Bangalore District Court
M.J. James vs Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd on 22 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T.,
BENGALURU (SCCH-24).
PRESENT: Smt. ZAIBUNNISA.
B.Com.LL.B
XXII Additional Small Causes Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
DATED: This the 22nd day of February, 2017
M.V.C.No.4683/2015
Petitioners: 1. M.J. James,
S/o Chandy Joseph,
Age 53 years.
2. Leelamma James,
W/o M.J. James,
Age 50 years.
Both the petitioners R/at :
No.46, Somanna Layout,
M.S.Palya,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-97.
(Reptd By : Sri. H.V. Kumaraswamy,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
- Versus -
2 SCCH-24
MVC.No.4683/2015
Respondents: 1. Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd,
SI-3rd Floor, Monarch Chambers,
Opp.Infantry Wedding Hall,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore.
Policy issued by its office in
Policy No.10003/31/16/215680.
Date of validity from
16.08.2015 to 15.8.2016.
2. Mr. Muthaiah,
S/o Lingappa,
Major,
R/at Lingadaveeranahalli,
Sasalu Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(Res.1: By Sri. A.N. Hegde,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
Res.2: By Sri.S.R. Raghavendra,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
XXII A.S.C.J. & MEMBER
M.A.C.T. Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-24
MVC.No.4683/2015
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming the compensation on account of the death of Jithin James, in the Motor Vehicles Accident.
2. The case of the petitioners is as under:
That on 20.10.2015 at about 2.30 a.m, the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No. KA-04-HX-6380 near Vidyaranyapura Post Office, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore slowly and cautiously, by observing all traffic norms. At that time a Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9955 and KA-06-TA-
9956 which was driven by its driver at very high speed rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said motor cycle. Due to impact, deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his body. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital. But, the said Jithin James succumbed to the 4 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 injuries on the way to the hospital. Later on Postmortem was done at M.S.Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital, Bangalore. The said accident is a sever tragedy to the petitioners and they have suffered irreparable loss, damage, untold misery. In addition the petitioners have spent Rs.45,000/- towards the medical, transportation and funeral and obsequies ceremonies. The cause of accident is reckless driving of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TQ-9955 and KA-06-
TA-9956. In this regard the jurisdictional Hebbala Police have registered a case against the driver of the above said vehicle. The 1st respondent is the insurer and 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle in question. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.
3. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared through their respective counsels 5 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 before the Tribunal and resisted the petition by filing statement of objections separately.
4. The respondent No.1 has submitted that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondent No.1 has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA- 9955, however the Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9956 is not insured with this respondent. In view of the non issuance of the policy in respect of the trailer, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner of the trailer and the liability of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that, the person driving the vehicle has 'no relation in force' as on the date of accident to drive the vehicle. The driver of the Tractor and Trailer has no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. At the time of alleged accident, the tractor was attached with the trailer and hence specific licence is required to drive the tractor 6 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 and trailer in the case on hand. The Tractor and Trailer was not having valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident.
5. This respondentNo.1 has denied the involvement of the tractor in the accident and also denied the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied the age, avocation, income of the deceased and called upon the petitioners to prove the same with strict proof. The respondent No.1 has contended that, the unfortunate accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased who was riding the same unmindfully and without observing the traffic rules. Hence, the deceased himself was solely responsible and main architect for the unfortunate accident. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant and 7 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 exaggerated. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss claim petition against this respondent with cost.
6. The 2nd respondent has denied all the averments made in the claim petition and specifically denied the age, avocation, income of the deceased and amount spent towards funeral and other expenses. The respondent No.2 has denied the rash and negligent driving of the tractor with high speed and as dashed to the motor cycle of the deceased. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive and exorbitant. The petitioners have fixed this respondent No.2 vehicle in the alleged accident and further contended that, the driver of the Tractor was having valid driving licence and the tractor having valid insurance policy and if the liability is fixed, the insurance company is wholly responsible for the claim of the petitioners and the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.
8 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 Hence, prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent No.2.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings and the rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that, the accident that occurred on 20.10.2015 at about 2.30 a.m, near Vidyaranyapura post office, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore, was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor & Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-
9955/ 9956 by its driver and dashed against the deceased motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HX-
6380, due to which the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital ?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, for what amount and from whom ?
3. What order or award?
9 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015
8. In order to substantiate the case made out by the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got himself examined as P.W.1 and got examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Thereafter, the petitioners closed their side evidence.
9. In order to rebut the evidence so placed on record by the petitioners, the respondents have not chosen to examine any witness nor produced any documents.
10. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials placed on record.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 - Partly in the Affirmative.
The petitioners are entitled
for a compensation of
Rs.24,65,000/- with interest
at the rate of 8% p.a.
From respondent No.1 & 2.
Issue No.3 - As per final order,
for the following:
10 SCCH-24
MVC.No.4683/2015
REASONS
ISSUE No.1:
12. It is the case of the petitioners that, on 20.10.2015 at about 2.30 a.m, the deceased was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-HX-6380 near Vidyaranyapura Post Office, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore slowly and cautiously, by observing all traffic norms. At that time a Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA- 9955 and KA-06-TA-9956 which was driven by its driver at very high speed rash and negligent and dashed against the said motor cycle. Due to impact, deceased fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his body. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital. But, the said Jithin James succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The respondent No.1 and 2 have denied the allegations made in the claim petition.
11 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015
13. In order to prove the actionable negligence, P.W.1 has reiterated all the averments and allegations made in the claim petition. P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9955 and KA-06-TA-9956 by its driver. During the course of cross-examination, he has denied the suggestions put to him that, the accident occurred due to the negligence of his son as his son himself dashed his vehicle and caused the accident. Except the said suggestions nothing worthwhile material has been elicited from the mouth of the P.W.1 to disbelieve his version in the examination-in-chief.
14. The petitioners have relied upon the various police documents produced at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Out of these documents, Ex.P.1, is the copy of First Information Report, Ex.P.2 is copy of the Complaint, Ex.P.3, is copy of 12 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 the Sketch, Ex.P.4 is copy of Mahazar, Ex.P.5 is copy of the IMV Report, Ex.P.6 is copy of the Charge Sheet and Ex.P.7 is copies of Post Mortem Report and Inquest Report. Ex.P.1, i.e. the First Information Report discloses that, a criminal case has been registered against the driver of the Tractor & Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA- 9955 and KA-06-TA-9956 for the offences punishable under section 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police have submitted the charge sheet against the driver of the offending Tractor & Trailer for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 prima-facie establishes the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the said Tractor and Trailer.
15. In the present case the respondents have denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
13 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 Even the complaint allegations show that, because of the driving of the Tractor and Trailer in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner only the said accident has taken place. The contents of these documents have not been denied by the respondents by placing material particulars. Though the respondents have appeared in this case and denied the allegations made in the claim petition, they have has not placed any rebuttal evidence before this Tribunal. The documents produced by the petitioners have not been rebutted in any way by the respondents. The respondents have not made any attempts to examine the driver of the offending Tractor and Trailer. The driver of the offending Tractor is the best witness to contradict the version of the petitioners in respect of occurrence of the accident. Respondents have not entered into the witness box and even the respondents have not chosen to examine the said tractor driver, it is fatal to the case of the respondents. So in the 14 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 absence of cogent and acceptable evidence from the respondents side, the evidence of P.W.1 has to be accepted. Under these circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1, coupled with the contents of the police documents, establishes that the accident has occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9955 and KA-06- TA-9956 by it's driver and the deceased Jithin James has died due to injuries sustained in the said accident. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. Issue No.2:
16. The petitioners alleged that, petitioner No.1 is the father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased Jithin James. In order to establish the said fact the petitioner No.1 has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and examined as PW.1. He reiterates all the averments and allegations made in the claim petition. During the cross-examination, the
15 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is not at all disputed. In support of his evidence PW.1 has relied upon documents produced at Ex.P.16 i.e Family Tree, wherein, it is mentioned that, the deceased Jithin James is the son of the petitioners. In Post Mortem report and Inquest report marked at Ex.P.7, wherein the names of these petitioners are mentioned as father and mother of the deceased and they have received the dead body of the deceased and the contents of the said documents are not disputed by the respondents. When the respondents have not denied the relationship during the cross- examination and not challenged the authenticity of Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.16 then there is no need to discuss much about the relationship between the deceased and the petitioners. With the help of oral evidence and document at Ex.P.7 and 16 the petitioners are successfully proved that they are the father and mother and legal representatives of the deceased Jithin James.
16 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015
17. The petitioners are claiming compensation on account of the death of the Jithin James in the said Accident. It is stated in the claim petition as well as in the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased was aged about 19 years and was working as a Customer Service Assistant at Firstsource Solutions Ltd, Bangalore and was drawing a salary of Rs.52,850/- p.m and was contributing his entire income for the maintenance of the family. He was the sole earner in the family and the petitioners are entirely depending upon the deceased income. In order to substantiate the occupation and earnings of the deceased the petitioners have produced Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.15 i.e Appointment Letter, Salary Sheet, ID card of Firstsource, PAN Card, Bank Pass book Xerox copy respectively. In Ex.P.12, the salary of the deceased is mentioned as Rs.15,000/-. It is pertinent to note that, as per Ex.P.15 i.e Bank statement, it is mentioned that in June-2015 a sum of Rs.14,727/-, in July-2015 a 17 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 sum of Rs.17,033/-, in August-2015 a sum of Rs.25,465/- and in September-2015 a sum of Rs.50,083/- was credited to the deceased account. The salary of the deceased is differs to month to month. P.w.1 has produced the pay slip for the month of Septebmer-2015 only before the Tribunal. In order to establish their contentions, they have examined the HR Manager of the said Company as P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed that, deceased Jithin James was appointed as a CSA and was drawing salary of Rs.50,803/- per month. He further deposed that, if he would have alive he would have get one more promotion as a Team Leader and his salary and increments would have been increased. Said P.W.2 has also produced his ID Card at Ex.P.17, he has further produced Offer letter, Appointment letter and 3-Pay slips of deceased Jithin James and the same are marked as Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20. During the course of cross examination he admitted that, 18 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 "£ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀ PÀ£ï¥ÀsgÉäñÀ£ïUÉ 6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄÊvÀ fw£ï eÉêÀiïìUÉ C¥À¥sÁvÀªÁzÁUÀ DvÀ £ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ 6 wAUÀ¼À PÀ£ï¥ÀsgÉäñÀ£ï CªÀ¢Aü iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÇgÉʹgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀzÀj PÀ£ï¥ÀsgÉäñÀ£ï CªÀ¢ü ¥ÀÇtðUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀµÀÖÉ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß SÁAiÀÄA DV ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
18. As per Ex.P-11 and Ex.P.12 produced by P.W.1 and Ex.P.18 to Ex.P.20 produced by P.W.2 it appears that, deceased Jithin James was working as a Customer Service Associate (Grade-II) at Firstsource and was earning a salary from May-2015 till September -2015 in different figures. Admittedly, his probationary period was not at all completed as on the date of accident and he just joined 5 months prior to his death. Why the salary of the deceased is differs to month to months is not at all explained by PW-1 nor by PW.2 who is examined on behalf of the employer of the deceased. Under such circumstances it is difficult to consider his monthly income as Rs.52,850/- as alleged by the petitioners.
19 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 Considering the age, his education and present day condition if the income of the deceased is inferred at Rs.15,000/- p.m. as shown in the salary sheet at Ex.P.12 it would meet the ends of justice.
19. It is the case of the petitioner that, at the time of accident deceased was aged about 19 years. In this respect petitioners furnished Driving Licence, Birth Certificate, SSLC marks card and PAN card wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned 26.01.1997. Age of the deceased is not at all disputed by the respondents. Hence, 50% of the income may be considered as future prospects. In the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 between Rajesh and others V/s. Rajbir Singh and others - it is held that :
'Quantum - Fatal accident- Principles of assessment - Future prospects- Whether formula for increase of income for future prospects adopted for person with permanent jobs in Sarla Verma's case 2009 ACJ
20 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 1298(SC) may also be applied to persons who were self employed or were engaged on fixed wages - Held :
yes : 50 percent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for persons below 40 years 30 percent for the age group of 40 to 50 years. 15 percent for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no addition thereafter".
On perusal of the above cited decision it is clear that, 50 percent of actual income (after deduction of tax) for the persons below 40 years and 30 percent for the age group of 40 to 50 years is to be added.
20. In the present case the income of the petitioner is inferred at Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.1,80,000/-
per annum. The income of deceased is below taxable limits. As per above cited decision, 50% of the income of the deceased is added to his monthly income towards future prospects since he was bachelor and aged about 19 years at the time of death. Then, it comes (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.7,500/-) = Rs.22,500/-. Thus, as per 21 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 the observation made in Sarala Verma's case, ½ of the income is to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would intend to spend more on himself. Further, subject to evidence to contrary the father is likely to have his own income and he was not considered as a dependant and also brothers and sisters would not be considered as dependants because they will either be independent and earning, or married or be dependant on the father. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that, the monthly income of the deceased is to be considered as (Rs.22,500/- - Rs.11,250/-)= Rs.11,250/- per month. As per the decision reported in 2015 ACJ 1985 between Munna Lal Jain and another Vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others, the age of the deceased is considered for the multiplier. In the decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 between Sarala Verma & Others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and others the appropriate multiplier is '18'.
22 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 So the loss of dependency works out to (Rs.11,250/- X 12 X 18) = Rs.24,30,000/-. Hence, a sum of Rs.24,30,000/- is awarded under the head loss of dependency.
21. The petitioner No.1 and 2 are the father and mother of the deceased. They have lost love and affection of the deceased. By considering the said fact, this Tribunal is of the clear opinion that, it would be just and proper to award a compensation of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of love and affection.
22. It is the evidence of the P.W.1 that, due to the accidental injuries his son was succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital, later on post mortem was conducted and cremation was done at their native place Kerala by engaging Ambulance and by spending Rs.25,000/-. He further deposed that, he conducted funeral and obsequies ceremonies for which, he has 23 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 incurred a sum of Rs.50,000/-. But, petitioners have not produced any documents in this respect. Hence, in the absence of documentary proof, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is awarded towards Transportation of body, Funeral and obsequies ceremony. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for the compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of dependency Rs.24,30,000/-
2. Loss of love and Rs. 20,000/-
affection.
3. Transportation of body, Rs. 15,000/-
funeral and obsequies expenses.
Total Rs.24,65,000/-
So, the petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.24,65,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
23. Now coming to the question of liability. It is the case of the petitioners that, respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the RC owner of the 24 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 Tractor and Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9955 and KA-06-TA-9956. The respondent No.1 has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9955, however the Trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-06-TA-9956 is not insured with this respondent. In view of the non-issuance of the insurance policy in respect of the trailer, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the owner of the trailer and the liability of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It has denied the issuance of insurance policy in respect of the trailer, but except the said oral contention, the Company has not placed any documentary evidence with regard to non issuance of policy in respect of the trailer. It is settled principle of law that, every pleading should be proved with sufficient material evidence where as in this case, the respondent company has not produced any documents nor a copy of insurance policy to hold that, the policy has not covered 25 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident. It is fatal to the case of the respondent No.1. There is no value to the defence without any proof in the eye of law. Therefore, in the considered view of this Tribunal the respondent No.1 failed to prove its defence, hence the respondent No.1 and 2 being the insurer and R.C. owner of the Tractor and Trailer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.1 shall indemnify the insured. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered Partly in the affirmative. ISSUE No.3:
24. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions, the petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the
26 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 petitioners is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs.24,65,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount into the Tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation award amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,65,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with proportionate interest.
Out of the compensation awarded 50% of the award amount of the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the their respective names of the petitioner No.1 and 2 in any of the Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from encumbrance with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. The remaining compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be 27 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 disbursed to the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on computer, typed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2017).
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners:
P.W.1 - Sri. M.J. James. P.W.2 - Sri. Jitender Gill
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents:
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 - Copy of First Information Report.
Ex.P2 - Copy of Complaint.
Ex.P3 - Copy of Sketch.
Ex.P4 - Copy of Mahazar.
Ex.P5 - Copy of IMV Report.
Ex.P6 - Copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P7 - Copy of Post Mortem Report and Inquest
Report.
Ex.P8 - Copy of Driving Licence.
28 SCCH-24
MVC.No.4683/2015
Ex.P9 - Copy of Birth Certificate.
Ex.P10 - Copy of SSLC Marks Card.
Ex.P11 - Appointment Letter.
Ex.P12 - Salary Slip.
Ex.P13 - Copy of ID Card of deceased.
Ex.P14 - Copy of PAN Card of deceased.
Ex.P15 - Copy of Bank Statement.
Ex.P16 - Copy of G-Tree.
Ex.P17 - ID Card of PW.2.
Ex.P18 - Offer Letter.
Ex.P19 - Appointment Letter.
Ex.P20 - 3-Months Pay Slip.
Documents marked on behalf of the Respondent:
- Nil -
(ZAIBUNNISA) XXII ASCJ & MEMBER, MACT-Bengaluru.
29 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXII ASCJ, BENGALURU CITY.
M.V.C.No.4683/2015 Petitioners: 1. M.J. James, S/o Chandy Joseph, Age 53 years.
2. Leelamma James, W/o M.J. James, Age 50 years.
Both the petitioners R/at :
No.46, Somanna Layout, M.S.Palya, Bangalore North, Bangalore-97.
(Reptd By : Sri. H.V. Kumaraswamy, Advocate, Bengaluru).
- Versus -
Respondents: 1. Sriram General Insurance Co.Ltd, SI-3rd Floor, Monarch Chambers, Opp.Infantry Wedding Hall, Infantry Road, Bangalore.
Policy issued by its office in Policy No.10003/31/16/215680. Date of validity from 16.08.2015 to 15.8.2016.
30 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015
2. Mr. Muthaiah, S/o Lingappa, Major, R/at Lingadaveeranahalli, Sasalu Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
(Res.1: By Sri. A.N. Hegde, Advocate, Bengaluru).
Res.2: By Sri.S.R. Raghavendra, Advocate, Bengaluru).
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the Claimant/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees Only) for the injuries sustained by the Claimant/Death of In a Motor Accident by Vehicle NO.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before ZAIBUNNISA XXII A.S.C.J, Member, MACT, Bengaluru in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri.Smt. Advocate for respondent.
31 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 ORDER The Petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act by the petitioners is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioners are awarded total compensation of Rs.24,65,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount into the Tribunal within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation award amount, the petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,65,000/- and the petitioner No.2 is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with proportionate interest.
Out of the compensation awarded 50% of the award amount of the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in the their respective names of the petitioner No.1 and 2 in any of the Nationalised or Scheduled Bank for a period of 5 years free from 32 SCCH-24 MVC.No.4683/2015 encumbrance with liberty to draw the accrued periodical interest. The remaining compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BENGALURU.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent
Court fee paid on 10.00
petition
Court fee paid on 00.00
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER
MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA
BENGALURU
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR