Bangalore District Court
In vs Are on 5 July, 2017
SCCH 17 1 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL;
B'LORE (SCCH-17)
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT; Sri.A.Samiulla B.Sc.,LL.B.,
XIX Addl SCJ & MACT.
MVC.No.2561 & 2562/2016
Petitioners in
MVC 2561-2016: 1) Smt.K.Pushpa,
W/o Late Sivaji.K.V,
22 years,
2) Mast.Ruthvik.S,
S/o Late Sivaji.K.V,
1 year,
Since 2nd petitioner is minor
Rep by his mother & natural
guardian 1st petitioner herein.
3) Sri.Venkatesh @ Venkatesu,
S/o Late Kenchanna, 48 years,
4) Kum.Sandhya Rani.K.V.,
D/o Venkatesh,
14 years,
Since 4th petitioner is minor,
R/by her father and natural
guardian 1st petitioner herein.
All are residing at:
Eguva Gandharumakapalle
Village, Kongatam Post,
SCCH 17 2 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
V.Kota Mandalam, Chittoor
District, Andhra Pradesh
Petitioners in
MVC 2562-2016: Sri.D.R.Murali,
S/o Late Raghunath,
21 years,
R/o Eguva Gandharumakapalle
Village Kongatam Post,V.Kota
Mandalam, Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri.NM)
V/s
Respondents are
Common in both the cases: 1) M/s.General Traders,
Jaggery Merchants,
Commission Agents,
No.2036, Kolar Road,
Bangarapet Town,
Kolar District.
2) The New India Assurance,
Company Limited, Regional
Office, Unity Building Annexe,
Mission Road, Bengaluru-27.
(R-1 ex parte
R-2 by Sri.GSM)
SCCH 17 3 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of MV
Act, seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- and
Rs.10,00,000/- respectively on account of death of
Sri.Sivaji.K.V and the injuries sustained by Sri.D.R.Murali in
a road traffic accident, occurred on February 18, 2016.
2. Petition in MVC 2561/16 is filed by the wife, son,
father and sister of deceased Sivaji.K.V. Petition in MVC
2562/16 is filed by the injured Murali. These petitions are
arising out of a single accident. At the instance of
petitioners cases are clubbed and common evidence was
recorded in MVC 2561/16.
3. Petitioners pleaded that, on February 18, 2016 at
about twelve o' clock in the noon the deceased Sivaji and
SCCH 17 4 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
injured Murali were proceeded towards Eguva
Gandharumakapalle from Bengaluru on motorcycle bearing
bearing No.AP-03/BG-6554 ridden by Sivaji & Murali was
riding pillion, on Kolar-Bengaluru N.H-75 Road, near
Chunchadenahalli Gate a lorry bearing No.KA-08/B-2133
came from Bengaluru side being driven by its driver in high
speed, rash and negligent manner and caused dashing
motorcycle from backside, due to impact rider and pillion
rider fell to ground and sustained injuries. They were
shifted to SNR Hospital Kolar. Rider Sivaji succumbed to
the injuries enroute to R.L.Jalappa Hospital. Injured pillion
rider Murali was shifted to Narendra Hospital from SNR
Hospital after administer of first aid. Deceased and injured
Murali were hale and healthy earlier to the accident and
were earning Rs.15,000/- each per month by doing mason
SCCH 17 5 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
work. Injured Murali become disabled due to the accidental
injuries. Jurisdictional Police registered case against the
driver of lorry, which is owned by the first respondent and
insured with the second respondent respectively, who are
liable to pay compensation. Hence, petitions are filed.
4. First respondent is placed ex parte. Second
respondent resisted the claim petition by filing written
statement denying the petition averments in toto, inter alia
contended that the petitions are not maintainable for
violation mandatory provisions are envisages u/S 134 (c) of
MV Act. It admits issuance of policy, which is subject to the
terms and conditions enumerated therein viz., holding of
valid driving licence by the driver of insured vehicle at the
relevant point of time and validity of vehicular documents
SCCH 17 6 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
such as RC, FC and permit. Accident has taken place due to
the negligence of rider of motorcycle, who rode the same in
zigzag manner in the middle of road and there was no
negligence on the part of driver of lorry. Petition is bad for
non joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of
motorcycle. Without prejudice it is contended that there is
contributory negligence on the part of rider of motorcycle,
which exceeds 50 per cent. Reserving right to contest the
matters on all grounds u/S 170 of MV Act it prays to
dismiss the petitions.
5. Following issues arise for consideration:
5.
Issues in MVC 2561-2016:
1. Whether petitioners prove that on 18.02.2016 at about
12.00 pm., when the deceased was proceeding towards
his village from Bengaluru riding motorcycle bearing
Regn. No.AP-03-BG-6554 near Chuchadenahalli Gate, On
Kolar-Bengaluru NH-75 Road, Kolar Taluk, met with an
SCCH 17 7 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
accident, sustained injuries and succumbs to same due to
actionable negligence on the part of driver of lorry
bearing Regn.No.KA-08-B-2133 as alleged?
2. Whether petitioners proves the age, occupation
and income of deceased?
3. Whether R2 proves that there is violation of
terms and conditions of the policy?
4. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, at what amount and from whom?
5. What order or award?
Issues in MVC 2562-2016:
1. Whether petitioner proves that on 18.02.2016 at about
12.00 pm., when he was proceeding towards his village
from Bengaluru riding motorcycle bearing Regn. No.AP-
03-BG-6554 near Chuchadenahalli Gate, On Kolar-
Bengaluru NH-75 Road, Kolar Taluk as a pillion rider,
met with an accident, sustained injuries and succumbs
to same due to actionable negligence on the part of
driver of lorry bearing Regn.No.KA-08-B-2133 as
alleged?
2. Whether petitioner proves his age, occupation and
income?
3. Whether respondent-2 proves that there is violation of
terms and conditions of the policy?
4. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so,
at what rate and from whom?
5. What order or award?
6. To prove the cases, the first petitioner in MVC
2561/16 was examined as Pw.1 and documents Ex.P1 to 14 &
SCCH 17 8 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
Ex.P19 were marked. Injured petitioner in MVC 2562/16
was examined as Pw.2 and documents Ex.P15 to 18 were
marked. On the other hand second respondent did not
choose to adduce evidence. Ex.R1 (Insurance Policy) was
marked with consent.
7. Heard arguments from both sides.
8. Answer to the above issues in both the cases is as
follows:
Issue-1 in both cases: Affirmative.
Issue-2 in both cases: Partly affirmative.
Issue-3 in both cases: Negative.
Issue-4 in both cases: Partly affirmative.
Issue-5 in both cases: As per final order
for the following;
R E A S O N S
9. Issue-1 in both cases: Petitioners asserted that, the
deceased Sivaji lost his life and petitioner Murali sustained
SCCH 17 9 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
injuries in the motor accident, which occurred due to the
negligence of driver of lorry. Per contra second respondent
denied it.
10. It is well known that the initial burden is squarely on
the claimant to establish negligence without which proof no
compensation could be awarded. Preponderance of
probabilities to fix negligence would suffice and proof of
negligence beyond shadow of doubt is not warranted as
required in a criminal trial. In the background of principle
that the proof of negligence is sine qua non to sustain a
claim let us analyze the proof displayed by the parties to lis
to unveil the truth regarding rival contentions.
11. To discharge burden, the wife of deceased and injured
petitioner filed affidavit evidence reiterating the claim
SCCH 17 10 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
petition averments. They specifically stated that the
accident took place due to the actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of lorry in which rider Sivaji breathed his
last and pillion rider Murali sustained injuries.
12. In cross-examination of Pw.1 it is suggested that the
accident has taken place due to the negligence of rider as
he came suddenly in front of lorry, due to this the left side
rear wheel mudguard dented, she denied it. She denies that
the rider contributed maximum negligence towards the
occurrence of accident and there was no negligence on the
part of driver of lorry.
13. In cross-examination the Pw.2 stated that he was
riding pillion and motorcycle was proceeded on the left side
of lorry. It is suggested that the rider rode the motorcycle
SCCH 17 11 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
in high speed and in negligent manner and caused accident
dashing to the left rear wheel mudguard, he denied it. He
denied that the accident has taken place due to the
negligence of rider and there was no negligence on the part
of driver of lorry.
14. On careful scrutiny of evidence supra one can see that
absolutely there is no dispute about the occurrence of
accident, the date, time and place of accident and the
involvement of vehicles. The only bone of contention raised
by the respective parties to lis is that they are blaming
each other for the occurrence of accident. In this
background let us scan the proof made available by the
parties to unveil the truth regarding the rival contentions.
SCCH 17 12 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
15. In the instant case, petitioners asserted that both the
vehicles proceeded in the same direction and the lorry
caused accident dashing motorcycle from backside.
16. In the written statement the second respondent
pleaded that the rider rode the motorcycle in zigzag manner
in the middle of road and contributed maximum negligence
towards the occurrence of accident.
17. In cross-examination of Pw.1 it is suggested that, the
rider suddenly came in front of lorry, due to this reason the
left side rear wheel mudguard dented and right side fuel
tank of motorcycle suffered damages.
18. In cross-examination of Pw.2 it is suggested that the
rider rode the motorcycle in high speed and in negligent
manner & caused accident dashing left rear wheel mudguard.
SCCH 17 13 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
19. In IMV report (Ex.P5) it is indicated that the lorry
suffered damages on left side rear wheel mudguard dented.
Motorcycle suffered damages i.e., right fuel tank dented,
right foot rest, right bumper bend, silencer pipe scratched,
head light doom broken and right hand lever scratched.
20. The facts stated supra make it clear that the say of
petitioners i.e., the lorry dashed backside of motorcycle and
the contention of second respondent that the rider
suddenly came in front of lorry are not the correct version
of accident.
21. The Spot Panchanama and Site Plan (Ex.P3 & P4) and the
damages suffered by the vehicles reveal the true picture of
accident. As per Ex.P3 and P4 the place of accident is a road
of 30 feet width and it is a one way road and it runs in east-
SCCH 17 14 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
west direction. Both the vehicles Proceeded towards
eastern side. Northern side of said road is the left side
(proper side) of both vehicles. The place of accident is on
the extreme left side i.e., just four feet from the edge of
road. This shows that both the vehicles proceeded on
proper side. The offending vehicle i.e., lorry is big vehicle
and normally it is expected to ply in the middle of road or at
least leaving few feet space on its left side. The smaller
vehicles i.e., motorcycle etc are expected to proceed on the
extreme left side of road. The exact place of impact shows
that rider of motorcycle was proceeded on the extreme left
side. The driver of lorry ought to have proceeded either in
the middle or on the right side of one way road. But the
driver took the lorry to the extreme left side; due to this
left rear wheel mud guard came in contact with the lorry
SCCH 17 15 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
which results in damages to the left wheel mud guard of
lorry and to the right side of motorcycle. Why the driver
drove the lorry on extreme left side even though a
motorcycle was proceeded on left side of lorry is not
explained. The driver of lorry is the better person, who can
explain the exact reason and the immediate cause of
accident. But for the reasons best known to the
respondents they did not choose to examine the driver,
which resulted in drawing adverse inference.
22. Here, it is not the case of second respondent that the
lorry was proceeded ahead of motorcycle on the left side
and rider tried to over take the lorry from left side and in
that process the right side body of motorcycle came in
contact with the left rear wheel mud guard. But in written
SCCH 17 16 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
statement it is contended that the rider rode the
motorcycle in zigzag manner in the middle of road without
following the traffic rules. Said contention is not tenable
because the exact place of impact is not in the middle of
road but it is on the extreme left side of road.
23. The factual situation on hand stated supra depict that
there was sufficient space for the driver of lorry to
proceed further, despite he drove the lorry on the extreme
left side even though a motorcycle was proceeded on the
extreme left side of road. If the driver of lorry proceeded
on the middle of road or on the right side definitely he
could have avoided collision and save the life of person.
Unfortunately that has not happened. The conjoin reading
of oral evidence and the recitals of documents it can be
SCCH 17 17 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
safely conclude that the accident occurred due to
negligence of driver of lorry in which rider of motorcycle
breathed his last and pillion rider sustained injuries. Hence,
issue-1 in both cases answered in affirmative.
24. Issue-2 in MVC 2561/16: Petitioners stated that the
deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident and was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as mason.
Petitioners produced driving licence (Ex.P19) of
deceased, wherein his date of birth is indicated as
10.6.1994. This undisputed and admissible document depicts
that the deceased was aged 21 years 8 months and 8 days
(22 running) at the time of accident. To demonstrate the
avocation and income of deceased the petitioners have not
produced any cogent evidence. In the absence of positive
SCCH 17 18 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
proof the income of deceased is considered as Rs.10,000/-
per month by considering the nature of work, place of work
and the age of deceased coupled with the fact that the
accident took place in the year 2016.
Petitioners are wife, minor son, father and minor
sister of deceased. Absolutely there is no pleading and
proof to show that the petitioners-3 & 4 are dependants on
the income of deceased. In the absence of proof it can be
said that the third petitioner is not dependant on the
deceased and fourth petitioner is the dependant of third
petitioner. There is no evidence to show that third
petitioner was not working and earning. Thus there are only
two dependants on the income of deceased. Accordingly,
this issue is answered partly in affirmative.
SCCH 17 19 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
25. Issue-3 in MVC both the cases: Second respondent
contended that there is violation of terms and conditions of
the policy. This contention remained as it is for want of
proof. In the absence of proof issue-3 in both the cases is
answered in negative.
26. Issue-4 in MVC 2561-2016: On account of death of
Sivaji the petitioners being wife, minor son, father and
minor sister of deceased are entitle for compensation under
the following heads:
Loss of dependency: To ascertain the loss of dependency
the age, income of deceased and the number of dependants
of the deceased are relevant.
This tribunal while recording finding on issue-2 held
that the income of deceased as Rs.10,000/- per month for
SCCH 17 20 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
computation of loss of dependency and the deceased was
aged 22 years running at the time of accident. There is no
dispute with respect to the relationship of petitioners with
the deceased.
In a decision reported in ILR 2016 KAR 4592
(Ayesha Begum V/s Saradarulla Khan), it is held that, Courts
have to keep in mind that the need to award just and fair
compensation and additional amount towards the head
future prospects depends on the evidence in each case
regarding the age of the victim, his occupation, nature of
his employment, the prospects of earning steady and
increased income. Therefore, that only in respect of a
person, who has an assured job or a Government
employment, entitlement for award of compensation under
the head future prospects would arise. The same can be
claimed successfully even by other employees including self
employed person both skilled and unskilled provided there is
SCCH 17 21 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
evidence to show that he had a steady income. Therefore,
the matter depends on the evidence adduced in each case.
It is worth to note that in the case on hand the
petitioners failed to establish that the deceased was having
steady income. In the absence of proof of steady income
future prospects are not awarded.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Munnalal Jain and
another V/s Vipin Kumar Sharma & Others (2015 ACJ
1985), held that to determine the multiplier the age of the
deceased is relevant.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Amrit Bhanu Shali
V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2012) 11 SCC 738, held
that, the selection of multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased and not on the basis of dependents of the
deceased whose age may be different and, therefore, age
of the dependents has no nexus with the computation of
compensation.
SCCH 17 22 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
27. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged about 22
years at the time of accident. His income was Rs.10,000/-
per month. There are two dependants; hence 1/3rd is to be
deducted towards personal expenses. 1/3rd of Rs.10,000/
works out to Rs.3,333/-. Income considerable is Rs.10,000/-
- Rs.3,333/- = Rs.6,667/-. Annual income works out to
Rs.6,667x12 = Rs.80,004/-. As per Sarla Verma's case the
multiplier applicable is 18. Thus the loss of dependency
works out to Rs.80,004/-x18 = Rs.14,40,072/-.
Loss of consortium: Pw.1 is aged 22 years. She lost her
husband in young age. In Rajesh case (supra) the Hon'ble
Apex Court at 20 para held that, in legal Parlance
'consortium' is the right of the spouse to the company, care,
help, comfort, guidance, society, solace, affection and
SCCH 17 23 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
sexual relation with his or her mate. That non-pecuniary
head of damages has not been properly understood by our
Courts. The loss of companionship, love, care and protection
etc., which the spouse is entitled to get, has to compensate
approximately. Further held that, we are of the view that it
would only be just and reasonable that the Courts award at
least Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium. Accordingly,
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under this head.
Compensation to the family members (children and family
members other than wife) for loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection, social security etc.
In case of Rajesh V/s Rajbir Singh (supra) the
Hon'ble Apex Court granted Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of care
and guidance for minor children.
SCCH 17 24 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
In a decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 706
(Puttamma V/s Narayan Reddy), The Hon'ble' Apex Court
awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family
members (children & family members other than wife) for
loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection, social
security etc. Thus, considering the age of dependants and
the age of deceased it will be just, fair and equitable to
award Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and affection.
Funeral expenses and transportation of dead body:
Petitioners stated that Rs.50,000/- were spent
towards funeral expenses and for transportation of dead
body. Except ocular version no positive proof is placed to
demonstrate it. In the absence of proof coupled with the
SCCH 17 25 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
family background and distance traveled, the petitioners
are entitle for Rs.25,000/- under this head.
The petitioners are entitling for compensation under
the following heads:
a) Towards loss of dependency Rs. 14,40,072/-
b) Towards loss of consortium Rs. 1,00,000/-
c) Towards loss of love and affection Rs. 1,00,000/-
d) Towards funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/-
Rs. 16,65,072/-
28. Issue-4 in MVC 2562/16: Petitioner stated that, due
to accidental injuries he become disabled and spent huge
amount towards medical and other incidental expenses. In that
context let us determine the just and reasonable compensation
under the following heads;
SCCH 17 26 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
Pain and suffering: The wound certificate and discharge
summary produced at Ex.P15 & 16 show that the Pw.1 sustained
following injuries i.e,
1) Lacerated wound over chin measuring 5x1x1 cm.
2) Abrasion over both dorsum hands
3) Fracture pelvis
4) Fracture subthrochanteric right femur.
As per medical records first two injuries are simple in
nature and other injuries are grievous in nature. He was
admitted Narendra Hospital on 18.2.16 and discharged on
22.2.16. He underwent closed reduction and internal fixation
with PFN for fracture ST(R) hip on 22.2.16. He took treatment
as inpatient for 5 days. All these facts show that the Pw.2
sustained injuries in the accident. Considering the nature of
SCCH 17 27 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
injuries and line of treatment he underwent and the duration of
treatment a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded under this head.
Attendant charges, extra food and conveyance charges: The
wound certificate and discharge summaries of Hospitals reveal
that the Pw.1 took treatment as inpatient from 18.2.16 to 22.2.16
and he also took follow up treatment. During said period he has to
spend considerable amount on his conveyance, attendant charges
and nutritious food. In this background a sum of Rs.5,000/- is
awarded under this head.
Medical expenses: Pw.2 stated that he has spent considerable
amount towards medical expenses. To demonstrate the said fact
he relied on 7 medical bills (Ex.P17) of Rs.77,169/- and 4
prescriptions (Ex.P18). Bill No.1 is inpatient bill issued by Narendra
Hospital for Rs.54,000/-.Though the Pw.1 was subjected to cross-
SCCH 17 28 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
examination but nothing is elicited to create doubt regarding the
genuineness of medical bills. Under these circumstances the
petitioner is entitle for Rs.77,169/- towards medical expenses.
Loss of income during laid up period: Petitioner sustained
grievous injuries. He took treatment as inpatient for 5 days.
Thereafter he has taken follow-up treatment. Considering the
nature of injuries and the line of treatment it can be said that the
petitioner requires at least three months for recovering from said
injuries. During said period he lost the income. Hence he is entitle
for Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/-x2) under this head.
Loss of future income due to disability: Petitioner has not
produced any disability certificate and he has not examined the
treated doctor to demonstrate that he suffered loss of income
due to disability. Hence, he is not entitled for any compensation
under this head.
SCCH 17 29 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
Loss of future amenities and happiness: Pw.2 was aged 22 years
at the time of accident. He sustained injuries stated supra and he
suffered with disability. It shows that he finds difficulty in doing
day-to-day activities as he might have suffered loss of pain, loss
of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age,
nature of injuries and percentage of disability Rs.20,000/- is
awarded under this head.
Future medical expenses: Pw.2 has not stated anything about
requirement of further treatment and the approximate expenses
to be incurred thereof. In the absence of evidence petitioner is
not entitled for any amount under this head.
Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the
following heads;
a) Towards pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
b) Towards attendant charges,
SCCH 17 30 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
extra food and conveyance
expenses Rs.5,000/-
c) Towards medical expenses Rs.77,169/-
d) Loss of income during laid
up period Rs.20,000/-
e) Loss of future income due to
permanent disability NIL
f) Loss of future amenities and
happiness. Rs.20,000/-
g) Towards future medical expenses NIL
__________
Total Rs.1,72,169/-
29. Liability: Petitioners demonstrated that the accident
occurred due to the negligence of driver of lorry, which is
owned by first respondent and insured with the second
respondent, they are liable to pay compensation. However,
SCCH 17 31 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
second respondent being the insurer has to indemnify the
first respondent. Accordingly, this issue is answered
30. Issue-5 in both cases: By virtue of above findings,
Tribunal proceeds to pass the following;
O R D E R
Petitions are allowed in part with costs. Petitioners in MVC 2561-16 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,65,072/- (Rs.Sixteen lakhs sixty five thousand seventy two Only) with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Petitioner in MVC 2562-16 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,72,169/- (Rs.One lakh seventy two thousand one hundred sixty nine Only) with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till its realization. SCCH 17 32 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016 Respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
However, Second respondent being the insurer has to indemnify the owner. Hence second respondent is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
In MVC 2561-16 out of the award amount petitioners are entitled for apportionment as below:
Petitioner-1 50%
Petitioner-2 30%
Petitioner-3 10%
Petitioner-4 10%
In the event of deposit, 50% of the amount of petitioners 1 & 3 shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized or schedule bank of their choice for a period of 3 years with liberty to withdraw accrued interest SCCH 17 33 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016 periodically and remaining 50% shall be released in their favour.
Entire amount of minor petitioner No.2 & 4 shall be kept in fixed deposit in the nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of first petitioner and third petitioner respectively till they attains majority with liberty to draw accrued interest periodically.
In MVC 2562-2016 in the event of deposit, 50 per cent of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized/Schedule bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of three years with liberty to draw accrued interest periodically and remaining 50 per cent shall be released in favour of petitioner.
SCCH 17 34 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each in both the cases.
Draw an award accordingly.
The original of this judgment shall be kept in MVC 2561/16 and the copy thereof shall be kept in MVC 2562/16.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open court, this the 5th day of July, 2017) (A.SAMIULLA) XIX ADDL.SCJ & MACT:
BANGALORE.
A N N E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS EXAMINED & MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:
FOR PETITIONERS: Pw.1: Smt.K.Pushpa P.w.2: Sri.D.R.Murali DOCUMENTS:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Sketch
Ex.P.5 IMV report
SCCH 17 35 MVC 2561 & 2562/2016
Ex.P.6 Inquest
Ex.P.7 PM Report
Ex.P.8 Charge sheet
Ex.P.9&10 Ration card
Ex.P.10to14 Aadhaar cards
Ex.P.15 Wound certificate
Ex.P.16 Discharge summary
Ex.P.17 7 medical bills of Rs.77,169/-
Ex.P.18 4 Prescriptions
Ex.P.19 Driving licence
FOR RESPONDENTS: NIL
DOCUMENT:
Ex.R.1: Copy of policy
(A.SAMIULLA)
XIX ADDL.SCJ & MACT,
BANGALORE.