as we can find different handwritings of different doctors and nurses in the case sheet. Therefore, Ex.P.17 police intimation cannot be doubted as there is sufficient material in the case sheet that Anjappa has sustained injuries in the R.T.A. Therefore, only based on Ex.R.2, evidence of RW1 and 2 , it cannot be said that Anjappa has not sustained injuries in the R.T.A. Therefore, arguments advanced by learned Advocate for respondent No.1 is not acceptable one.
18. From going through the police records, it is clear that on the basis of complaint lodged by one Shankar B. , S/o.Nagaraju case is registered against the rider of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF 3191 . This complaint was lodged on 05.04.2019, even though accident occurred on 27.03.2019. The reason for nonlodging of complaint immediately after the accident is mentioned in the complaint that due to sever injury sustained by Anjappa , he was admitted to hospital and complainant was looking after him in the SCCH-1 14 MVC No.4013/2019 hospital. Therefore, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. As police intimation was issued on 27.03.2019 itself from Apurva Mother and Child Hospital and reasons mentioned by complainant in the complaint are sufficient to come to the conclusion that there is no malafide intention in nonlodging of the complaint. From Ex.P.4 and 5, IMV Reports, it is clear that there is damage to the Motorcycle bearing No.KA 04JF3191 also apart from damage to the Motorcycle bearing No.KA50AC1456 in which Anjappa was travelling at the time of accident.
19. Eventhough at the out set , it can be said that there is delay in lodging the complaint that itself is not sufficient to doubt the entire police records. What is the effect of delay in lodging the complaint is considered by Division Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2011 ACJ 911 (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others) held that " lodging of FIR certainly proves SCCH-1 15 MVC No.4013/2019 factum of accident but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting claim application. In that case, injured was the minor boy sitting on the side of the road infront of his house, accident was witnessed by the father of the injured and another person and they took the injured to the hospital, next day police came to the hospital but no FIR was recorded as father of injured was under mental agony and stress and he was more concerned to get the medical treatment to his son. In that case, complaint was lodged after 3 months of the accident. Considering the facts and situations of that case, their Lordships held that delay in lodging complaint cannot be a main ground for rejecting the application.
20. In view of the above said principles laid down by their Lordship and the explanation given by the complainant and in the hospital records, it is clearly mentioned that R.T.A. , it is sufficient to prove that Anjappa has sustained injuries in the R.T.A. SCCH-1 16 MVC No.4013/2019
21. To prove the rash or negligent act of riding the Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF3191 the petitioner relied on spot panchanama, spot sketch and charge sheet as referred above. From Ex.P.2 spot panchanama and Ex.P.3 spot sketch, it is clear that the accident occurred on B.B. Service Road, near Ganesha Temple. The width of the road is 20 feet . Prior to the accident, the Motorcycle bearing No.KA 50AC1456 was proceeding towards Devanahalli and Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF3191 was proceeding from Devanahalli side . In Ex.P.3 the direction how both the vehicles proceeded prior to the accident is shown by line with arrow marks. The Motorcycle bearing No.KA50AC1456 was proceeded in a straight way but the Motorcycle bearing No.KA 04JF3191 took deviation towards the right side of the road and dashed to the another two wheeler. Considering this fact on conclusion of the investigation charge sheet was filed by the Investigation Officer SCCH-1 17 MVC No.4013/2019 against the rider of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA04 JF3191. The contents of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and P.7 , charge sheet with reference to exact scene of offence is not disputed by the respondent No.1. Hence, from the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the above referred police records petitioner proved that as rider of the offending Motorcycle took deviation and proceeded towards the right side of the road , thereby accident occurred and only due to the rash or negligent act of driving on the part of rider of Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF3191 accident occurred.
22. The learned Advocate for respondent vehemently argued before the tribunal and in the written arguments filed has taken a specific contention that there is no nexus between the injuries sustained by Anjappa and his death. After 20 days from the date of accident he died and he was discharged from the hospital , postmortem was not conducted after his death. Based on these facts he argued that there is no SCCH-1 18 MVC No.4013/2019 nexus between the death and injuries sustained in the accident.
23. On the contrary, it is the case of the petitioners that only due to the injuries sustained in the accident he succumbed to the injuries. To substantiate the same, the petitioners relied on medical records. It is the admitted fact that Anjappa died after discharge and his dead body was not subjected for postmortem. In the light of above admitted facts we can consider the medical records available on record. From Ex.P.8, discharge summary , Anjappa was discharged from the hospital on 05.04.2019. In the discharge summary which is also available in Ex.P.18, case sheet , it is mentioned that under the column course in Hospital as under:
"patient attenders have been explained about need of surgery after taking physician fitness, informed and written consent, patient underwent below mentioned surgery, patient SCCH-1 19 MVC No.4013/2019 withstood with the procedure well, post surgery patient developed fat embolism shifted to ICU for observation later shifted to ward fro post OP monitorying, regular wound inspection and dressing done. Managed with IVF IV , antibiotics, antiemetics, antiepileptics, antiodema and other supportive measures . On post OP day 3 patient had continuous vomiting and loose stools associated with abdomen ditention. Ortho, neurosurgeon, physician and general surgeon opinion sought and advised followed, C.T. Abdomen pelvis was normal , gradually patient improved symtomatically over the course of treatment. Patient Hemodynamically stable at the time of discharge.
24. As per the death certificate of Anjappa, died on 15.04.2019. 10 days after his discharge from the hospital. In the above referred condition of Anjappa at the time of discharge mentioned in the discharge summary it is "Haemodynamic stability" . Said term is SCCH-1 20 MVC No.4013/2019 used to describe stable blood flow. When it is said that someone is hemodynamically stable, it means the blood pressure and heart rate of that person are stable. But we cannot presume that he was fully improved from the continuous vomiting and loose stools associated with abdomen ditention.
25. In the case sheet prior to operation on the first day itself, it is mentioned that high risk informed consent . Reproduction of the entries in the case sheet at page 38 are necessary for better appreciation.
"I have been explained in my own language about the condition and need of ICU monitoring the condition and ventilation.
Risk of life has been explained to us. Agree to continue the treatment here and don't hold the doctor's , nurses and other staff in case of any untoward incidence including death. I have been given the choice of shifting the patient to any other higher centre as my choice".SCCH-1 21 MVC No.4013/2019
26. From this, it is clear that since at the beginning of admission itself , doctor felt that there is high risk and even after undergoing operation, Anjappa has suffered complications. Therefore, it cannot be said that only on the ground that death was caused in the house and postmortem was not conducted, there was no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident . Death of the deceased is due to post operative complications faced by him . He had continuous vomiting and loose stools associated with abdomen ditention. Therefore, the discharge from the hospital itself is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. Hence, petitioner proved that due to the injuries sustained in the accident Anjappa succumbed to the injuries. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative .
SCCH-1 22 MVC No.4013/2019
27. Issue No.2: In this case, petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.18,00,000/ under different heads.
28. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the wife , petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased Anjappa. PW1 in her chief examination has deposed that they are the wife and son of the deceased. During the course of crossexamination of PW1, question was put to her that how many children she has . She has deposed that she has two children one male and one female. Daughter is married and she is residing with her husband.
29. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased was running saloon shop and earning Rs.1000/per day. During the course of crossexamination, she has admitted that during the life time of Anjappa, petitioner No.2 used to work in the saloon shop along with her husband. Except oral evidence of PW1 nothing is there on record about the actual income of SCCH-1 23 MVC No.4013/2019 the deceased at the time of his death. There is no material on record to show that deceased was running saloon shop. Therefore, notional income is required to be taken into consideration. The accident occurred on 27.03.2019. Considering the year of the accident, notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.13,000/p.m.
30. As per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 (Kriti Vs. Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd.,), Their Lordship, in Supplement Para 23, have that :
23. The rationale behind the awarding of future prospects is therefore no longer merely about the type of profession, whether permanent or otherwise, although the percentage awarded is still dependent on the same. The awarding of future prospects is now a part of the duty of the Court to grant just compensation, taking into account the realities of life, particularly of inflation, the quest of individuals to better their SCCH-1 24 MVC No.4013/2019 circumstances and those of their loved ones, rising wage rates and the impact of experience on the quality of work.
24. Taking the above rationale into account, the situation is quite clear with respect to notional income determined by a Court in the first category of cases outlined earlier, those where the victim is proved to be employed but claimants are unable to prove the income before the Court. Once the victim has been proved to be employed at some venture, the necessary corollary is that they would be earning an income. It is clear that no rational distinction can be drawn with respect to the granting of future prospects merely on the basis that their income was not proved, particularly when the Court has determined their notional income.
31. As per Ex.P.14, Aadhar card of the petitioner, year of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 1979. Therefore, as on the date of accident , deceased was 40 years old and as per the above referred judgment, 25% of his income has to be taken as loss of future SCCH-1 25 MVC No.4013/2019 prospects. The 25% of the present income of Rs.13,000/ is Rs.3,250/ and if the same is added to his present income, it comes to Rs.16,250/ p.m. In view of the admission given by PW1 during the course of crossexamination that during the life time of deceased , petitioner No.2 was also working along with the deceased, therefore, petitioner No.1 alone is considered as dependant and 50% of the income of the deceased is required to be deducted towards personal expenses. 50% of Rs.16,250/ would be Rs.8,125/. After deducting the same, the balance comes to Rs.8,125/p.m. and if we multiply it by 12, annual income works out to Rs.97,500/ . As discussed above, deceased was 40 years old as on the date of accident. Therefore, as per 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarala Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation) the multiplier applicable to the present case is 15 and if we multiply the annual income of the deceased by the multiplier, the same SCCH-1 26 MVC No.4013/2019 works out to Rs.14,62,500/ . Hence, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.14,62,500/ under the head loss of dependency.
32. Further, as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) (National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and others), under the conventional heads, I award Rs.40,000/ towards loss of consortium to 1st petitioner wife, Rs.15,000/ towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/ towards funeral expenses.
33. Further,as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and Others (Civil Appeal No.9581/2018 D.D.18.09/2018) the petitioner No.2 being the son of the deceased is awarded Rs.40,000/ as compensation towards parental consortium. SCCH-1 27 MVC No.4013/2019
34. It is the case of the petitioner that they have spent huge amount for the treatment of Anjappa. For that petitioner relied on Ex.P.9 medical bills. Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.9 is an inpatient final bill for Rs.1,54,820/ and discount of Rs.33,920/ was given. The petitioners have paid Rs.1,20,900/. Receipts for having made payments are produced at Sl.No.1 to 9 annexures of Sl.No.1 bill. From the details mentioned in Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.9, it is clear that hospital authorities have calculated ward charges , consultation charges, investigation laboratory charges but not either pharmacy or consumables. Sl.No.2 to 36 of Ex.P.9 are with reference to medicine purchased bills issued by Apurva Medicals. To doubt these bills, nothing is elicited. The total of these bills comes to Rs.1,37,221/ by rounding off the figure compensation of Rs.1,37,220/ is awarded to the petitioners towards Medical Expenses of the deceased.
SCCH-1 28 MVC No.4013/2019
35. As per Ex.P.8, deceased was taken treatment as an inpatient from 27.03.2019 to 05.04.2019 for a period of 10 days. Therefore, an amount of Rs.10,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and an amount of Rs.2,000/ is awarded towards transportation charges.
36. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as under: Sl. Head of Compensation Calculation Amount/Rs No Rs.
i. Monthly Income 13,00000
Future Prospects at 3,25000
25%
16,25000
ii Deduction of 50% 16,25000
income of the deceased 8,12500
towards personal 8,12500
expenses
iii Annual income of the 8,125x12
deceased 97,500
iv Compensation after 97500x15 14,62,50000
multiplier applied
v Loss of estate 15,00000
vi Funeral expenses 15,00000
SCCH-1 29 MVC No.4013/2019
vii Loss of consortium to 40,00000
petitioner No.1, wife
viii Loss of Parental 40,00000
consortium
ix Medical Expenses of 1,37,22000
deceased
X Food , nourishment 10,00000
and attendant charges
Xi Transportation charges 2,00000
TOTAL Rs. 17,21,72000
37. Thus, the petitioners are awarded
compensation of Rs.17,21,720/ with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation.
38. In view of my finding that the petitioner No.1 alone is the dependant on the income of the deceased, therefore, petitioner No.2 is entitled for only nominal amount of Rs.3,00,000/ with proportionate interest and the remaining amount is allotted to the share of petitioner No.1.
39. The respondent No.1 is the insurance company and respondent No.2 is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing No.KA04JF3191 and they are SCCH-1 30 MVC No.4013/2019 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount . However, Respondent No.1 being the insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order. For the above said reasons, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
40. Issue No.3 : In view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in part against the respondents .
The petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.17,21,720/ with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.1 SCCH-1 31 MVC No.4013/2019 Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the total compensation, petitioner No.2 is entitled for Rs.3,00,000/ with proportionate interest and the remaining amount is allotted to the share of petitioner No.1.
Out of the compensation amount apportioned in favour of the petitioners No.1 and 2 , 50% each with proportionate interest is ordered to be invested in high yielding fixed deposit in their respective names in any of the nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of 5 years. Remaining 50% each with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to the petitioners No.1and 2 under proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ . SCCH-1 32 MVC No.4013/2019 Draw an Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer , transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 3rd day of March 2022) ( PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Gangamma @ Bhajantri Gangamma PW2 : Subramanya Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR along with complaint Ex.P2 : Copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P.3 : Copy of Spot Sketch Ex.P4 & 5: Copy of IMV Reports (2) Ex.P6 : Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 Copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.8 Discharge Summary Ex.P.9 Medical bills(36) Ex.P.10 Prescriptions (33) Ex.P.11 Medical Reports Ex.P.12 to Notarized copies of Adhaar cards of 14 petitioners and deceased (original compared and returned) SCCH-1 33 MVC No.4013/2019 Ex.P.15 Death Certificate of deceased Ex.P.16 Notarized copy of Identity card of PW2 Ex.P.17 Copy of police intimation and M.L.C. Ex.P.18 Case sheet Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW1 Naveen Kumar S.K. RW2 Shobha
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorization letter
Ex.R.2 M.L.C. Extract with reference to Anjappa
Ex.R.3 Copy of policy
( PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH)
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes &
Member, Prl. M.A.C.T.
Bangalore.