Bangalore District Court
Rashmi Tripathy vs Shravan Kumar on 14 June, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.925/2021
KABC020050032021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
Dated : This the 14th day of June 2024
Present : Sri.YATHISHA.R.
B.A.L.,L.L.B.,
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.925/2021
Petitioner/s : 1.Smt.Rashmi Tripathy,
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Late Raj Ballav Tripathy.
2.Sri.Yashraj Tripathy,
Aged about 18 years,
S/o Late Raj Ballav Tripathy.
3.Smt.Champarani Tripathy,
Aged about 77 years.
W/o Late Adithya Pratap
Tripathy.
All are residing at No.B6/106,
Provident Welworth City,
Marasandra,
YelahankaDoddaballapur
SCCH-14 2 MVC.925/2021
Road, Kadathanamale,
Arakere, Bengaluru 562 103.
V/s (By pleader Sri.M.Laxmana)
Respondent/s: 1.Sri.Shravan Kumar,
S/o Mahadevaiah,
R/o Hanabe Village & Post,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru 561 203.
Owner of the Honda Motor
cycle bearing Regn.No.KA
43/L3517
(By pleader
Sri.Kumaraswamy.D)
2.Magma HDI General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd Floor, H.M. J.C.Road,
No.36, J.C.Road,
Near Minerva Circle,
Bengaluru 560 002.
(By pleader Sri.V.Shrihari
Naidu))
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioners against Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/ for the death of Raj Ballav Tripathy S/o Late Aditya Pratap Tripathy in a Road SCCH-14 3 MVC.925/2021 Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 21.11.2020 at about 5.30 p.m., when Raj Ballav Tripathy S/o Aditya Pratap Tripathy along with his friend in order to cross the road were standing on the edge of the road, BengaluruDoddaballapur Main road, in front of Mamos Hotel, Marasandra Village, Bengaluru, at that time, Honda Unicorn motor cycle bearing No.KA43L3517 ridden by its rider came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Raj Ballav Tripathy. As a result, said Raj Ballav Tripathy had sustained severe injuries all over the body. Immediately he was taken to Columbia Asia hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient and underwent surgery on 25.11.2020 and he succumbed to the injuries on 01.01.2021.
Prior to the date of accident, said Raj Ballav Tripathy was hale and healthy and he was working as Ex.Serviceman and also First Division Clerk in Bank of Baroda and was earning a sum of Rs.1,30,000/ per month as salary plus pension. The SCCH-14 4 MVC.925/2021 Petitioners were entirely depending on the income of the deceased. The said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the motor cycle and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle. Therefore, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their respective Counsel and filed their objection statements to the main petition.
Respondent No.1 in his Objection Statement denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motor cycle and injuries sustained by the deceased and the death caused by the said injuries. On these grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
Respondent No.2 in its Objection Statement denied the SCCH-14 5 MVC.925/2021 age, avocation and income of the deceased and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motor cycle. Further, it has admitted the issuance of insurance policy to the motor cycle bearing No.KA43L3517. Further it has contended that the Respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the offending vehicle to the person who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. It is further contended that the deceased without observing the traffic rules proceeded to cross the road and as such due to his negligence the accident in question occurred. On these grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the rival pleadings, my Learned Predecessor has framed the following Issues.:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representative of the deceased?
2.Whether the Petitioners prove that Raj Ballav Tripathy S/o Late Aditya Pratap Tripathy died due to injuries sustained by him in an SCCH-14 6 MVC.925/2021 accident occurred on 21.11.2020 at about 6.00 p.m. BengaluruDoddaballapur main road, in front of Mamo Hotel, Marasandara Village, Bengaluru, arising due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA43L3517?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 23 documents at Ex.P.1 to P.23 and Ex.P.41 to 43 and she also examined 4 witnesses as PW.2 to PW.4 . Through PW.2 Ex.P.24 to 28 documents are got marked and through PW.3 Ex.P.29 to 33 and 37 documents are got marked. Through PW.4 Ex.P.38 and 39 documents are got marked. Through PW.5 Ex.P.40 got marked and the ptitioners closed their side evidence.
On the other hand, Respondent No.1 examined himself as SCCH-14 7 MVC.925/2021 RW.1. He deposed oral evidence. No documents have been marked through him. The Respondent No.2 got examined its Legal officer as RW.2. RW.2 deposed by way of affidavit filed by him in lieu of his oral examination in chief and got marked a document at Ex.R.1.
6. During the stage of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the following decisions:
1.AIR 2019 SC 994 (Sunita and others Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and another.
2. (2017)16 SCC 680 (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs.Pranay Sethi and others)
3. AIR 1998 SC 3191 (Mrs.Helen C Rebello and others Vs. Maharasthra State Road Transport Corporation and another.
4. Civil Appeal Nos.242 - 243 of 2020 (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Birender and others)
5. 2009 ACJ 287 (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pushpa Rana and others)
6. (2009) 13 SCC 530 SCCH-14 8 MVC.925/2021 (Bimla Devi and others Vs.Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others)
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record and decisions relied by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No.2: It is the case of the Petitioners that the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA43L3517 and in the said accident, Raj Ballav Tripathy had sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries.
9. On the other hand, the Respondents No.1 and 2 have SCCH-14 9 MVC.925/2021 denied the accident occurred by the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA43L3517.
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, the Petitioner No.1 by name Rashmi Tripathy got examined herself as P.W.1 and she has filed her chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the petition averments.
11. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, PW1 has relied on Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. Ex.P1 is the True copy of FIR along with complaint which shows that the Rajanukunte police have registered the case against the rider of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA43L3517 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 of IPC. Ex.P.2 is the Spot panchanama along with sketch shows that the same was drawn at the spot in the presence of panchas. The documents Ex.P.3 to 5, 8 and 9 ie., the requisition of the IO, Inquest report, PM report, death certificate and death summary supports the case of the petitioners regarding the death of Mr.Raja Ballav Tripathy. The document i.e., Ex.P.6 IMV Report which shows that accident does not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the SCCH-14 10 MVC.925/2021 offending vehicle. Ex. P.6 also supports the case of petitioners regarding involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. The charge sheet document i.e., Ex.P.7 shows that the IO after thorough investigation charge sheeted the rider of the offending motor cycle for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC. The document i.e., Ex.P.10 Medical bills justify that the petitioners have spent such sum of rupees towards medical expenses of the deceased. The document Ex.P.11 supports the case of petitioners that the deceased was a retired employee and was drawing pension. The document Ex.P.12 discloses that sum of Rs.24,513/ was paid as pension to the deceased by the authority concerned during October 2020. The documents Ex.P.13 and 14 i.e., the statements of Bank of Baroda pertaining to the deceased discloses that before his death deceased had drawn a sum of Rs.66,860/ p.m. as a salary from the Bank of Baroda. The documents Ex.P.15 to 18 i.e., notairsed copies of PAN card, ID card and passport of the deceased justifies the identity of the deceased. The document Ex. P.18 and 19 i.e., the notarised copies of passport and SCCH-14 11 MVC.925/2021 aadhar card of the deceased discloses the date of birth of the deceased as on 01.07.1973. The document Ex. P.20 to 23 i.e., notarised copy of aadhar cards of petitioner No.1 and 2 at Ex.P.20 and 21 and the ID of petitioner No.3 and the grade card of petitioner No.2 supports the case of petitioners that they are the legal representatives of the deceased.
12. PW.1 got examined the employer of deceased as PW.2 and got marked Ex. P.24 to 28 and 34 to 36. Further, Petitioner has examined medical record officer as PW.3 and got marked two documents as per Ex.P.29 to 33 i.e., Authorisation letter, copy of MLC register, inpatient record, Original medical bills and lab reports. Further petitioner got examined an eyewitness as PW.4 and got marked Ex. P.38 and 39. Further petitioner got examined Manager at Bank of Baroda as PW.5 and got marked Ex.P.40 i.e., notarised copy of ID Card.
13. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 has cross examined the P.W.1 to PW.5 at length. In the crossexamination PW.1 to PW.5 have denied the suggestions and nothing could be elicited to SCCH-14 12 MVC.925/2021 disbelieve the testimony of the Petitioners.
14. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 got examined himself as RW.1. Respondent No.2 got examined its Legal Officer as RW.2 and got marked a document as Ex.R.1 copy of Policy. In the cross examination, RW1 has admitted that the IO has submitted charge sheet against the rider of offending vehicle to which the respondent No.2 company has issued the policy. There is also admission of the fact that till date the respondent company has not challenged the said charge sheet.
15. Though, the respondent No.2 has contended in the statement of objections that the deceased had also contributed for the occurrence of accident and the accident did not caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the rider of offending vehicle, there is no evidence brought on record by the respondent No.2 to substantiate this aspect. It is also relevant to note that respondent No.2 had contended that the owner of offending vehicle in question knowingly well entrusted the same to the person to ride the same who do not possess a valid and effective DL and thereby the terms and conditions of the policy SCCH-14 13 MVC.925/2021 has been breached. In this regard, the vital document i.e., charge sheet filed as per Ex. P.7 gives a clear picture of the fact that there is no allegation found against the rider of offending vehicle that during the occurrence of accident he had driven the vehicle without possessing valid and effective driving licence.
Such being the case, the said contention of respondent No.2 does not sustain. Upon consideration of the materials about which observation has been made above and also upon consideration of the prime and material document ie., the charge sheet which is submitted against the rider of offending vheicle, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioners have been able to prove the fact that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider which resulted in the injuries sustained by Raj Ballav Tripathy who succumbed to the injuries. With all these observations, I answer Issue No.2 in the "Affirmative".
16. Issue No. 1 and 3: Both these issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts. SCCH-14 14 MVC.925/2021
17. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, Petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased, Petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy. In order to prove this fact, PW.1 has produced her Aadhar Card and the Aadhar cards of the petitioner No.2 and of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy which are marked as Ex.P19 to 21. The ID of petitioner No.3 has been marked as Ex.P.22. The marks card of petitioner No.2 has been marked as Ex.P.23. All these documents clearly establishes the fact that the deceased is the son of petitioner No,3, husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2. These documents justify the relationship of the deceased with the Petitioners. In addition to that, there is no serious dispute being made by the respondents regard the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners have proved that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy.
18. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 47 years and he was working as ExServiceman and also SCCH-14 15 MVC.925/2021 working as Accountant in Bank of Baroda and was getting pension of Rs.32,000/ per month and also getting salary of Rs.70,202/p.m.. In this regard, PW.1 has examined Officer of Bank of Baroda as PW2 and who deposed that the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy was working as an Accountant in Bank of Baroda and the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy was drawing gross salary of Rs.70,202/. He got marked 5 documents at Ex.P.24 to 28 i.e. Authorisation letter, copy of ID card, copy of Transfer of deceased, pay slip for the month of December 2020 and Ex. P.28 is notarised copy of ID card. As per Ex.P.27, the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy was drawing gross salary of Rs.70,202/. The said document discloses that after deductions of tax, the deceased was drawing a sum of Rs.66,850/ p.m. Hence, the Petitioners have proved that, the monthly salary of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy is Rs.66,850/ per month as on the date of accident. Hence, by considering the avocation and Ex.P.27, this Tribunal holds the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.66,850/ p.m. for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
SCCH-14 16 MVC.925/2021
19. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy as 47 years at the time of the accident. As per Aadhar card of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy i.e., Ex.P.19, the date of birth of Raj Ballav Tripathy was shown as 01071973. The alleged accident was occurred on 21112020. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy was 47 years. Hence, the age of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy to be taken at 47 years for the purpose of Assessment.
20. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
21. The deceased has left behind him, his wife, son and mother. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are considered as SCCH-14 17 MVC.925/2021 dependents. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "Loss of estate has to be compensated by awarding Rupees 15,000/, loss of consortium should be Rupees 40,000/ and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/". The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the Petitioner No.1 is the wife, Petitioner No.2 is the son and Petitioner No.3 is mother of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/ each towards loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/ collectively towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/ collectively towards funeral expenses.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
22. Petitioner No.1 is wife of the deceased Raj Ballav SCCH-14 18 MVC.925/2021 Tripathy has lost the love and care of her husband, Petitioner No.2 is the son of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy has lost the love and care of his father and Petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Raj Ballav Tripathy has lost the lover and care of her son in her old age. Bearing in mind the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ collectively under this head would be just and reasonable.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
23. The Petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. Hence, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/ collectively under this head would be just and reasonable. SCCH-14 19 MVC.925/2021
VI. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDANCY:
24. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was notionally fixed at Rs.66,850/ p.m. At this juncture, I would like to go through the decision reported in :
1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, contract worker in a company - High Court did not consider future prospects while computing compensation - Whether claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
Held : yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance SCCH-14 20 MVC.925/2021 Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance company that principle of addition on account of future prospects is not applicable where income of the deceased is determined by guesswork, High Court disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes:
there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork :
executing Court directed to respondent
compute entitlement of claimants by
adding 40 per cent of income for future
prospect and make corresponding deduction
towards personal expenses".
The decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) SCCH-14 21 MVC.925/2021 No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "In case of permanent job 30% has to be added if the age is between 40 to 50 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged 47 years at the time of accident.
Hence, towards future prospects 30% of the income has to be added. So, 30% of Rs.66,850/ comes to Rs.20,055/.
Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.86,905/ p.m. (Rs.66,850/ + Rs.20,055/). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 13. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, where the number of dependent of family members is 2 to 3, 1/3 rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards his personal and living expenses.
25. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses in Rs.86,905/ it comes to Rs.57,936/ ( 86,905/ 28,969/) SCCH-14 22 MVC.925/2021 and multiplier applied is 13 which comes to Rs.90,38,016 (57,936 x 12 = 6,95,232 x 13 = Rs.90,38,016/). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.90,38,016/ towards loss of dependency.
MEDICAL EXPENSES DURING THE TREATMENT PERIOD:
26. In the petition, petitioners have stated that they have spent sum of Rs.28,36,613/ towards medical expenses. PW.1 deposed that sum of Rs.24,32,383/ has been paid to the hospital by the insurance company and the remaining sum of Rs.4,04,230/ plus a sum of Rs.2,50,000/ has been paid by her towards the expenses. To substantiate the said fact, petitioners rely upon the document Ex.P.10. They have also produced the document Ex. P.32 to show the expenses incurred at Columbia Asia hospital. There is admission of the fact that the medical bills have been paid by the National Insurance Co.Ltd., Said fact also reflects in Ex. P.10 and also in Ex. P.32. The total bill payable as per Ex. P.32 is sum of Rs.25,47,574/ and Ex. P.10 reflects that sum of Rs.24,32,383/ has been paid SCCH-14 23 MVC.925/2021 by the insurance company. Hence, if the amount already paid is deducted it would come to sum of Rs.1,15,191/. Thus, the petitioners are awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,191/ under this head.
27. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,32,000/
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/
5. Expenses of transportation of Rs. 10,000/ dead body
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.90,38,016/ 7 Medical Expenses Rs. 1,15,191/ Total Rs.93,78,207/ Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.93,78,207/ which is rounded off to Rs.93,78,210/ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.SCCH-14 24 MVC.925/2021
28. Regarding Liability : As already discussed in the Issue No.2, in this case the rider of the offending motor cycle bearing KA43L3517 was chargesheeted. Further, there is no dispute about the validity of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. Though the respondent No.2 has contended that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased which resulted in occurrence of accident, said fact has not been proved by the respondent No.2. Even during the cross examination of PW.1 to 5 said fact has remained not proved. Apart from that the ratio held in AIR 2019 SC 994 comes to the aid of petitioners as in the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "In the present case, site plan has been produced in evidence before the Tribunal by witness to incident and the record seems to indicate that the accident occurred in the middle of the road. However, the exact location of the accident, as marked out in the said plan, has not been explained much less proved through a competent witness by the respondents to substantiate their defence. Besides, the concerned police official who prepared the SCCH-14 25 MVC.925/2021 site plan has also not been examined. Evidence of witness to incident that the respondentbus driver was negligent in driving recklessly at a high speed on the wrong side of the road, thus, resulting in the accident which caused the death of deceased cannot be discarded". Even in the case on hand, the materials reveals that there is no such evidence of the concerned police official made available before this court by the respondents. Though respondent No.2 got examined its official as RW.1. The evidence deposed by RW.1 is not sufficient/do not support the contention of the respondent No.2 regarding the allegation of contributory negligence of the deceased. Therefore, Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. I have given careful reading to the other decisions relied upon by the petitioners. The principles/ratio held by the respective Hon'ble Courts in those decisions apply to the case on hand and they will come to the aid of the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the "Affirmative" and Issue No. 3 "Partly in the Affirmative". SCCH-14 26 MVC.925/2021
29. Issue No.4 : From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.93,78,210/ along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.93,78,210/ along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
However, Respondent No.2 being the
SCCH-14 27 MVC.925/2021
insurer is directed to deposit the
compensation amount as stated supra
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of this award.
Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 60% to the Petitioner No.1.
2) 20% each to the Petitioner No.2 and 3
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 and 2, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 and 2 by way of E payment and after their proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 and 2 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 5 years.
SCCH-14 28 MVC.925/2021
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.3 by way of Epayment and after her proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.3 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of her choice for a period of 3 years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 14th day of June 2024) (SRI.YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
SCCH-14 29 MVC.925/2021Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Rashmi Tripathy P.W.2 : Parul Gupta P.W.3 : Subramanya.T.K P.W.4 : Nabrun Choudhary P.W.5 : R.Narayanaswamy Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR along with complaint Ex.P.2 True copy of Spot panchanama along with sketch Ex.P.3 True copy of Intimation to the Court Ex.P.4 True copy of Inquest panchanama Ex.P.5 True copy of PM report Ex.P.6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P.7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.8 Notarised copy of Death certificate Ex.P.9 Notarised copy of death summary Ex.P.10 Medical bills (12 in nos.) Ex.P.11 Notarised copy of pension payment order Ex.P.12 Bank statement Ex.P.13 Pay slip of Dec.2020 Ex.P.14 Pay statement for the period 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2021 Ex.P.15 Notarised copy of PAN card Ex.P.16 Notarised copy of ID card SCCH-14 30 MVC.925/2021 Ex.P.17 Notarised copy of Bank ID card Ex.P.18 Notarised copy of Passport Ex.P.19 Notarised copy of Aadhar card of the deceased Ex.P.20 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.21 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex. P.22 Notarised copy of Health card of petitioner Ex. P.23 Notarised copy of Grade card Ex. P.24 Authorisation letter Ex. P.25 Attested copy of ID card Ex. P.26 Attested copy of Transfer of deceased Ex. P.27 Pay slip for Dec.2020 Ex. P.28 Notarised copy of ID card Ex. P.29 Authorisation letter Ex. P.30 Copy of MLC register Ex. P.31 Inpatient record Ex. P.32 Original Medical bills Ex. P.33 Lab reports Ex. P.34 Copy of appointment letter Ex. P.35 Copy of confirmation of service Ex. P.36 Statement of account Ex. P.37 Copy of Police intimation Ex. P.38 Notarised copy of Aadhar card Ex. P.39 Copy of further statement Ex. P.40 Notarised copy of ID card Ex. P.41 Copy of income tax returns for the year 20182019 Ex. P.42 Form No.16 for the year 20192020 Ex. P.43 Form No.16 for the year 20212022 SCCH-14 31 MVC.925/2021 Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW1 : Shravan Kumar RW2 : Nagesh.K.C
Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R.1 Copy of policy
(SRI.YATHISHA.R)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
YATHISHA R
YATHISHA
Date:
R 2024.06.25
10:34:32
+0530