Bangalore District Court
Sudhamani vs Tata Aig General Insurance on 25 February, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 25th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015
PRESENT : Smt.K.Katyayini, B.Com., LL.B.,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.6224/2013
Petitioner/s Sudhamani,
W/o Manjunath K.R.,
Aged about 28 years,
Kenchaganahalli,
Kallambella Post,
Sira Taluk,
Tumkur District - 572 125.
(By Pleader - Sri.Vasudevamurthy,
B.K.)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. TATA AIG General Insurance
Co. Ltd.,
5th Floor, West Entrance,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bengaluru.
(Policy No.015256839500)
(By Pleader - Sri.K.Prakash.)
2. Mr. Mahanthesha,
S/o Kanteppa Mudenur,
No.46, 9th cross,
Parimalanagar,
Bengaluru- 560 058.
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.6224/2013
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking grant of compensation on account of injuries he has sustained in RTA.
2. Initially this petition was assigned to the Hon'ble SCCH-10 and subsequently as per the notification No.ADMI/419/2014 dated 06.05.2014, it is reassigned to this Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law.
3. The brief case of petitioner is that on 29.09.2013 at about 7 p.m., he was proceeding as an inmate of auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-02 AD-5941 on Kanteerava Studio road. When they reached near Kanteerava Studio gate, the driver of auto rickshaw all of a sudden drove the same in rash and negligent manner. Lost control over the vehicle.
b) Due to the impact, all the inmates fell down and suffered injuries. Accident took place solely due to negligent driving of auto rickshaw driver. Therefore, 2 nd respondent being the RC owner and 1 st respondent (SCCH-15) 3 MVC.6224/2013 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the petition as sought for.
4. In response to due service of notice, 2 nd respondent remained exparte. 1st respondent has appeared through its counsel and filed its statement of objections denying the petition averments. However, it has admitted the policy and its force on the date of accident.
b) But has contended that liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy such as driving license and the vehicular documents. It has specifically contended that the auto rickshaw driver did not possess valid and effective driving license. The RC owner has willfully entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having valid permit. Therefore, there is breach of policy conditions. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against it with costs.
5. On the above said pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal has framed the following issues. (SCCH-15) 4 MVC.6224/2013
Whether petitioner proves that she has sustained injury due to RTA alleged to have been occurred on 29.09.2013 at about 7:00 p.m., near Kanteerava Studio Gate on Kanteerava Studio road, Bengaluru due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AD-5941?
Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount & from whom?
What order or award?
6. To prove the above said issues and to substantiate their respective contentions, petitioner has entered into witness box as PW-1. She has got examined the doctor who has treated and assessed the disability as PW-2; the senior medical record officer to cause production of the document as PW-3 and doctor who has treated and issued wound certificate as PW-4. Totally got exhibited 18 documents and closed her side.
b) Per contra, 1st respondent got examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1. Got exhibited 5 documents. In addition got examined Superintendent, RTO, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru as RW-2. Got exhibited 2 (SCCH-15) 5 MVC.6224/2013 documents. Thus totally got examined 2 witnesses and 7 documents got exhibited.
c) Heard arguments of both sides on merits of the case. Perused the record. In addition counsel for 1 st respondent has also filed written arguments along with xerox copies of the reported decisions and the unreported judgments passed in;
1) ILR 2012 KAR 6065
2) MFA No.7723/2011
3) 2009 ACJ 437
4) MANU/KE/0577/2009
5) 2005(2) TAC 6
6) AIR 2006 SC 2138
7) AIR (37) 1950 SC 265(FB)
8) 2006 AIR SCW 5312 and
9) MANU/KA/0718/2009.
This Tribunal has carefully gone through the above reported decisions and unreported judgments as well as perused the record.
7. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above said issues are answered in the;
1. Issue No.1: Affirmative.
2. Issue No.2: Petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,23,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its entirety from (SCCH-15) 6 MVC.6224/2013 2 nd respondent.
3. Issue No.3: As per final order for the following reasons.
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1:- 1st respondent has denied the entire case of petitioner and also the involvement of the auto rickshaw and it is suggested on its behalf to petitioner in her cross-examination that she has suffered injuries because of some other reason and she got falsely implicated the auto rickshaw.
9. To establish her case, as observed above, petitioner has entered into witness box as PW-1. She has filed her affidavit evidence wherein she has reiterated the petition averments. During her cross- examination as observed above, involvement of the auto rickshaw in the accident itself is denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied by her.
10. However, even to establish its defence as observed above, 1st respondent got examined 2 witnesses and got exhibited 7 documents, it has concentrated only on its defence on breach of policy conditions that too on permit. There is no iota of (SCCH-15) 7 MVC.6224/2013 evidence in the evidence of both RWs-1 and 2 and the documents at Ex.R-1 to 7 with regard to its defence on non-involvement of the auto rickshaw and thereby rash and negligent act on the part of auto rickshaw driver. Therefore, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral evidence of petitioner about the involvement of the vehicle and rash and negligent act on the part of auto rickshaw driver which resulted in the alleged accident.
11. Moreover, in support of her oral evidence, petitioner has also produced the documents i.e. the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 6 respectively the true copies of FIR with complaint, spot mahazar, spot sketch, MV report, statement of injured and charge sheet.
12. All the police papers categorically reveal that the jurisdictional police have registered criminal case against the auto rickshaw driver for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC as well as 134(a) and (b) read with Section 187 of MV Act.
13. These documents also reflect that after the investigation, they have charge sheeted the auto driver for the offences alleged. Even 1 st respondent has (SCCH-15) 8 MVC.6224/2013 denied the very involvement of the auto rickshaw in the accident, there is no specific cross-examination on behalf of 1st respondent about the police papers which are in consonance with the case of petitioners.
14. Moreover, there is presumption with regard to the police papers that they are prepared by the investigating officers while discharging their official duties in investigating into a crime. Of course, the said presumption is rebuttal one. But 1 st respondent has not let in any such rebuttal evidence.
15. Therefore, petitioners with oral evidence of 1 st petitioner coupled with police papers at Ex.P-1 to 6 have successfully proved that accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw driver.
16. So far as accidental injuries suffered by petitioner, there is no dispute. On the other hand, it is repeatedly suggested to the petitioner that she has suffered only simply injuries in the accident and there is no fracture injuries.
(SCCH-15) 9 MVC.6224/2013
17. Moreover in support of her case, petitioner with her oral evidence has also got examined doctor who have treated and assessed the disability, senior medical record technician and medical officer as PWs-2 to 4. She has also produced medical records such as wound certificate and discharge summary during her evidence and got produced OP slip and x-ray during evidence of PW-2, inpatient file in the evidence of PW-3 and MLC register extract and x-ray report during evidence of PW-4.
18. All those documents are in corroboration with each other and in consonance of the case of petitioner with regard to suffering injuries in the accident. Hence, she has successfully proved that she has suffered injuries in the accident. Therefore, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
19. ISSUE No.2:- In view of answering issue No.1 in affirmative, petitioner is entitled for compensation. Now, in respect of quantum. It is the case of petitioner that she was aged 28 years; working as a tailor in Sai garments and had income of Rs.6,500/- per month. To (SCCH-15) 10 MVC.6224/2013 establish that petitioner has produced employee ID at Ex.P-10 which is in her name issued by Shahi Exports Private Ltd.
20. She has produced Ex.P-11, the salary slips 4 in numbers for the months of June to September, 2013. They disclose that the net pay was Rs.6,170/- for the month June and July, 2013; for the months of August and September,2013 it is respectively Rs.5,783/- and Rs.5,776/-.
21. Moreover during her cross-examination, it is elicited that she is not terminated from her employer. At this stage, she voluntarily deposed that since she could not work, she left the job. It is also elicited that they have ESI facility. Therefore, there is nothing on record to discard the case of petitioner that at the time of accident she was working as tailor and had net salary of Rs.5,776/- which is rounded off to Rs.6,000/- p.m.
22. So far her age, petitioner has not produced any specific age proof document. However, in the charge sheet and medical records, her age is shown as 26 years. There is no cross-examination by other side (SCCH-15) 11 MVC.6224/2013 with regard to the age mentioned in those documents. Therefore, the age of petitioner is taken as 26 years for which the proper multiplier applicable is 17.
23. It is the case of petitioner that in the accident she has suffered injuries as stated in the wound certificate. She took treatment in ESI Hospital, Bengaluru. She was inpatient for 21 days. She has already incurred medical expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-. She has become permanently disabled because of accidental injuries.
24. Petitioner has reiterated the above petition averments in her affidavit evidence. During her cross- examination it is suggested that she has suffered only simple injuries and not grievous injuries and not treated surgically. The said suggestions are denied by petitioner.
25. PW-2/the doctor who has assessed the disability has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has stated that on going through the paper it is found that petitioner has suffered injuries in road traffic accident and was inpatient from 29.09.2013 to 19.10.2013. (SCCH-15) 12 MVC.6224/2013
26. It is also in his affidavit evidence that petitioner was diagnosed for open wound over right wrist with loss of movement of right sided thumb and index finger, deep grazed wound of right hand over radial aspect with exposed bones and tendons, loss of 5 to 6 cms. tendon lengths of APL and EPB of right thumb, loss of joint capsure 1 st MCP joint with dislocation of the joint and abrasion all over the body.
27. He has also deposed in his affidavit evidence that petitioner was treated surgically in the form of wound exploration, K-wiring of right 1 st MCP joint with capsulorraphy of 1st MCP joint on 30.09.2013 under brachial block. Again petitioner underwent 2 nd surgery in the form of wound debridement and skin grafting on 07.10.2013.
28. It is also in his affidavit evidence that he has examined petitioner on 19.09.2014 for assessment of disability. On clinical examination and radiological examination as well as complaints of petitioner, it is found that petitioner is having scar and keloid formation over radial aspect of right wrist hand, (SCCH-15) 13 MVC.6224/2013 contracture of the right thumb and over the right present and signs of RSD are present.
29. He has also deposed that it is also found that petitioner is having permanent disability to right hand at 39% which comes to the whole body disability at 13%. By the said disability, petitioner cannot work as tailor in the garments factory. He has produced OP slip and x-ray film at Ex.P-12 and 13.
30. During his cross-examination it is elicited that to ascertain the injury or damages if any to tendon, MRI or CT scan is must. However he has deposed that the said injury cannot be seen by x-ray and dislocation can be seen. He has gone through the wound certificate of petitioner issued by ESI hospital Ex.P-7. He has admitted the suggestion that basing on the x-ray mentioned in the wound certificate, the injuries are commented.
31. He has admitted that in Ex.P-8, the discharge summary there is no reference of the said x-ray. He has also admitted that there is no fracture injury. At this stage, he voluntarily deposed that there is dislocation (SCCH-15) 14 MVC.6224/2013 of right thumb joint and dislocation of joint is not mentioned in the wound certificate.
32. It is also in his cross-examination that for amputation of thumb, the disability will be 25%, since thumb cannot touch the opposite fingers i.e. all other four fingers, he has given 4% disability. He has also admitted the suggestion that whatever he has commented with regard to recent x-ray, same is not mentioned in the report.
33. PW-3 is senior medical record technician of ESI Model hospital, Rajajinagar who has produced inpatient file at Ex.P-15. PW-4 is Medical officer, ESI hospital, Peenya, Bengaluru has produced MLC register extract, x-ray report and he has deposed that the document shown to him is the wound certificate issued by him which bears his signature at Ex.P-7(a). During his cross- examination he has admitted that as per x-ray report produced at Ex.P-18, there is no fracture, no dislocation or sub-location to any of the bone.
34. The medical records produced by petitioner at Ex.P-7 is the wound certificate issued by ESI hospital, (SCCH-15) 15 MVC.6224/2013 Peenya reveals that petitioner has suffered injuries as stated in the petition observed above which are simple in nature. It is also there that radiography of right hand, right wrist, right forearm, pelvis over back left hip, femur with knee, chest, right shoulder and right fore arm over elbow reveals no fracture.
35. Ex.P-8 is the discharge summary issued by ESI Model hospital,, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru which discloses that petitioner was admitted to the hospital on 29.09.2013 and was discharged on 19.10.2013. She was diagnosed for the injuries as observed above as stated in the wound certificate as well as in the chief evidence of PW-2.
36. Ex.P-9 is the colour photographs of petitioner which disclose the scar on right hand thumb and in the middle of the right palm. Ex.P-12 is the OPD slip and Ex.P-13 is x-ray film which are in support of the oral evidence of PW-2 observed above.
37. So, if the entire evidence is taken in a nut shell, it can be safely held that petitioner has suffered simple injuries. But loss of tendon in the right thumb (SCCH-15) 16 MVC.6224/2013 joint and was inpatient in the hospital for a period of 22 days.
38. Petitioner has contended that she has incurred expenditure of Rs.1,00,000/-. But she has not produced any receipts or bills in that regard. On the other hand, it is in her cross-examination that she has ESI facility and the treatment she has taken also in ESI hospitals.
39. It is in the evidence of PW-2 that petitioner is having permanent physical impairment to the right hand at 39% which comes to the whole body at 13%. He has admitted the suggestion that for amputation of thumb, disability will be 25% and he has given explanation that since petitioner cannot touch the other fingers by right thumb. He has disability at 4%.
40. It is in the evidence of petitioner that her employer has not terminated her but since she could not work she left the job. In view of the evidence of PW- 2 that the right thumb of petitioner is unable to touch the other fingers which is not denied by the other side, this Tribunal can take note that by the said disability (SCCH-15) 17 MVC.6224/2013 she can not continue her job as a tailor as stated by PW-2.
41. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is thought just and proper to take whole body disability at 8% for assessment of loss of future earning capacity, loss of amenities and comfort as well as permanent physical impairment. In the result, petitioner is entitled for compensation under the heads mentioned below and the amount stated against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
Loss of income during laid up Rs. 15,000/- period, Diet, Nourishment and etc. Attendant charges, Conveyance, Rs. 15,000/-
other Incidental Charges and etc. Loss of Future Income Rs.
97,920/-
(6,000 x 12 x 8/100 x 17) Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 30,000/- Permanent Physical Impairment Rs. 30,000/-
For Permanent Scar Rs. 15,000/-
Total:
Rs.2,22,920/-
rounded off to Rs.2,23,000/-. Considering the cost of living on the date of accident, it is thought fit to award (SCCH-15) 18 MVC.6224/2013 interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the compensation amount in its entirety.
42. Now, in respect of liability. It is the case of petitioner that 2nd respondent is the RC owner and 1st respondent is the insurer of auto rickshaw. 2 nd respondent remained exparte. However, 1 st respondent has admitted the policy and its force on the date of accident, but has contended that liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy such as driving license and vehicular documents.
43. In its statement of objections it has specifically contended that the auto rickshaw driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving license. However, during evidence its defence of breach of policy conditions is turned towards permit.
44. To establish breach of policy conditions on permit as observed above, 1st respondent got examined its Assistant Manager as RW-1 who has filed his affidavit evidence wherein he has reiterated the defence of 1st respondent. It is in his cross-examination (SCCH-15) 19 MVC.6224/2013 that except the permit police have furnished copies of other documents.
45. It has also got examined RW-2, the Superintendent, RTO, Shanthinagar, Bengaluru to cause production of permit details of the auto rickshaw bearing No.KA-02 AD-5941 i.e. the insured vehicle who has deposed that as per Ex.R-7, auto rickshaw has permit valid from 28.11.2013 to 27.11.2018. As per the records, it is new permit.
46. During his cross-examination he has stated that as per Ex.R-7, registration of the policy was done on 16.08.2013. He has admitted the suggestion at the time of delivery of the physical possession of vehicle, showroom will issue temporary registration certificate. He has denied the suggestion that from the date of delivery of physical possession of the vehicle from the showroom on temporary registration certificate, there is 3 months time to get the permit.
47. However, he has voluntarily deposed that temporary registration certificate will be in force for a month and after filing application for permit, there will (SCCH-15) 20 MVC.6224/2013 be three months time to get the permit. So far as date of application seeking permit, there is no evidence on record.
48. If the entire evidence placed on record is taken into consideration, vehicle was registered on 16.08.2013 and the permit is valid from 28.11.2013 to 27.11.2018. So, after 3 months 12 days from the date of registration, permit was taken. It is admitted fact that without permit vehicle cannot ply over the public road. So, RC owner is supposed to obtain valid permit.
49. As per evidence of RW-2, 3 months time will be there to get permit from the date of filing application seeking permit. But as observed above, there is no evidence on record to show date of application for permit filed by the RC owner.
50. Moreover, it is important point to be considered that there is no evidence on record to show validity period of temporary registration and the date of delivery of physical possession of auto rickshaw i.e. the date on which the auto rickshaw came out of the show room.
(SCCH-15) 21 MVC.6224/2013
51. Therefore, if the entire evidence on record is taken into consideration, it appears that on the date of accident auto rickshaw had no valid permit to ply over the accident spot which is a public place. Hence, 1 st respondent has successfully proved that there is no breach of policy conditions on permit. Hence, liability cannot be saddled on the insurance company. Therefore, 2nd respondent being the RC owner is alone liable to pay the compensation.
52. So, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,230,000/- together with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization of the compensation in its entirety from 2nd respondent. Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
53. ISSUE No.3:- From the above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following order.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
(SCCH-15) 22 MVC.6224/2013In the result, petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,23,000/- together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its entirety from 2nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest and cost is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this the 25th day of February, 2015.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
PW1: Sudhamani
PW2: Dr. S.A. Somashekar
PW3: M. Hemavathi
PW4: Dr. Rachith Harapanahalli
(SCCH-15) 23 MVC.6224/2013
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: Sunil Ramesh RW2: Vinod .G
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER:
Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR with Complaint, Ex.P2 : True copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P3 : True copy of spot sketch, Ex.P4 : True copy of IMV report, Ex.P5 : True copy of statement of injured, Ex.P6 : True copy of charge sheet, Ex.P7 : True copy of wound certificate, Ex.P8 : Discharge summary, Ex.P9 : Colour photographs (2 in nos.), Ex.P9(a) CD, Ex.P10 : Employee ID, Ex.P11 : Salary slips (4 in nos.) for the month of June 2013 to September 2013 Ex.P12 : OPD slip, Ex.P13 : X-ray film with report on covering page. Ex.P14 : Authorization letter, Ex.P15 : Inpatient file, Ex.P16 : True copy of MLC register extract pertains to patient by name Sudhamani, Ex.P17 : X-ray, Ex.P18 : X-ray report.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 : Authorization letter, Ex.R2 : True copy of policy with terms and conditions, Ex.R3 : Postal receipt, Ex.R4 : Copy of letter dtd.16.06.2014 sent by Information officer/RTO, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, Ex.R5 : Unserved RPAD cover, Ex.P5(a) Notice in Ex.R5 (cover opened in the open court and notice is exhibited through witness), Ex.P5(b) Postal acknowledgment. Ex.R6 : Authorization letter, (SCCH-15) 24 MVC.6224/2013 Ex.R7 : True copy of vehicle and permit details of vehicle bearing No.KA-02 AD-5941.
(K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.(SCCH-15) 25 MVC.6224/2013
25/02/2015:
Judgement pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,23,000/- together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its entirety from 2nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest and cost is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw a decree accordingly.
(K.KATYAYINI) XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.(SCCH-15) 26 MVC.6224/2013
AWARD SCCH NO.15 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY MVC No.6224/2013 Petitioner/s Sudhamani, W/o Manjunath K.R., Aged about 28 years, Kenchaganahalli, Kallambella Post, Sira Taluk, Tumkur District - 572 125.
(By Pleader - Sri.Vasudevamurthy, B.K.) V/s Respondent/s 1. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., 5th Floor, West Entrance, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road, Bengaluru.
(Policy No.015256839500) (By Pleader - Sri.K.Prakash.)
2. Mr. Mahanthesha, S/o Kanteppa Mudenur, No.46, 9th cross, Parimalanagar, Bengaluru- 560 058.
(By Pleader - Exparte.) (SCCH-15) 27 MVC.6224/2013 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner above named under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988, praying for compensation of Rs.
for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/death in a motor accident caused by vehicle bearing No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before K.Katyayini, Judge, Member-MACT, Bengaluru, in the presence of Shri Advocate for petitioner/s and of Shri Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The present petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of MV Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioner is entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,23,000/- together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its entirety from 2nd respondent.
2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount petitioner shall deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest and cost is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner through (SCCH-15) 28 MVC.6224/2013 an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the day
of 2015.
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
By the By the Respondent
Petitioners
Court fee paid on petition
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee:
Total
Decree Drafted by: Scrutinised by:
Decree Clerk: Sheristedar: MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL
(SCCH-15) 29 MVC.6224/2013