Bangalore District Court
Smt. Najemhunnisa vs B.Raghuram on 12 July, 2016
SBEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.3957/2014
Dated this the 12th day of JULY 2016
Petitioner/s : SMT. NAJEMHUNNISA
W/o. Mohammad Inayuthulla,
Aged about 48 years,
R/a No.70,
20th cross,
B.T.B. Area,
Tilak nagar,
Jayanangar,
Bangalore-560011.
V/s
(By pleader Sri PR)
Respondent/s 1. B.RAGHURAM
S/o.M.Balaraman
R/at.No.1/78,
Mettu Street,
Kaniyambadi, Vellore Dist.,
Tamilnadu.
(Exparte)
2. PANEER SELVAM
R/at. Naikoor village,
Naikanoor post,
via Alangayam,
Vellore District.,
Tamilnadu.
(By pleader, Sri. VDG)
SCCH-14 2 MVC NO.3957/2014
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD.,
No. 302, 3rd floor,
S.S. Corner Building,
Opp: Bowring and Lady
Cruzan Hospital,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore-560001.
(By pleader, Sri. HNK)
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 3 MVC NO.3957/2014
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the death of Mohammed Jabarullah in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioner is the mother of the deceased Mohammed Jabarullah who was aged 30 years, was a driver cum owner of lorry bearing No.KA-52-4697 and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. On 05.11.2011 at about 02.45 a.m., the deceased was driving on his lorry bearing No.KA-52-4697 on Bangalore-Chennai road slowly, cautiously and carefully by observing the traffic rules. When he reached near Krishnaswamy petrol bunk, at that time, lorry bearing No.TNE-2907 was negligently parked by its driver on center of the road, without any signal, parking lights or reflector. As a result of which, the lorry deceased dashed against the parked lorry from behind. Due to impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over the body and died on the spot. After the post Mortem, the dead body of the Mohammed Jabarullah was handed over to the petitioner, who performed funeral and obsequies by spending Rs.50,000/- and she has also spent Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of dead body. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and if he were alive, he would have earned Rs.50,000/- per month in future. He was having bright future prospectus. Due to untimely death of Mohammed Jabarullah, the SCCH-14 4 MVC NO.3957/2014 petitioner is put to great hardship and mental starvation. Kaveripakkam police have registered FIR No.738/2011 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.TNE-2907 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 304(A) of IPC. The respondents are the owner, policy holder and insurer of the said lorry and are liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have sought for awarding compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondent no. 2 and 3 have appeared before the Court through their respective counsel. The respondent no.3 has filed statement of objections, but the respondent no.2 has not filed his written statement. The notice to the respondent no.1 returned unserved as door locked. It is held that the notice is deemed to have been served on the respondent No.1. He remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. The respondent no.3 has admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of lorry bearing No.TNE-2907, but he has denied the other averments of the petition as false, that the petitioners have filed one more claim petition for the same cause of action and the same is numbered as MVC No.2394/2012 and pending before SCCH-5, that the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties, that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness certificate as on the date of accident, that this court has no jurisdiction to try the matter, that the insured and concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties, that the insured lorry was not SCCH-14 5 MVC NO.3957/2014 involved in the accident, that the insured lorry was parked with all precautionary measures and it is the deceased who was driving the lorry in a very high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the parked lorry, that the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself, that he is not liable to pay any compensation, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the claim petition with cost.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed :
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that Mohammed Jabarullah S/o Mohammed Inayathullah died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 05.11.2011 at about 02.45 a.m., near Krishnaswamy petrol bunk, on Bangalore- Chennai road, Vellore arising due to rash and negligent act of driver of lorry bearing no. TNE-
2907?
2. Whether the petition is maintainable in view of filing of MVC No.2394/2012 on the same cause of action?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
SCCH-14 6 MVC NO.3957/20145. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 16. The respondent No.3 has examined his officer as RW.1 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R1.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following rulings;
1. 2007 (1) TAC 795(SC) : New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs., Smt. Kalpana & Ors.,
2. ILR 2002 KAR 893: Kumari Jyothi & Ors., Vs., Mohd, Usman Ali and Ors.,
3. ILR 2014 KAR 2558: Mr.Devaraju T.Vs., The United India Ins.,Co.Ltd., rep., by its Manager, Bangalore & Anr.,
4. 2013(2) AKR 298: Oriental Ins.,Co.Ltd., Hubli Vs., Bannemma & Ors.,
5. 2012 AIR SCW 3105: Munna Lal Jain & Anr., Vipin Kumar Sharama & Ors.,
6. 2013 ACJ 1403: Rajesh & Ors., Vs., Rajbir Singh & Ors., I have gone through the above rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Does not survive.
Issue No.3 : In affirmative, for Rs.13,76,000/-
From the respondent No.3.
Issue No.4 : As per final order :
for the following:SCCH-14 7 MVC NO.3957/2014
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.2: Since, this issue goes to the root of the case, I have taken it first for discussion. The respondent No.3 has contended that the petitioner has filed similar claim petition on the same cause of action against the respondents in MVC No.2394/2012 on the file of SCCH-5 and this petition is not maintainable. Both the parties have not adduced any evidence regarding pendency of the said petition. CIS entries reveal that the said petition was dismissed as not pressed on 31.03.2016. In view of dismissal of said petition, the issue on hand does not survive for consideration. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
9. ISSUE NO.1: The respondent no.1 is the owner, the respondent no.2 is policy holder and the respondent no.3 is the insurer of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907. The respondent no.1 remained exparte. The respondent no.2 has not filed his written statement, but the respondent no.3 has contested the matter. He has denied the averments of the petition as false, but he has impliedly admitted the occurrence of the accident and involvement of the insured vehicle therein. He has specifically contended that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing no.KA-52-4697 by the deceased himself.
10. PW-1:Smt.Najeemunnisa is the petitioner. She is the mother of the deceased. She has reiterated entire averments of the petition. She has stated that her son died due to the injuries SCCH-14 8 MVC NO.3957/2014 sustained by him in the accident which has occurred due to negligent parking of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 on the road. She is not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, her evidence as to manner of accident is inadmissible, but her evidence as to death of her son due to injuries sustained by him in the accident is believable. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from her in cross examination.
11. The petitioner has examined PW-2: Athiq @ Mahaboob Pasha and produced copies of police records to corroborate her own oral evidence. The copies of police records and translated copies of same are at Ex.P-1 to 7. PW-2: Athiq @ Mahaboob Pasha has stated that lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 was parked on the middle of the road in the place of accident and the accident has occurred due to negligent parking of said lorry. He has denied the suggestion that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the deceased. Such denial is not sufficient to disbelieve his evidence.
12. On perusal of police records at Ex.P-1 to 7, it reveals that Kaveripakkam police have registered FIR No.738/11 against the driver of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 on the basis of information given by the brother-in-law of the deceased by name Mohammed Habib, investigated the matter and filed abated charge sheet against the deceased. The charge sheet is prima facie evidence as to negligence of the deceased for the occurrence of accident, but it SCCH-14 9 MVC NO.3957/2014 is not a conclusive proof of the same. The Court has to decide the negligence aspect on the basis of evidence produced before it.
13. P.M.Certificate and Inquest panchanama at Ex.P-2 and 4 confirm the death of Mohammed Jabarullah due to injuries caused to him in road accident. There was no delay in lodging complaint. Specific allegation is made against the driver of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 in FIR and complaint. IMV report reveals that both the vehicles were damaged. Such damages reveal the involvement of said lorries in the accident. Brake system of the vehicles was in order. It is opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defects of the vehicles. The driver of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 is the best witness to speak about the accident and precautionary measures taken by him. The respondent no.3 has not examined the said driver. The sketch is at Ex.P-5 and it creates doubt as to correctness of the investigation done by the police. Evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of PM Certificate and inquest report at Ex.P-2 and 4 confirm the death of Mohammed Jabarullah due to accidental injuries.
14. RW-1:Shobha is the officer of the respondent no.3 and she has deposed as per the defence of the respondent no.3. But, she is not an eye witness to the accident and hence, her evidence is inadmissible and unbelievable as to manner of accident. The counsel for the respondent no.3 has argued that PW-2 is a tutored witness, that the complainant and the petitioner have not seen the accident, that charge sheet filed by the police discloses that the SCCH-14 10 MVC NO.3957/2014 deceased was negligent and responsible for the occurrence of the accident. Hence, he has sought for holding the deceased as negligent. But, on careful perusal of the sketch, it discloses that the accident has occurred on the middle of the road. It was a 4 lane road with median at the centre. The lorry of the deceased was proceeding towards east i.e., towards Chennai and lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 was parked at the centre of the road leading towards Chennai. There is no evidence that the driver of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 had taken precautionary measures by switching on the indicators or by putting reflectors. It is evident from the police records that tyre of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 was burst and it was parked on the road. The accident has occurred at about 2.45 a.m., No road user can expect the parking of lorry in the said place unless there was an indicator or signal or reflector. The respondent no.3 has not examined any eye witness to the accident to prove that the driver of insured lorry had taken precautionary measures when the lorry was parked in the place of accident. There is no direct evidence as to negligent driving of the lorry by the deceased. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed against the deceased. Evidence of PW-2 proves the negligence of the driver of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907. He withstood the cross examination. There is nothing on record to believe that he is a tutored witness. His presence in the place of accident is disputed by the respondent No.3, but contents of FIR confirm his presence in the place of accident. Evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P-1 to 7 establish the case of the petitioner. It is held by Hon'ble Courts as under:
SCCH-14 11 MVC NO.3957/20141. 2007 (1) TAC 795(SC) :
Motor vehicle Act, 1988, Section 168and 173 - Quantum of compensation - appeal against - deceased aged 33 years-
claimants claimed that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/- pm., by driving taxi and had also agricultural earning- deceased while driving vehicle dashed with truck parked on road in violation of traffic rules- deceased sustained grievous injuries and died after two days-Tribunal dismissed claim petition on ground that accident took place due to negligence of deceased- on appeal high court found vehicle parked in running condition without any indicator- high court in absence of material took earning at Rs.4,000/- pm., applied multiplier of 17 and awarded Rs.8,16,000/- as compensation -contention that high court erroneously fixed income of deceased and in any case multiplier of 17 is high-held, considering age deceased appropriate multiplier would be 13 - monthly contribution of family fixed Rs.3,000/-
pm., i.e., Rs.36,000/- pa., Compensation worked out at Rs.4,68,000/- with interest at 6% pa., from date of claim petition till actual payment".
2. ILR 2002 KAR 893:
"Motor vehicle Act, 1988(Central Act No.59 of 1988) Sections 122, 166 and 168- accident occurred about one hour after midnight when a motor cycle driven by the deceased crashed into an unattended lorry parked without any sign or indication to warn the other road users and in this accident both the motor cycle driver and pillion rider died. Tribunal apportioned negligence equally between the driver of the motor cycle and the driver of the lorry.SCCH-14 12 MVC NO.3957/2014
In appeal High court held that the negligence could be attributed only to the driver of the lorry in view of the provision of Section 122 of the Act".
3. ILR 2014 KAR 2558:
" In the instant case, admittedly the vehicle was parked on the national highway without any sign or indicator warning the other road users The claimant could not sight the lorry parked on the highway as there was snow fall at the relevant paint of time Had the driver of the lorry parked the vehicle with an indicator, the claimant could have sighted the lorry and avoided the accident It was only on account of the negligence of the driver of the parked lorry, the accident had occurred The insurer has neither pleaded nor let in any evidence in order to show that the rider of the motor cycle was also blame worthy or that he has not taken reasonable care to avoid the accident. Therefore, it is held the driver of the offending lorry alone is responsible for the accident -compensation is enhanced".
4. 2013(2) AKR 298:
"Motor vehicle Act (59 of 1988), Sec.166- contributory negligence -Accident caused due to collision of motor cycle and stationary lorry- motor cycle rider was proceeding in same direction in which lorry was parked at night- said lorry not displaying parking light or hazard light which was mandatory under rules-Driver of lorry had not adhered to mandatory provisions and had left vehicle abandoned with out warning-Said act on part of driver of lorry was act of negligence attracting provision of Se.279, penal code even though lorry was stationary - Thus, no negligence proved in driving of motor SCCH-14 13 MVC NO.3957/2014 cycle rider and culpable negligence fastened on lorry driver"' The above rulings are aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, I hold that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of lorry bearing no.TNE-2907 in which Mohammed Jabarullah sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The respondent no.2 has failed to prove the sole or contributory negligence of the deceased for the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the petitioner has proved the issue and I answer the same in affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioner is claiming to be the mother of the deceased. Evidence of PW-1 and contents of Inquest report and voter ID at Ex.P-4 and 8 establish the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence in that regard. The deceased was unmarried. The petitioner is claiming to be aged about 48 years. Copy of voter ID reveals that the petitioner was born on 1.1.1966. It means, she was aged 45 years on the date of accident. But, copy of ration card at Ex.P-11 discloses the age of the petitioner as 48 years in 2008. It means, she was aged 51 years on the date of accident. She was not having another son. Her two daughters are married and the other unmarried daughter resides with her. Looking to her age, it can be said that she was depending upon the deceased who was a bachelor. There is nothing on record to disbelieve her evidence. The petitioner is the SCCH-14 14 MVC NO.3957/2014 LR and dependent of the deceased. Hence, she is entitled for compensation under all heads.
16. PW-1:Smt.Najeemunnisa has not stated about the age of the deceased. It is pleaded that the deceased was aged 30 years. Copy of driving licence of the deceased is at Ex.P-9 wherein the date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 29.3.1976. It means, the deceased was aged 35 years on the date of accident. B Register extract, copy of Form No.20, copy of temporary RC, copy of sale certificate at Ex.P-9, 12 to 14 disclose that the deceased was the owner of lorry bearing no.KA-52-4697 and it is now transferred in the name of the petitioner. The driving licence at Ex.P-9 discloses that the deceased was holding a licence to drive a transport vehicle. Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 35 years and was an owner cum driver by profession. Appropriate multiplier for his age is 16.
17. Bank statement is produced by the petitioner to prove the income of the deceased. The counsel for the respondent no.3 has argued that there is no name of the person who deposited the amount and there are no details of the amount credited to the account. It is to be noted that the bank statement is of the period prior to accident. There are several credit entries in the account. The said deposits indicate that the deceased was having sufficient income. He was owning a lorry. Obviously, he was having handsome income. Secondly, he was a driver by profession. Hence, he could have saved more amount than a driver or an owner. All SCCH-14 15 MVC NO.3957/2014 the amounts credited in the account can not be the income. There may be some expenses towards maintenance of the lorry. Hence, I am inclined to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.9,000/- p.m., His annual income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. He was aged 35 years as on the date of accident. The counsel for the respondent no.2 has argued that since, question regarding future prospects is referred to larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court and the deceased was not a permanent employee, but was a driver, future prospects shall not be considered. But, it is to be noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munnalal Jain case has held that future prospects shall be considered. Our Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in ILR 2015 KAR 3793 (Smt.M.R.Sushma Vs N.Muniraja and Ors) as under;
A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173(1) Accident claim -Judgment and award-Appeal by the wife of deceased for encashment-Insurer's appeal challenging the quantum of compensation
-Addition of 50% towards future prospectus and also the multiplier to the adopted in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case, the deceased victim was below 40 years-
Multiplier to be adopted-Held, in the case of self employed or persons with fixed wages, in case the deceased victim was below 40 years, there must be an addition of 50% to the actual income of the deceased while computing compensation payable towards future prospectus and such actual income should be income after paying the tax, if any and addition should be 30% in case the deceased victim was in the group of 40 to 50 years.- The multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased and there is certainty with regard to the age of the deceased and not SCCH-14 16 MVC NO.3957/2014 with regard to the age of the dependents as there will always be room for dispute as to whether the age of the eldest or youngest or even the average, etc, is to be taken. - The tribunal is justified in taking addition of 50% towards future prospectus and adopting the multiplier of '16' considering the age of the deceased.
B) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Section 173 (1) accident claim-Judgment and award-Insurer's appeal challenging the quantum of compensation
- Grievance of the Insurance Company, the employer has paid premium towards group personal accident policy of insurance and the wife and parents of the deceased have received it. Claim for deduction in the total compensation - Non production of any evidence by the insurer-Re- Appreciation of evidence on record-Held, The insurer is not sure as to whether the dependents of the deceased have received the sum paid by the employer of the deceased towards group personal accident policy of insurance and there is no pleading in their objection statement and there is no documentary evidence produced by the insurer in support of its claim for deduction. - The insurer has utterly failed to substantiate its prayer for deduction of Rs.12,00 lakhs from out of the total compensation payable to claimants compensation enhanced.
The said rulings are applicable to this case. Future prospects shall have to be considered. The deceased was aged 35 years. Hence, 50% amount shall be added towards future prospects. After such addition, gross income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,62,000/- p.a., Since, he was a bachelor, 50% amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. On such deduction, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.81,000/- p.a., SCCH-14 17 MVC NO.3957/2014 The petitioner has lost her dependency. She has lost love and affection and estate of the deceased. She has spent amount for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There is no positive evidence regarding such expenses. Loss of dependency of the petitioner would be Rs.81,000X16= Rs.12,96,000/-. The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.12,96,000/- 2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000/- 3 Loss of Estate Rs. 25,000/-
4 Transportation of dead Rs. 30,000/-
body and funeral
expenses
TOTAL Rs.13,76,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% pa, from the date of petition till the date of payment.
18. The respondents are the owner, policy holder and insurer of lorry bearing TNE-2907. The accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of said lorry bearing No.TNE-2907. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as stated above. It is an admitted fact that the policy was in force on the date of accident. There is no evidence to believe that the respondent No.1 SCCH-14 18 MVC NO.3957/2014 and 2 have committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy.
Hence, the respondent No.3 is liable to deposit the amount before the court. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
19. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.5,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner shall be deposited in her in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance and interest of the petitioner shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.SCCH-14 19 MVC NO.3957/2014
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 12th day of JULY 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE & MACT, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.SCCH-14 20 MVC NO.3957/2014
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Smt.Najemhunnisa
PW.2 Athiq @ Mahaboob Pasha
Respondent' s
RW-1 Shobha U.A
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P1(a) - Translation of Ex.P1.
E.xP2 - Copy of PM Certificate
Ex.P3 - Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P3(a) - Translation of Ex.P3
Ex.P4 - Copy of Inquest Panchanama
Ex.P4(a) - Translation of Ex.P4
Ex.P5 - Copy of Sketch
Ex.P5(a) - Translation of Ex.P5
Ex.P6 - Copy of IMV reports (2 in nos)
Ex.P7 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P7(a) - Translation of Ex.P7
Ex.P8 - Copy of Voter ID
Ex.P9 - Copy of Driving Licence of deceased
Ex.P10 - B Register extract of MGV no. KA-52-4697
Ex.P11 - Copy of Ration Card
Ex.P12 - Copy of Form no-20
Ex.P13 - Copy of Temporary Registration Certificate
Ex.P14 - Copy of Sales Certificate
Ex.P15 - Bank Statement
Ex.P16 -copy of driving licence
Respondent's
Ex.R1 - Copy of policy
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 21 MVC NO.3957/2014
Dt.12.07.2016
P-PR
R1-Exparte
R2 -VDG
R3-HNK
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.5,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner shall be deposited in her in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance and interest of the petitioner shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 22 MVC NO.3957/2014
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.3957/2014 Petitioner/s : SMT. NAJEMHUNNISA W/o. Mohammad Inayuthulla, Aged about 48 years, R/a No.70, 20th cross, B.T.B. Area, Tilak nagar, Jayanangar, Bangalore-560011.
V/s (By pleader Sri PR)
Respondent/s 1. B.RAGHURAM
S/o.M.Balaraman
R/at.No.1/78,
Mettu Street,
Kaniyambadi, Vellore Dist.,
Tamilnadu.
(Exparte)
2. PANEER SELVAM
R/at. Naikoor village,
Naikanoor post,
via Alangayam,
Vellore District.,
Tamilnadu.
(By pleader, Sri. VDG)
3. SHRIRAM GENERAL INS.CO.LTD.,
No. 302, 3rd floor,
S.S. Corner Building,
Opp: Bowring and Lady
Cruzan Hospital,
Shivajinagar,
Bangalore-560001.
(By pleader, Sri. HNK)
SCCH-14 23 MVC NO.3957/2014
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the
petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a
motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.SCCH-14 24 MVC NO.3957/2014
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.5,00,000/- out of the share of the petitioner shall be deposited in her in any nationalized, scheduled or cooperative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance and interest of the petitioner shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.SCCH-14 25 MVC NO.3957/2014
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 26 MVC NO.3957/2014
SCCH-14 27 MVC NO.3957/2014