Bangalore District Court
) Smt.Jyothi vs Smt.Kannamma on 28 April, 2015
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF APRIL'2015
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L., LL.B,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C Nos. 2313/2013, 3452/2013, 4465/2013 and 4466/2013
Petitioners 1) Smt.Jyothi,
(In M.V.C. Wife of late Ganesh,
No.2313/2013) Aged about 28 years,
2) Master Dilip Kumar,
Son of late Ganesh,
Aged about 12 years,
3) Kum.Divya,
Daughter of late Ganesh,
Aged about 10 years,
Nos.2 and 3 are minors,
Represented by their mother and
natural guardian ie., petitioner No.1
Smt.Jyothi,
All are residing at No.73,
Kaveri Road,
Chikkabasavanapura, Virgonagar
Post,Bangalore 560 049.
(By Sri V.Eshwar,Advocate)
Petitioner PERIYASWAMY,
( in M.V.C. Son of Gopal,
No.3452/2013) Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.67,
Swatantranagar,
Virgonagar Post,
Bangalore 560 049.
(By Sri V.Eshwar, Advocate)
2
Petitioner Ravi,
( in M.V.C. S/o.Raju,
No.4465/2013) Swatantranagara,
4th Cross, Chikkabasavanapura,
Bengaluru 560 049.
(By Sri Vivekananda D., Advocate)
Petitioner KRISHNA,
( in M.V.C. S/o.Late Ramaswamy,
No.4466/2013) Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.11,
Chikkabasavanapura,
Bengalore South,
Bengaluru 560 049.
(By Sri D.Vivekananda, Advocate)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1. Smt.Kannamma,
(in MVC Wife of Kandaswamy,
No.2313/2013) No.97, Kaveri Road,
Chikkabasavanapura,
Virgonagar Post,
Bangalore 560 049.
(RC Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.MH.09/L.1340)
(Sri Srikanth B.G., Advocate)
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,
Branch Office:Shanthi Towers,
4th Floor, III Main, East NGEF
Layout,
Kasturinagar, Bangalore 560 043.
Policy # 1-1W15540,
P400 Policy# 82782420,
Date of Issue 29.01.2013
Date of Issue : 29.01.2013
Date of Expiry 27.01.2014.
3
(By Sri K.Prakash, Advocate)
Respondents: 1. Smt.Kannamma,
(in MVC Wife of Kandaswamy,
No.3452/2013) Aged Major,
Kaveri Road,
Chikkabasavanapura,
Virgonagar Post,
Bangalore 560 049.
(Owner of Lorry bearing
Reg.No.MH.09/L.1340)
(Exparte)
2. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,
Manager,
Branch Office:Shanthi Towers,
4th Floor, III Main, East NGEF
Layout,
Kasturinagar, Bangalore 560 043.
Policy 1-1W15540,
P400 Policy# 82782420,
(By Sri K.Prakash, Advocate)
Common 1. Smt.Kannamma,
Respondents: W/o.Kandaswamy,
(in MVC No.4465 & Major in age,
4466/2013) R/at # 97, Kaveri Road,
Chikkabasavanapura,
Krishnarajapuram,
Bengaluru.
(Owner of the TATA TIPPER Heavy
Goods Vehicle bearing
Reg.No.MH.09/L.1340)
(Rep. by Sri Srikanth B.G., Advocate)
3. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED,
# 141, Prashanth Towers,
Branch Office:Shanthi Towers,
4
4th Floor, III Main, East NGEF
Layout,
Kasturinagar, Bangalore-43.
(Insurer of the TATA TIPPER Heavy
Goods Vehicle bearing
Reg.No.MH.09/L.1340)
Policy 1-1W15540 P400-82782420,
Valid from 28.01.2013 to
27.01.2014.
(By Sri K.Prakash, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
MVC No.2313/2013 has been filed by the petitioners seeking compensation
of Rs.25 lakhs for the death of Ganesh, MVC No.3452/2013 has been filed by the
petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained, MVC
No.4465/2013 and MVC No.4466/2013 has been filed by the respective petitioner
claiming compensation of Rs.15 lakhs each for the injuries suffered by them in the
accident that occurred on 28.01.2013 at about 05.00 am., Ravi Crusher,
Chakarasanahalli Gate, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk.
2. Since all these petitions are arising out of the same accident and therefore,
they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. It is the case of the petitioners in all the cases that:- Deceased Ganesh in
MVC No.2313/2013 with petitioners in MVC No.3454/2013, 4465/2013 and
4466/2013 were traveling in lorry bearing registration No.MH.09/L.1340 as
coolies from Danahalli to Bangalore on 28.01.2013. At about 5.00 am., when the
said vehicle reached near Ravi Crusher, Chakarasanahalli Gate, Narasapura Hobli,
Kolar District, the driver of the said lorry having driven the same in rash and
negligent manner, so as to endanger human life and safety of others, suddenly
5
applied brakes, due to which, the said vehicle turtled and in the accident deceased
Ganesh and petitioners in other petitions suffered grievous injuries.
4. Injured Ganesh in MVC No.2313/2013 was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Kolar wherein the doctors, after examining. declared Ganesh as brought dead and
conducted postmortem.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners in MVC No.2313/2013 shifted the body to their
place and performed funeral and obsequies and incurred morethan Rs.50,000/-.
6. It is contended by the petitioners in MVC No.2313/2013, that the deceased
Ganesh, prior to accident, was working as coolie and getting monthly income of
Rs.5,000/- and the petitioners, being the wife and children of the deceased, were
fully dependant on the income of the deceased and on account of the untimely
death of the deceased, they suffered not only a bread earner, but also suffered
immense hardship. With the death of Ganesh, their life has become dark and
miserable. Hence, they claim compensation of Rs.25 lakhs from the respondent
No.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the lorry.
7. The petitioner in MVC No.3452/2013 contends that he was aged 47 years
and working as coolie and earning Rs.5000/- per month. In the accident, he
suffered multiple injuries which resulted in permanent disability. He spent huge
amount for treatment. He has suffered not only loss of income during the period
of treatment, but also suffered future earning capacity. Therefore, he claimed
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
8. The petitioner in MVC No.4465/2013 contends that he was aged 33 years
and working as coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In the accident, he
suffered multiple injuries which resulted in permanent disability. He spent huge
amount for treatment. He has suffered not only loss of income during the period
6
of treatment, but also suffered future earning capacity. Therefore, he claimed
compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.
9. The petitioner in MVC No.4466/2013 contends that he was aged 50 years
and working as coolie and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In the accident, he
suffered multiple injuries which resulted in permanent disability. He spent huge
amount for treatment. He has suffered not only loss of income during the period
of treatment, but also suffered future earning capacity. Therefore, he claimed
compensation of Rs.15 lakhs.
10. It is contended by all the petitioners in the petition that the accident has
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.MH.09/L.1340 by its
driver. It is also contended that the first respondent is the owner of the offending
lorry and the same was insured with the second respondent.
11. Pursuant to filing of the petition, notice was issued to both the respondents.
The respondent No.1 and 2 in MVC No.2313/2013 appeared through their counsel
and filed their separate statement of objections. In MVC No.3452/2013,
4465/2013 and 4466/2013, the respondent No.2 appeared and filed statement of
objections and the respondent No.1 remained absent and hence, she has been
placed exparte.
12. In MVC No.2313/2013, the respondent No.1 filed statement of objections,
contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The
respondent No.1 denies the age of the deceased and also the relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased Ganesh. The respondent No.1 has disputed the
manner in which the accident has occurred and other hand, it is contended that the
driver of the lorry was driving the same in a careful manner and since there was a
pothole of considerable height on the road, in the dim light at early hours of
25.01.2013, when the driver tried to negotiate the same, the incident occurred and
7
in fact, injured Ravi was seated in the cabin and not in the body of the lorry as
claimed. It is contended that the lorry was duly insured with the respondent No.2
vide policy No.072581/31/13/02/00015186 and in case of any liability, the same
be saddled on the respondent No.2.
13. It is contended that the compensation amount as well as the expenses
incurred as claimed in the petition is exorbitant. It is contended that the driver of
the lorry had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Apart
from that, the respondent No.1 has denied the averments in 1 to 6, 8 to 19 and 21
and denied that the deceased died in the allege accident and it is also denied that
the accident occurred as alleged in the petition. So also it is denied that the
petitioners spent Rs.50,000/- towards cremation and that the deceased was aged 36
years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The amount of compensation claimed is
highly exaggerated and hence, the respondent No.1 prays the Tribunal to reject the
petition.
14. The respondent No.2 filed objection statement in all the petitions, which is
common, which is summarized as under:-
15. It is admitted that the respondent No.2 has issued an Insurance Policy
bearing No.82782420 against the lorry No.MH.09/L.1340 valid from 28.01.2013
to 27.01.2014, however, it is contended that the liability is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy and compliance of Section 64VB f the Insurance Act.
16. It is contended that the petitioners in these petitions have not come forward
with clean hands and the facts have been twisted to suit their purpose. It is denied
that the accident has occurred in the manner as alleged in the petition. It is
contended that the respondent No.1 knowing fully entrusted the vehicle said
vehicle to a driver, who had no valid and effective driving licence. It is contended
that as per Section 134(c) of the MV Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of
8
insured/respondent No.1 to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place
of accident, particulars of injured and the name of the driver to the respondent
No.2 and the respondent No.1 has not complied with the same. It is contended
that as per Section 158(6) of MV Act, it is mandatory duty of Police concerned to
forward all the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from
the date of accident, which is also not complied with.
17. In MVC No.3452/2013, 4465/2013 and 4466/2013, the respondent No.2
has prayed the Court to permit to defend the case on behalf of respondent No.1
also.
18. In MVC No.2313/2013, the respondent No.2 has denied the relationship of
the petitioner with the deceased, so also the age, avocation, income of the
deceased and also the amount spent for funeral expenses and also contended that
the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless.
19. In MVC No.3452/2013, 4465/2013 and 4466/2013, the respondent No.2
has contended that the petitioners have not sustained the injuries as claimed in
their respective petitions and also denied the amount spent for treatment, period of
treatment, loss of income during treatment, disability said to have been suffered,
age, avocation and income of the petitioners is also denied. Amount of
compensation claimed by petitioners in these petitions is highly disproportionate
to the nature of injuries suffered by petitioners. Hence, the respondent No.2 has
prayed the Court to dismiss the petitions.
20. It is specifically contended in all the petitions that the deceased Ganesh in
MVC No.2313/2013 as well as petitioners in other petitions were traveling as
gratuitous passengers in the insured lorry and they were not covered under the
policy and hence, the petition as against the respondent No.2 deserves to be
dismissed.
9
21. The above pleadings gave rise to framing of the following issue:-
M.V.C. 2313/2013:-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased succumbed to injuries in
a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 28.02.2013 at about 05.00
a.m. near Ravi Crusher, Chakarasanahalli Gate, Narasapura Hobli,
Kolar Taluk and District, within the jurisdiction of Vemgal Police
Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing
registration No.MH.09/L.1340 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so how much and
from whom?
3. What order?
M.V.C. No.3452/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 28.01.2013, at about
12.30 pm., when the petitioner after loading the stones in Tipper lorry
bearing No.MH.09/L.1340 driven by its driver near Ravi Crusher,
Chakarasanahalli Gate, Narasapura Hobli, NH 4 Road the driver of the
said lorry unable to control the lorry as a result of which the said lorry
turned turtle, as result of which, the petitioner was thrown out of the
vehicle and sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what
amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
M.V.C.No.4465/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he met with an RTA that occurred on
02.01.2013 at about 12.30 pm., near Ravi Crusher, Chakarasanahalli
Gate, Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and the petitioner sustained
injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the TATA Tipper heavy
goods bearing No.MH.09/L.1340?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so how
much and from whom?
3. What order?
10
M.V.C.No.4466/2013:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he met with an RTA that occurred on
02.01.2013 at about 12.30 pm., near Ravi Crusher, Chakarasanahalli Gate,
Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and the petitioner sustained injuries due to
rash and negligent driving of the TATA Tipper heavy goods bearing
No.MH.09/L.1340?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so how
much and from whom?
3. What order?
22. After framing of the issues, the petitioners in order to prove their case, the
petitioner No.1 in MVC No.2313/2013 has been examined as PW 1 and through
her evidence, Exhibits P.1 to P.13 are marked. On behalf of the respondents, two
witnesses are examined as RW 1 and 2 and 4 documents came to be marked as
Ex.R.1 to R.4.
23. The petitioner in MVC No.3452/2013 has been examined as PW 1, the
doctor who treated petitioner in MVC No.3452/2013 has been examined as PW 2.
As many as 8 documents came to be marked on behalf of the petitioners as Ex.P.1
to P.8. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Assistant Executive, Legal working in
the office of the 2nd respondent has been examined as RW 1 and 2 documents
came to be marked on behalf of the respondent No.2.
24. In MVC No.4465/2013 and 4466/2013, common evidence has been
led. The petitioner in MVC No.4466/2013 has been examined as PW 1 and the
petitioner in MVC No.4465/2013 has been examined as PW 2. In all, 12
documents have been marked as Ex.P.1 to P.12. On behalf of the respondent
No.2, one witness has been examined as RW 1 and Exhibits R.1 and R.2 are
marked.
11
25. After closure of evidence, I have heard the arguments of the
petitioners' counsel and also that of the counsel for respondents. The counsel for
the respondent No.2 has also filed written arguments.
26. The counsel for the petitioner/s has relied on the following citations:-
1) ILR 2014 KAR 191
2) MFA No.10009/2013 c/w 10010, 10011 & 10012/13
3) MFa No. 6621/2006 c/w CROB 304/2006
4) ACJ 1992 148
27. I have gone through the principles laiddonw in the above judgments.
28. My common findings on the above issues are as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) Partly in the affirmative,
3) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
29. Issue No.1 in all the cases:- Since all these claim petitions are arising
out of the same accident and issue No.1 in all the petitions is regarding the
negligence of the driver of the lorry, they are taken up together for discussion.
30. It is the common case of the petitioners in all the petitions that the
accident and the resultant death of Ganesha in MVC No.2313/2013 and injuries to
the petitioners in MVC No.3452/2013, 4465/2013 and 4466/2013 are due to rash
and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH.09/L.1340 by its driver. They
have contended in their respective petition that on 28.01.2013, deceased Ganesh
and the injured Periyaswamy, Ravi and Krishna were proceeding in the lorry
bearing No.MH.09/L.1340 as coolies. When the vehicle reached near Ravi
12
Crusher, Chakarasanahalli Gate, NH-4, Kolar Taluk, at that time, the driver of the
said lorry driven the same in rash and negligent manner and as a result, it turtled
and in the accident, Ganesh, Periyaswamy, Ravi and Krishna suffered injuries and
Ganesh succumbed to the injuries and thus, they all attribute negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry for the accident and also for the death of Ganesh and
injuries to other petitioners.
31. In order to substantiate their case, the first petitioner in MVC
No.2313/2013 has been examined as PW 1. In her evidence, the police documents
such as FIR, Charge Sheet, Spot Mahazar, Spot Sketch and IMV Report as Ex.P.3,
P.4, P.5, P.6, P.7 and P.8 respectively. However, she is not an eye witness to the
accident as is evident from their affidavit, filed in the form of examination in
chief.
32. However, the petitioner in MVC No.3452/2013 has been examined as
PW 1, so also petitioners in MVC No.4466/2013 and 4465/2013 have been
examined as PW 1 and 2, who are the eyewitness to the accident and suffered
grievous injuries in the accident and in their evidence, attributed actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry for the accident. They have
deposed to the fact that they were traveling in the lorry on the fateful day of
accident and the same was driven by its driver rashly and negligently and when the
lorry came near Ravi Crusher, Chakarasanahalli Gate, NH 4, Kolar Taluk, due to
which the accident occurred and in the accident all of them suffered grievous
injuries and out of them, Ganesh, succumbed to the same.
33. In the chief examination of PW 1 in MVC No.3452/2013, FIR,
Complaint have been marked as Ex.P.1 and P.2. So also, in the evidence of PW 1
in MVC No.4466/2013 and 4465/2013, FIR Chargesheet, Spot Mahazar, Spot
13
Sketch and IMV Report have been examined as Ex.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.4 and P.6
respectively.
34. The petitioner in MVC No.3452/2013 has been cross-examined by the
counsel for the respondent No.2. In his cross-examination, it is elicited from him
that he was working in the lorry that met with the accident. He says that he does
not know the name of the owner of the lorry and he further says that he does not
know as to whom the stone loaded in the lorry belonged to, he says that including
him, there were 5 members in the stone loaded in the lorry. He says that he did
not see as to how much persons were in the cabin of the lorry. He says that on the
date of accident, along with him, Ravi, Krishna, Yelumalai, Dinesh were also
there.
35. The petitioner in MVC No.4466/2013 has been cross-examined by the
counsel for respondent No.2. He says that 5 persons were going in the lorry and 3
more persons were seated in the cabin. He further says that himself, Ravi,
Yelumalai, Periyaswamy and Ganesh were seated in the lorry. He further says
that the lorry was loaded with stones. He admits that he used to do the work of
making the size stones and people belong to the lorry load the size stones. He says
that the persons who were engaged for loading, were used to unload the size
stones. He admits that after quarry work, he was returning in the same lorry, in
which he went in the morning. It is suggested to him that he was traveling as a
gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle and the said suggestion has been denied
by him.
36. The petitioner in MVC No.4465/2013 has been cross examined by the
counsel for the respondent No.2. He says that he was going to quarry work at
Narasapura on the date of accident in the lorry and there were persons ie., himself,
Ganesha, Periaswamy, Krishna Ravi and Yelumalai. He says that the lorry was
14
loaded with stones and that they were all seated on stones. He says that he does
not know the name of the driver of the lorry. He says that he does not know the
name of the owner of the lorry. It is suggested to him that he was traveling as
passenger in the said lorry and not had been to the work of making size stones and
the said suggestion has been denied by him.
37. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary evidence available
before the Court.
Though the respondent No.1 and 2 in MVC No.2313/2013 and respondent
No.2 in MVC No.3452/2013, 4465/2013 and 4466/2013 have filed statement of
objections, denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and even
the respondent No.1 in MVC No.2313/2013 has contended that there was a large
pothole on the road and since it was 5.00 am., in the early morning, due to
invisibility, the driver having noticed the pothole, applied brake, which resulted in
the accident, however, the respondent No.1 and 2 have not examined the driver of
the lorry, to disprove the negligence attributed by the petitioners to the driver of
the lorry for the occurrence of the accident. At this juncture, it can be said that
this is a case of 'Res ipsa loquitor' that means, the facts of the case speaks for
themselves, in as much as, as on the date of accident, the lorry in question, with
stone load, when proceeding near Ravi Crusher, Chakarasanahalli Gate,
Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk, due to sudden application of brake, turtled on
account of which, the person who were seated on the load, caught beneath the load
and suffered injuries and out of them, Ganesh, succumbed to the same. This is
clear from the evidence of the witnesses as well as the police documents such as
FIR, Charge Sheet, Spot Mahazar, Spot Sketch and IMV Report, which are
marked in the evidence of witnesses as Ex.P.3, P.4, P.5, P.6 and Ex.P.8. At this
juncture, it is important to note that all the witnesses who have been examined on
behalf of the petitioners reiterated the averments of the petition that the accident
15
has occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and
though these witnesses are cross-examined, nothing worth has been elicited from
them to discard their evidence. As stated above, if the accident has not occurred in
the manner as stated by petitioners who suffered injuries, then the respondents
could have examined the driver of the lorry, who would be the best person to
explain as to how exactly the accident occurred, but the respondents have failed to
do so. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in all the cases in the affirmative.
38. Issue No.2 in MVC No.2313/2013:- The petitioners in MVC
No.2313/2013 are the wife and children of the deceased Ganesh, who died on
account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
39. The respondents No.1 and 2 have disputed the relationship of the
petitioners with the deceased. In this regard, the petitioners have produced
Ex.P.13 - Ration Card of the family of the deceased, which discloses that the
deceased being the head of the family, the petitioners in this case are the wife and
children of the deceased. Thus, for the purpose of this case, it can be said that the
petitioners are the wife and children of deceased.
40. In a case of death, in order to arrive at the compensation to be awarded
to the petitioners, the age, avocation, income and the number of dependants, plays
vital role.
41. In the case on hand, it is pleaded by the petitioners who are the wife
and children of the deceased Ganesh contends that, Ganesh was aged 36 years at
the time of accident and doing coolie work and earning Rs.5,000/- per month and
that he was the only earning member in the family and he was spending his entire
income for the maintenance of the family. The petitioner No.1 in MVC
16
2313/2013 has been examined as PW1, who in her evidence, reiterated the
averments of the petition.
42. So far as the age of the deceased is concerned, the petitioners have
produced the Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India, which is
marked as Ex.P.12 and if we go through the same, the age of the deceased as on
01.01.2002 is shown as 25 years. The accident in question has occurred on
28.01.2013, meaning thereby, he was running 36 years at the time of accident. In
the absence of any contra evidence, the age of the deceased at the time of his death
is taken as 36 years.
43. It is the contention of the petitioners that the deceased was working as
coolie and getting an income of Rs.5,000/- per month. Even in the evidence of
PW 1, the said fact is reiterated. But, the name of the employer under whom he
was working is not disclosed. In the cross-examination of PW 1, it is admitted
that her husband was going to work everyday for loading and unloading and it is
further elicited from her that son of one Kannamma used to take her husband for
loading and unloading and the said Kannamma is none other than the owner of the
vehicle in question, but in her statement of objections, she has denied that the
deceased was working with her son. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the
deceased being aged 36 years and having wife with two children, must have
earned some amount, if not by way of coolie work. The accident in question
occurred in the year 2013. Considering the cost of living in the year 2013, the
income stated to have been derived by deceased in that year at Rs.5,000/- as stated
by petitioners, cannot at all said to be on higher side. Accordingly, the income of
the deceased, as per the says of the petitioners, is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month.
44. Apart from that, in view of the principles liaddown in the judgment
reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh), the Apex Court held that
17
even if a person is self employed, loss of future prospects has to be taken into
consideration and hence, as the deceased was aged 36 years at the time of
accident, 50%, from out of his income of Rs.5,000/- has to be taken as loss of
future prospects, which works out to Rs.2,500/- and thus the total works out to
Rs.7500/-.
45. 1/3rd out of the total income of the deceased has to be deducted towards the
personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive, since he was married and having a
family of 3 members. If that be so, the monthly loss of dependency works out to
Rs.5,000/- and annually, it works out to Rs.60,000/-. The same has to be multiplied by
15 multiplier, having regard to the age of the deceased as 36 years and therefore, the total
loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,00,000/-.
46. The Apex Court, in the case reported in 2013 ACJ 5800 (Sanobanu
Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedbad Municipal Transport Service) and also in the
recent judgment reported in AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 706 (Puttamma Vs.
Narayana Reddy) awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members
(children and family members other than wife) for loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to
the widow of the deceased for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss
of consortium, deprivation of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/-
towards cost incurred on account of funeral and ritual expenses. In this case also,
since the deceased has left behind wife and children, I deem it proper to award
Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the family members (children and family
members other than wife) for loss of love and affection, deprivation of protection,
social security etc., and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the widow of the deceased
for loss of love and affection, pains and sufferings, loss of consortium, deprivation
of protection, social security etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards cost incurred on
account of funeral and ritual expenses.
18
47. Thus the petitioners are entitled to compensation as under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Loss of dependency 9,00,000.00
2. Compensation to the family members 1,00,000.00
(children and family members other
than wife) for loss of love and affection,
deprivation of protection, social
security
3. Compensation to the widow of the 50,000.00
deceased for loss of love and affection,
pains and sufferings, loss of
consortium, deprivation of protection,
social security etc.
4. Cost incurred on account of funeral and 10,000.00
ritual expenses,
Total 10,60,000.00
48. Issue No.1 in MVC No.3452/2013:- The petitioner has claimed a
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents. It is the case of the
petitioner that in the accident, he suffered grievous injuries. The petitioner has
been examined as PW 1 in the said case. In his evidence, he has reiterated the
petition averments. In support of his case, he has produced Ex.P.3 - Wound
Certificate and P.4 - Discharge Summary and 10 medical bills as per Ex.P.5 for
Rs.17,152/-. It is his case that at the time of accident, he was aged 47 years and
working as coolie and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.
49. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.3 Wound Certificate issued by MVJ
Medical College and Research Hospital, Hoskote, perusal of which shows that in
the accident, the petitioner has suffered (1) Pain and Swelling of Scalp present (2)
Abrasion over right below. The petitioner has also produced Discharge Summary
19
issued by NMPC Hospital, K.R.Pura, Bengaluru which s marked as Ex.P.4,
perusal of which shows that the petitioner was admitted to the said hospital on
28.01.2013 with the history of Type II Diabetes Mellitus and discharged on
01.02.2013. Even though the petitioner has examined PW 2 Dr.Y.S.Srinath, his
evidence is restricted to production of Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 and MLC Extract
Ex.P.8.
50. Except the Wound Certificate Ex.P.3 and Discharge Summary marked as
Ex.P.4, the petitioner has not produced any other document to show the gravity of
injuries suffered by him in the accident. Considering the same, I deem it just and
proper to award Rs.10,000/- under the head pain and suffering.
51. I have gone through the medical bills which are marked as Ex.P.5 for
Rs.17,152/- and found to be genuine. Accordingly, the petitioner has been
awarded Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, attendant and conveyance
expenses.
52. It has to be stated that the accident in question occurred in the year 2013.
Considering the cost of living in the year 2013, the income stated to have been
derived by deceased in that year at Rs.5,000/- as stated by petitioner, cannot at all
said to he on higher side. Accordingly, the income of the deceased, as per the says
of the petitioners, is taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. The petitioner having suffered
the above injuries, might not have attended to his work for a period of one month,
since he was inpatient for 5 days. Considering the same, I deem it just and proper
to award Rs.5,000/- under the head loss of income during the period of treatment.
53. Thus the petitioner is entitled to compensation as under:-
20
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Injury, pain and suffering Rs.10,000.00
2. Medical expenses, conveyance and Rs.20,000.00
other incidental expenses
3. Loss of income during the period of Rs. 5,000.00
treatment
Total Rs.35,000.00
54. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4465/2013:- The petitioner in MVC
No.4465/2013 has been examined as PW 2. His evidence would go to show that
he sustained injuries in the accident and immediately after the accident, he was
shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated as inpatient. The
petitioner has relied upon Ex.P.12 - Wound Certificate issued by MVJ Hospital,
Hoskote and on perusal of Ex.P.12 Wound Certificate, it can be seen that the
petitioner has suffered :-
1) A Lacerated wound over right leg (Ankel 10X3X1cms)
2) Pain in right foot present
From MVJ Hospital, the petitioner has been shifted to Bowring and Lady
Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.9 Discharge
Summary issued by the said Hospital, which shows that the petitioner has suffered
(1) Type II Open Fracture medial Malleolus (2) Anterior dislocation right shoulder
(3) Fracture lateral border of left scapula and (4) Closed fracture of base of 5th
metacarpal. He was treated in the said hospital as inpatient from 29.01.2013 to
11.02.2013. The petitioner inspite of suffering such injuries including fractures,
has not examined the doctor who treated him in the hospital.
55. Ex.P.9 - Discharge Summary issued by Bowring Hospital, Bangalore
shows that the petitioner was treated with wound debridement with 2 K wires
fixation - A/K POP to medial malleolus on 29.01.2013 and closed reduction of
21
right anterior shoulder dislocation and immobilization on 29.01.2013 and closed
reduction of right base of 5th metacarpal with gutter and he was discharged with
the advise not to bear weight, continue A/K PoP cast and continue gutter slab.
Apart from production of the above medical records, the petitioner has produced 9
prescriptions as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 Medical Bills for Rs.4,248/-.
56. Now, let met appreciate both oral and documentary evidence regarding the
nature of injuries and also with regard to the disability suffered by petitioner.
57. On perusal of the Wound Certificate Ex.P.12 issued by MVJ Hospital,
Hoskote, it shows that the petitioner has suffered simple injuries and thereafter, the
petitioner was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was diagnosed
to have suffered (1) Type II Open Fracture medial Malleolus (2) Anterior
dislocation right shoulder (3) Fracture lateral border of left scapula and (4) Closed
fracture of base of 5th metacarpal. As against the same, the respondent No.2 has
not placed on record any contra evidence, disputing or denying the injuries
suffered by petitioner in the accident as above. Therefore, having taken note of
the nature of injuries ie., (1) Type II Open Fracture medial Malleolus (2) Anterior
dislocation right shoulder (3) Fracture lateral border of left scapula and (4) Closed
fracture of base of 5th metacarpal., I am of the opinion that the petitioner is
entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head pain and suffering.
58. So far as medical expenses are concerned, as per Ex.P.11 Series, the
petitioner has produced as many as 16 medical bills amounting to Rs.4,248/- along
with 9 prescriptions. I have gone through the bills produced by the petitioner. As
per Ex.P.9 Discharge Summary, the petitioner was inpatient from 29.01.2013 to
11.02.2013. Considering the gravity of the injury and the period of treatment, the
amount shown in these bills cannot be doubted. As such, the petitioner has been
22
awarded Rs.10,000/- under the head medical expenses, attendant charges,
conveyance expenses and other incidental charges.
59. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the time of accident, he was aged 33
years and working as coolie and thereby earning Rs.20,000/- per day. Though the
petitioner has stated so both in the petition as well as in his evidence, but the same
is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. However, in the cross-
examination of petitioner is elicited that he was going to quarry work to
Narasapura on the date of accident in the lorry. Except the same, there is no
evidence on record to show that the petitioner is a coolie by profession and earning
Rs.20,000/- per month. However, considering the age of the petitioner as 31
years as shown in the medical records, I deem it just and proper to take the income
of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- per month.
60. As discussed above, the petitioner has suffered multiple fracture. He was
inpatient from 29.01.2013 to 11.02.2013. Thus, the petitioner has suffered loss of
income during the period of treatment at least for 3 months. Such being the case, I
award Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of income during the period of treatment.
61. The evidence of the petitioner coupled with the medical records would go
to show that he suffered multiple fracture and based on the injuries, the petitioner
contends that he has suffered disability, which rendered him incapable to earn his
livelihood in future. As far as injuries suffered by petitioner are concerned, the
contents of Discharge Summary Ex.P.9 reiterate the same. But that is not
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has suffered disability on
account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that regard, the petitioner
ought to have examined the doctor who treated him, but the petitioner failed to do
so. Under such circumstances, for want of expert's evidence with regard to the
nature of disability and extent of disability, I deem it just and proper to award
Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life.
23
62. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded compensation under various heads as
under:-
Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount
Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering 50,000.00
2. Medical expenses and other incidental 10,000.00
expenses
3. Loss of income during treatment 15,000.00
4. Loss of amenities in life 20,000.00
Total 95,000.00
Accordingly issue No.2 in MVC No. 4465/2013 is answered.
63. Issue No.2 in MVC No.4466/2013:- The petitioner in MVC
No.4466/2013 has been examined as PW 1. His evidence would go to show that
he sustained injuries in the accident and immediately after the accident, he was
shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and thereafter, he was shifted to Bowring
Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated as inpatient. The petitioner has relied
upon Ex.P.5 - Wound Certificate issued by R.L.Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and on
perusal of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, it can be seen that the petitioner has suffered
:-
1) Abrasion on right side of chest
2) Punctured wounds (3) on anterior aspect of left leg
3) CLW (6X2cms) on the lateral aspect of right thigh
4) Abrasion on the right maxillary area
5) Abnormal mobility, tenderness, crepitus, left distal 1/3rd of leg.
From R.L.Jalappa Hospital, the petitioner has been shifted to Bowring and
Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru. The petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 Discharge
Summary issued by the said Hospital, which shows that the petitioner has suffered
(1) Type II fracture both bones _ fibula (2) Fracture right leg + Iliac fracture left.
24
He was treated in the said hospital as inpatient from 29.01.2013 to 11.02.2013.
The petitioner inspite of suffering such injuries including fractures, has not
examined the doctor who treated him in the hospital.
64. Ex.P.7 - Discharge Summary issued by Bowring Hospital, Bangalore
shows that the petitioner was treated with primary wound debridement, primary
suturing and closed reduction with A/K cast and he was discharged with the advise
to continue immobilization on alternate day and dressing for right side. Apart
from production of the above medical records, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 -
13 Medical Bills for Rs.14,745/-.
65. Now, let met appreciate both oral and documentary evidence regarding the
nature of injuries and also with regard to the disability suffered by petitioner.
On perusal of the Wound Certificate Ex.P.5 issued by R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Kolar, it shows that the petitioner has suffered 5 injuries and thereafter, the
petitioner was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was diagnosed
to have suffered (1) Type II fracture both bones _ fibula (2) Fracture right leg +
Iliac fracture left. As against the same, the respondent No.2 has not placed on
record any contra evidence, disputing or denying the injuries suffered by petitioner
in the accident as above. Therefore, having taken note of the nature of injuries ie.,
(1) Type II fracture both bones _ fibula (2) Fracture right leg + Iliac fracture left, I
am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.30,000/-
under the head pain and suffering.
66. So far as medical expenses are concerned, as per Ex.P.8 Series, the
petitioner has produced as many as 13 medical bills amounting to Rs.14,745/-. I
have gone through the bills produced by the petitioner. As per Ex.P.7 Discharge
Summary, the petitioner was inpatient from 29.01.2013 to 11.02.2013.
Considering the gravity of the injury and the period of treatment, the amount
25
shown in these bills cannot be doubted. As such, the petitioner has been awarded
Rs.20,000/- under the head medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance
expenses and other incidental charges.
67. It is the case of petitioner that, at the time of accident, he was aged 50 years
and working as coolie and thereby earning Rs.20,000/- per day. Though the
petitioner has stated so both in the petition as well as in his evidence, but the same
is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. However, in the cross-
examination of petitioner is elicited that he was used to do the work of making the
size stones and people belong to the lorry load the size stones. Except the same,
there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner is a coolie by profession
and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. However, considering the age of the
petitioner as 50 years as shown in the medical records, I deem it just and proper to
take the income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- per month.
68. As discussed above, the petitioner has suffered multiple fracture. He was
inpatient from 29.01.2013 to 11.02.2013. Thus, the petitioner has suffered loss of
income during the period of treatment at least for 3 months. Such being the case, I
award Rs.15,000/- under the head loss of income during the period of treatment.
69. The evidence of the petitioner coupled with the medical records would go
to show that he suffered multiple fracture and based on the injuries, the petitioner
contends that he has suffered disability, which rendered him incapable to earn his
livelihood in future. As far as injuries suffered by petitioner are concerned, the
contents of Discharge Summary Ex.P.7 reiterate the same. But that is not
sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner has suffered disability on
account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that regard, the petitioner
ought to have examined the doctor who treated him, but the petitioner failed to do
so. Under such circumstances, for want of expert's evidence with regard to the
26
nature of disability and extent of disability, I deem it just and proper to award
Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of amenities in life.
70. Thus, the petitioner has been awarded compensation under various heads as
under:-
Sl.No. Head of compensation Amount
Rs.
1. Injury, pain and suffering 30,000.00
2. Medical expenses and other incidental 20,000.00
expenses
3. Loss of income during treatment 15,000.00
4. Loss of amenities in life 20,000.00
Total 85,000.00
Accordingly issue No.2 in MVC No. 4466/2013 is answered.
71. The respondent No.2, who is the Insurer, in all the cases, has admitted for
having issued an Insurance Policy in respect of the lorry bearing
No.MH.09/L.1340. However, it is the contention of the respondent No.2 that,
deceased Ganesh and the petitioners in other cases, were traveling in the vehicle as
gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and the policy issued by it in respect of
the said lorry, does not cover such gratuitous persons and hence, the respondent
No.2 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.1.
72. In this regard, one Sri Gireesha, working as Assistant Executive in the
office of the 2nd respondent, has been examined as RW 1 in all the cases, who has
reiterated the contentions of objection statement and further contended that
petitioners Krishna, Kumar, Periyaswamy and deceased Ganesha and others were
traveling as gratuitous passengers in the goods vehicle and they were not covered
under the said policy and the seating capacity of the said lorry was 3, but the
insured/driver was carrying persons morethan the seating capacity, that too he had
27
permitted the passengers to sit on the load by violating the law and terms and
conditions of the policy. It is further contended that the petitioners in these
petitions falsely claimed that they were traveling as coolie in the said lorry only to
claim compensation. It is further contended that the vehicle being, tipper, there
was no necessity of coolies to unload the stones and thus, it is the case of the
respondent No.2 that it is absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.2. It is
further contended by respondent No.2 and deposed by RW 1 that the lorry was not
having Fitness Certificate at the time of accident. RW 1 has got marked the
Insurance Policy copy as Ex.R.1.
73. RW 1 has been cross-examined by the counsel for petitioners. In his cross-
examiantion, he admits that as on the date of the accident, the policy was in force
and as per the policy, labour also included and liability as per the ECA Act. It is
suggested to him that in order to avoid the liability, he has filed a false affidavit
before the court and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
74. In MVC No.2313/2013, the GPA holder of respondent No.1-the owner of
the lorry, has been examined as RW 2. In his examination in chief, RW 2 states
that his mother Kannamma is the owner of the lorry No.MH.09/L.1340 and the
vehicle is having all necessary documents including insurance certificate. He has
further deposed that the driver of the vehicle was having valid licence and
experience in driving.
75. He has been cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioners. In his cross-
examination, he admits that he has not produced the FC before the Court. He says
that his brother was driving the lorry at the time of accident. He admits that in RC,
the seating capacity is shown as 3 and on the date of accident, there was no
cleaner. He admits that deceased and others who were proceeding the tipper
lorry were working in the quarry. He admits that they sell the size stones after
28
getting the customers while parking the vehicle in Bangalore and further admits
that the petitioners used to come to their residence after finishing the quarry work.
He admits that the loaders have to sit near the driver and not on the load. It is
suggested to him that they have violated the terms and conditions of the policy and
hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the said
suggestion has been denied by him. He admits that to load goods, man power is
required, but to unload, no such man power is required, since the vehicle being
tipper.
76. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed written arguments, reiterating
averments of the objection statement and apart from filing written arguments, he
has filed the following citations:-
1) 2008 ACJ 268 (National Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs. Cholleti Bharatamma and
others)
2) ILR 2003 KAR 3525 ( Ramashray Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co.,
Ltd., and others)
3) MANU/HP/0426/2011 ( Prakash Chand Vs. New India Assurance Co.,
Ltd., and others)
4) 2005(2) TAC 5(All) ( Chandresh Kumar Agarwal Vs. Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava and another)
5) MANU/KE/0577/2009 ( Thara Vs. Shyamala)
6) 2014 AIR SCW 5065 ( Narinder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd)
7) AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 2561 ( Ramachandra Vs. Regional
Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., and another)
77. By relying upon the above decisions, the counsel for the respondent No.2
contends that the Insurance Policy obtained by respondent No.1 is Third Party
Policy, for which the respondent No.1 has not paid additional premium to cover
the risk of coolies and even though as per the RC, seating capacity of the vehicle is
29
3 as per Ex.R.1- B Extract Registers, but these persons were traveling by sitting on
the load in the trolley and therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify
the respondent No.1.
78. In the background of the above contentions raised by petitioners,
respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, let me consider the aspect of liability to pay
the compensation amount.
79. Before proceeding further, if we go through the Insurance Policy Ex.R.2
and more particularly the particulars of premium paid, it makes clear that the
respondent No.1 has paid Rs.12,394/- towards Basic TP Premium, the respondent
No.1 has also paid Rs.100/- towards PA to Owner/Driver and Rs.50/- towards
legal liability to Driver. Except that, nothing is paid under the policy towards
other risks to be covered. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No.1 has paid
nothing towards the risk of coolies/loaders/unloaders. Furthermore, as could be
seen from the Policy, the Policy does not cover the risk, if it is used for carrying
passengers in the vehicles; except employees(Other than the driver) not exceeding
the number permitted in the registration and coming under the purview of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 - Use of Trailers - Where additional
premium paid for trailers. That means, if the respondent No.1 were to carry
coolies or other type of persons in his vehicle, he has pay to additional premium
and cover their risk and in this case, such an additional premium is not paid.
80. Thus, from an overall assessment of the evidence of petitioners, who have
been invariably examined as PW 1 and 2, RW 1, RW 2 and the documents
pertaining to the Insurance of the Vehicle, it is abundantly clear that these
petitioners along with the deceased were traveling in the lorry and that they were
sitting on the load in the trolley and not in the cabin of the lorry and further that, as
discussed above, whether the petitioners and the said Ganesh were working with
30
the lorry owner as coolies or loaders is not clear and further, even if we assume
that they were working with the lorry as coolies, the respondent No.1 has not paid
the additional premium covering their risk. Under such circumstances, the
respondent No.2 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.1 for the
reasons stated above and the respondent No.1 is alone liable to pay compensation
to the petitioners in all these cases.
81. In a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481 : (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal
Council of Delhi Vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), the Supreme Court of India has held
that while awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has to take
into account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the cost of living and
thereby awarded rate of interest at 9% on the compensation. Considering the
same, in these cases also, I deem it just and proper to award interest on
compensation amount at 9% p.a.
82. Accordingly, issue No.2 and 3 in all these petitions are answered. In the
result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
MVC No.2313/2013 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners have been awarded compensation of Rs.10,60,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the amount so awarded, petitioner No.1 is entitled to 50% and petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled to 25% each.
Out of the amount so apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner 31 No.1, for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be paid to the petitioner No.1. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
Entire compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.2 and 3 is ordered to be kept in FD in their respective name, till the attain majority. Interest accrued till date of deposit and the periodical interest on the said FDs is ordered to be released to petitioner No.1 for the maintenance of respective petitioners.
MVC 3452/2013 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Upon deposit, entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC No.4465/2013 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.95,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be paid to the petitioner. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
MVC No.4466/2013 32 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.85,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner for a period of 5 years. Remaining amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be paid to the petitioner. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
All the petitions as against the respondent No.2 are dismissed.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.2313/2013 and a copy of the same be retained in the remaining cases.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription thereof is revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 28.04.2015) (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.MACT ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
MVC No.2313/2013 P.W.1: J.Jyothi Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1: Gireesha R.W.2: Ravi Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
33
Ex.P-1 : Study Certificate of petitioner No.2
Ex.P.2 : Study Certificate of petitioner No.3
Ex.P-3 : FIR
Ex.P-4 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P-5 : Mahazar
Ex.P-6 : Sketch
Ex.P-7 : Copy of P.M.Report
Ex.P-8 : Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P-9 : Notarised copy of death certificate
Ex.P-10 : Notarised copy of Election ID Card
Ex.P-11 : Notarised copy of Ration Card
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of Policy
Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of B Register Extract
Ex.R.3 : GPA
Ex.R-4 : Policy Copy
Ex.R.5 : Notarised copy of DL
MVC No.3452/2013
P.W.1: Periyaswamy
PW 2: Dr.Y.S.Srinath
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1: Gireesha Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Complaint Ex.P-3 : Wound Certificate Ex.P-4 : Discharge Summary Ex.P-5 : Medical Bills Ex.P-6 : Notarised copy of charge sheet Ex.P-7 : Notarised copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P-8 : Copy of MLC Register
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
34
Ex.R.1 : Certified copy of B Register Extract
Ex.R.2 : Policy Copy
MVC No.4465/2013 and 4466/2013
P.W.1: Krishna
P.W.2: Ravi
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
R.W.1: Gireesha Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : FIR Ex.P.2 : Chargesheet Ex.P-3 : Mahazar Ex.P-4 : Sketch Ex.P-5 : Wound Certificate Ex.P-6 : IMV Report Ex.P-7 : Discharge Card Ex.P-8 : Medical Bills 13 Nos for Rs.14,745/- Ex.P-9 : Discharge Card Ex.P.10 : 9 Prescriptions Ex.P-11 : Medical Bills for Rs,4,248/- Ex.P.12: Wound Certificate
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Ex.R.1 : Certified copy of B Register Extract Ex.R.2 : Certified copy of Insurance Policy (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore