Bangalore District Court
Smt.Sudha.S vs M/S Bajaj Allianz Gic Ltd on 4 February, 2023
SCCH-20 1 MVC No.3377/2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL &
V ADDL. JUDGE SCCH-20, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 4th day of February, 2023
Present: Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
MVC. No.3377/2021
PETITIONER: 1. Smt.Sudha.S
W/o Late Prasad.G
Aged about 32 years,
2. Master.Gagan Prasad.P
S/o Late Prasad.G
Aged about 07 years,
3. Kum.Aadhya Prasad.P
D/o Late Prasad.P
Aged about 04 years,
4. Smt.Muniyamma
S/o Late Gangappa
All are residing at;
# 237, 1st cross, Mahadevapura,
Bangalore - 560048
(Petitioner No.2 and 3 being minor
represented by their mother and natural
guardian Smt.Sudha.S W/o
Late Prasad.G )
(By Pleader Sri.T.Manjunatha)
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd.,
Motor Claims Hub,
No.1/2, 4th floor,
SCCH-20 2 MVC No.3377/2021
Near Sujatha Theater, 59th C Cross,
4th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560010
2. M/s ITD Cementation India Ltd.,
Plot No.1, Sai krupa,
A.Narayanapura Main road,
Dooravaninagar,
Bangalore - 560016
(R1-By pleader Sri.Raghavendra Bhat
R2-By pleader Sri.B.S.Basavaraju)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the death of one Prasad.G S/o Gangappa.
2. The averments of the petition in brief are as follows; That on 14.07.2021 at about 12.15 AM, (mid night) one Mr.Prasad was riding his motor cycle near Muthumariyamma Temple while a JCB bearing No.GJ-37-S-0151 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules dashed to the deceased motor cycle coming from opposite direction, where said Prasad died on the spot. The petitioners have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for last rites. The deceased was working as contractor and earning SCCH-20 3 MVC No.3377/2021 Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. Thus prays to grant compensation as sought for.
3. The respondent No.1 filed written statement and denies the averments of the petition and submits that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the JCB who had no valid DL to drive the insured vehicle. The respondent No.2 filed written statement and submits that the driver was driving the JCB cautiously and has obtained FC from RTO and denied the averments of the petition and prays to dismiss the petition.
4. On basis of the Pleadings and materials, the following issues were framed.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that on 14.07.2021 at about 00.15 AM, the deceased was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-02-JK-3200 on Old madras road, near Muthumariyamma Temple, Bangalore city while a JCB bearing No.GJ-37-S-0151, came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the deceased motorcycle, which as a SCCH-20 4 MVC No.3377/2021 result of forced impact, the rider sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove their case, the petitioner no.1 got examined herself as P.W.1 and has produced 21 documents on her behalf. The respondent got examined three witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3 and got marked 3 documents on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments from the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the materials placed before me.
7. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative, Point No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1: It is the case of the petitioners that on SCCH-20 5 MVC No.3377/2021 14.07.2021 at about 12.15 AM, (mid night) one Mr.Prasad was riding his motor cycle near Muthumariyamma Temple while a JCB bearing No.GJ-37-S-0151 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules dashed to the deceased motor cycle, coming from opposite direction, where said Prasad died on the spot. The petitioners have spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- for last rites. The deceased was working as contractor and earning Rs.10,00,000/- per annum. That due to the accident, the petitioners being wife, children and mother of the deceased are put to hardship. That case in Cr.No.74/2021 has been filed against the driver of the JCB alleging offences punishable under section 279, 304(A) of IPC. Thus prays to grant compensation as sought for.
9. In order substantiate the allegation, the petitioner No.1 got examined herself as PW-1 and submits that the petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor children and the petitioner No.4 is her mother in law. She has reiterated averments of the petition and has produced totally 16 SCCH-20 6 MVC No.3377/2021 documents on her behalf and also examined the employer of the deceased as PW-2. She has further produced copy of FIR as Ex.P.2, lodged by one Sri.Gurumurthy. He has stated in FIS that while he was in home at about midnight 12.15 P.M., some public called him and reported about the accident and found his brother dead on the spot. On enquiry to public, he came to know that the driver of the JCB has come from opposite direction in a one way road in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the two wheeler of the deceased, which was coming from Hebbala to Mahadevapura. The copy of FIR is marked as Ex.P.1 alleging offences punishable under section 279, 304(A) of IPC and under section 119, 177, 134(A and B), 187 of IMV Act in Cr.No.74/2021, against the driver of the JCB. The spot panchanama and the sketch are produced as Ex.P.3 and 3(a) respectively. As per panchanama and the sketch, the alleged spot is shown at distance of 6 feet from left side of the road moving from Hebbala to Hosakote, which is one way road. Further it is also stated that the said vehicle were not found on the spot, and it was also found that the driver of the JCB ran away from the spot after leaving the SCCH-20 7 MVC No.3377/2021 said JCB in the said place. However it is also noted that the said vehicle were seized. IMV report is marked as Ex.P.4, where it is shows that the JCB had no damages, whereas the Honda Activa vehicle shows front head light assembly, the speedometer assembly damaged and opinion as to the accident is given as not due to any mechanical defects. The Inquest report is marked as Ex.P.5 and the PM report is Ex.P.6 wherein opinion as to the cause of death is given as due to the injuries sustained to the vital parts, blunt truama to chest and obdomen and report is given that these features are consistant with the history of RTA. The final report is as per Ex.P.7 in Cr.No.74/2021 against the driver of JCB alleging offences punishable under section 279, 304 (A) of IPC and under section 119, 177, 134(A and B), 187 of IMV Act.
10. The respondent has taken up defence that there is no proper DL to the said driver who was to get special certificate from concerned authority for driving special vehicle like JCB. That there is no involvement of alleged vehicle in the accident and question of JCB committing the said SCCH-20 8 MVC No.3377/2021 accident does not arise at all, since the driver has taken up proper precautions before driving the JCB. In this regard PW-1 was cross examined by the counsel for the respondent No.2. However nothing can be elicited from the mouth of PW-1 since the PW-1, wife of the deceased is not an eye witness to the accident. She is ignorant of situation which was prevailing over there. Therefore respondent No.1 summoned the driver of the vehicle and got examined him as RW-2. Thus the driver submits in his chief examination that while JCB was driven by him, there were security and the speed controller signals were also allotted in the said spot. He also further deposed that he moved the JCB only when the security issued him signals to move and the deceased dashed himself to the JCB and died on the spot. That their driver was cross examined by the counsel for the petitioner, where he admits that the said road was one way road (It was wrongly typed as two way road and since next sentence bears word as one way, the said correction is inferred). He further denies that he came in the opposite direction in the said one way road. Submits that since there were security signal on the SCCH-20 9 MVC No.3377/2021 spot and work was being proceeded, he has moved the JCB. He also admits about pendency of the criminal case and admits that the charge sheet is filed alleging that he has moved the vehicle against one way road. When this RW-2 admits the fact that the charge sheet is filed for moving his vehicle against one way, the counsel for respondent relies upon photos produced, which are computer print out, but not marked in the case. As per the said photos, there is small road showing where the signals i.e., speed limit of 20, out go slow, in boards are shown and submits that the said JCB, being special vehicle cannot move in the said small road and also points that the vehicles are shown in photos by moving towards a particular side to the road and thus JCB also has to move in the said road and cannot come against the said one way road. Though the arguments seems to be correct at a point of time, it is also important to note here that the eye witness has informed the brother of the deceased, the informant about the JCB coming from opposite direction in one way road. Though the photos are produced, there is no proof of these photos being related to the place of accident. SCCH-20 10 MVC No.3377/2021 Therefore this court cannot believe the version of respondent that the said JCB cannot move in the said small road. The charge sheet is filed after thorough investigation by the IO, who has also conducted the spot panchanama. Therefore for the purpose of only this case, the sketch and spot panchanama not being challenged till now, this court has to consider that the JCB has moved in the opposite direction. The counsel for respondent argued that the driver is an eye witness to the accident. That the petitioners have not examined any eye witness to the accident. Thus submits that weightage to the evidence of the eye witness needs to be given. Admittedly this eye witness is the accused in the criminal case pertaining to the accident. Therefore this eye witness has to take all necessary defence which is available to him in order to get him acquitted of alleged offences, which he does so, But this oral evidence is to be corroborated by other documentary or oral evidence. But the spot panchanama, sketch and statement of eye witness coupled with admissions of the driver of the vehicle that a case is lodged against him alleging not only for offences punishable SCCH-20 11 MVC No.3377/2021 for causing death of a person, but also for rash or negligent driver, and also alleging offences punishable for coming in the opposite direction in one way, this court can clearly infer and presume that the said vehicle has moved in the said road coming from opposite direction.
11. The senior executive of legal of respondent No.1 company was examined as RW-3, who has deposed that the driver was not having valid DL, that the vehicle owner has appointed security and took all precautions thus does not hold any water. In this situation, since the driver is proved to have proper DL.
12. That the RW-3 was cross examined by the counsel for the petitioners where the RW-3 submits that he is deposing based upon the documents and based upon the statement of driver of the vehicle JCB and also based upon evidence of the owner of the vehicle. He also submits that he has no personal knowledge about the accident and apart from this, nothing is elicited regarding the negligence on the SCCH-20 12 MVC No.3377/2021 part of the deceased in causing accident.
13. Authorized person of the 2nd respondent company was examined as RW-1, who denies that there is negligence on the part of the driver of JCB and submits that there were security arrangements taken, that the JCB was in proper condition with FC and the driver had proper DL etc., That he did not produce any documents except the copy of certificate issued in favour of the driver of the JCB. The said certificate was notarized copy and therefore same was marked through accused/RW-2. However RW-1 is only an authorized person and clearly submits that he is not having personal knowledge regarding the accident. Admits that the final report is filed against the driver of the JCB.
14. Further the counsel for the respondent No.1 argues that the JCB cannot move without any signals and the JCB was moving only after security giving signals. Thus the security was proper witness to the accident who has not been called for in order to give the evidence. The time of accident was mid night at 12.15 A.M., A person moving in the SCCH-20 13 MVC No.3377/2021 particular road cannot expect the vehicles to come in the opposite direction, especially in case of one way. Therefore it is clear that this JCB has come from opposite direction, violating the traffic rules, has hit the two wheeler coming from Hebbala to Hosakote Road. As per sketch, the place of accident is shown to be at the distance of 6 feet from left side. At least JCB could have moved towards left side of the said road, which could have avoided the accident. Therefore in this situation this court can easily come to the conclusion that the JCB, coming from opposite direction was completely negligent in causing the accident and accordingly the above issue is answered in affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:In order to show the age of the deceased, the petitioners have produced copy of adhaar card as Ex.P.10 pertaining to the deceased, showing his date of birth as 20.02.1985. Thus the deceased was aged about 36 years and appropriate multiplier for the said age is 15.
16. The defence of the respondent in this regard was SCCH-20 14 MVC No.3377/2021 with respect to the DL of the driver of the JCB. The counsel for the respondent submits that the said vehicle is a hydraulically operated backhoe loader, which driver should need special certificate to drive the said vehicle. Therefore tried to summon the RTO's and other authority. In the mean time the owner of the said vehicle got produced the said certificate. The notarized copy of the said certificate was retained by this court and the original was returned after due verification. This certificate was confronted to the driver of the JCB, who admits as belonging to him and therefore it was marked as Ex.R1. This certificate is issued by competent person ie., the person "authorized by the director of factories and biolers for inspection, testing and certifications of cranes etc"., The license number pertaining to the said driver is also noted along with his experience in driving the vehicle, and date of birth and other details pertaining to the said driver by name Durendra Yadhav is also provided. It is also certified that said driver is fit to operate the above said machine, which is been normally utilized in construction site and also certified that he is having good knowledge about safety and SCCH-20 15 MVC No.3377/2021 operations of the said machine. That the said certificate was issued on 31.03.2021 and was valid up to 30.03.2024. Therefore when the DL number and certificate reflecting competency of the said driver to drive the vehicle is provided, this court is of the considered opinion that the said accused/ driver was having full knowledge about driving of the said vehicle.
17. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased was working as contractor and was earning Rs.10,00,000/- per annum, Therefore employer of the said deceased was examined as PW-2 and also bank statement pertaining to the said deceased is also produced and marked as Ex.P.16 and 17. No particular regular income is shown in the said bank statement. There is credit amount of more than Rs.12,00,000/- in the month of March -2018, more than Rs.9,00,000/- in the month of April 2018 and finally shown to have total transaction of Rs.1,21,42,031/- etc, The counsel for the respondent argues that there is no income tax returns SCCH-20 16 MVC No.3377/2021 furnished and also has sought for the same to be disregarded.
18. With regard to the income proof, the petitioner got examined one Sri.Jayashankar who is senior manager accounts and administration project accountant at L & T constructions, Bangalore as RW-3. He deposed in the affidavit that as per company records the deceased was sub contractor for project works of Wipro from 2017-2018. That their company had offered project work for the value of Rs.65,42,176/- work order commencing from 21.11.2017 till completion of work. That the said project was completed and that the complainant has paid entire amount to the deceased with deduction of TDS. That he has produced work order as Ex.P.17, TDS certificates as Ex.P.18 to P.20 and one bill as Ex.P.21. As per the said work order, the Work Order was from 08.03.2018. The TDS certificates are pertaining to July 2018, October 2018. The bill Ex.P.21 is also pertaining to the work order from 21.11.2017 till 07.09.208. Therefore these documents shows that the deceased got said income as of in SCCH-20 17 MVC No.3377/2021 the year 2017-2018, which is also admitted by the PW-2. The PW-2 further submits that after 2018, no project was allotted to the deceased and also submits that he does not know about the profit, the deceased got from project work. Therefore when this oral evidence of PW-2 is coupled with bank statement produced by the defendant it is very much clear that there is no particular regular income to the deceased. There is no income tax returns filed by the deceased with this aspect. The previous year income i.e., income of the deceased before June 2021 is also not clearly shown. The petitioner submits that the evidence of PW-2 and the documents shows that the deceased was contractor and thus income to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/- which is exempted from tax may be considered. But if the returns were produced and the deceased was filing any income tax returns, this court could have considered the same. The said work would have come to the deceased as and when there is availability of work from companies. Therefore when PW-2 admits that the work order from their company lasted in the year 2018, this court cannot consider the same. Even otherwise there is no SCCH-20 18 MVC No.3377/2021 particular regular income to the deceased. Accordingly this court is of the considered opinion that the notional income to an extent of Rs.14,250/- can be considered.
19. Since the petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 and 3 are the minor children and petitioner No.4 is the aged mother of the deceased, there are 4 dependents on the income of the deceased. 1/4th of the salary must be deducted towards personal expenses and 40% of income should be added as future prospects. Therefore the petitioner No.1 to 4 are entitled for Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate.
Thus Loss of dependency calculation is as follows:
Yearly income of the deceased 14250X12= 1,71,000/-
1. Calculating 40% future prospects:
40% X 1,71,000 = 68,400/- Adding 40% future prospects: 1,71,000+68,400= 2,39,400/- SCCH-20 19 MVC No.3377/2021
2. calculation of 1/4th income of Rs.2,39,400/-
2,39,400 X 1/4 = 59,850/-
3. Deducting 1/4 personal expenses:
Rs.2,39,400-59,850/- 1,79,550/-
4. Calculating loss of dependency
1,79,550 X '15' 26,93,250/-
20. Therefore, in all, the petitioners no.1 to 4 are entitled to a compensation as calculated below;
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 26,93,250/-
2 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
3 Towards funeral and
obsequies ceremonies Rs. 15,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,60,000/-
Total Rs.28,83,250/-
21. The petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.28,83,250/- which can be rounded to Rs.28,84,000/-.
The counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following authorities.
SCCH-20 20 MVC No.3377/2021
1. In Writ Petition (Civil) No.282/2007 (General Insurance Council and other Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and others, where there is a direction to the State government and the Union Territories to instruct all the concerned police officers about the need to comply with the requirement of section 158(6) keeping in view of the requirement indicated in Rule 159 and in Form 54.
2. Of Supreme court of India, in C.A No.2943/2012 arising out of SLP © NO.30683/2010 (Surender Kumar Arora and others Vs Manoj Bisla and others).
3. IN the High Court of Calcutta FMAT 1162/2009 (The new India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Sinjini Gupta and others)
4. Bombay High Court in First Appeal No.2742/2015 (Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Manisha Lahu Kale and others) In all the above 3 authorities, the Hon'ble Appeallate courts have held that ,the burden was upon the petitioners to prove the rash and negligent driving of the respondent vehicle or the victims should opt to proceed under section 163 A of the Act. This authority is not applicable to the instant case on hand since the petitioners have proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the JCB, I.e, the offending vehicle.
5. Further the counsel for the respondent relies on the authority of the High court of Judicature at Bombay in First Appeal No.2829/2015 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Ashalata Suryakant Patil), wherein it was held that the SCCH-20 21 MVC No.3377/2021 Tribunal cannot draw conclusion that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. There should be some primafacie material to show the involvement of offending vehicle, which is absolutely applicable to the instant case on hand. The first information provided is based upon the statement of the eye witness of the accident. Therefore, the charge sheet is filed against the driver of the JCB and thus based on all the documents, this court has come to the conclusion that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
6. IN the High court of Bombay First Appeal No.848/2012 (The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs Alpa Rajesh Shah and others), wherein the judgment of SARLA VERMA was discussed and appreciated. Thus this Tribunal has also considered the said judgment and applied the appropriate Multiplier.
7. In Supreme Court of India Appeal (Civil) No.1702/2007 (Manuri Bera Vs Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., and another), wherein the distinction between right to apply for compensation and entitlement to compensation is discussed and held that the married daughter living with her husband in her husband's house is not entitled to claim compensation, which is not so in the instant case. Further the fact no fault liability and strict liability is distinguished and held that the compensation amount is fixed in the said case. But the said fact is not applicable to the instant case, where there is complete negligence on the part of the rider of the JCB.
8. Of Karnataka High court in MFA No.4427/2010 (New India Assuance Co.Ltd., Vs Shanthi Mascarenhas), the fact of delay in conducting the case by the petitioner is discussed and held that no interest is to be awarded in such cases where there is delay in proceeding with the petition. But in the instant case, the petitioners have not delayed the matter, instead it is the respondent who has delayed and thus the interest needs to be SCCH-20 22 MVC No.3377/2021 granted to the petitioners.
9. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa in F.A.NO.195/2002 (Narayan Kalangutkar and other Vs New India Insurance Co.Ltd, and others ), the fact of non-proving of the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is discussed. The same is not applicable to the instant case on hand, where the petitioners have properly proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the JCB.
22. Liability:- In this case, there is no disputed fact that the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the said JCB bearing No.GJ-37-S-0151 which caused accident. The respondent no.1 has failed to prove that the insurance company is not liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount and as on the date of accident the insurance policy was in force. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly burdening the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioners, along with the present Bank rate of interest at 6%.
SCCH-20 23 MVC No.3377/2021
23. Issue No.3: After having answered issue No.1 and 2 as supra, I hold that, the petition filed by the petitioner is fit to be allowed in Part. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.28,84,000/- with interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioners are entitled to share in the ratio of 5:2:2:1, with cost and interest and consortium as under.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,42,000/-, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 shall be SCCH-20 24 MVC No.3377/2021 released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in her name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,76,800/-, entire compensation amount shall be kept as FD in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank till they attain majority.
The petitioner No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,88,400/-, after deposit, entire amount shall be released in her favour with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 4th day of February 2023) (Sharmila C.S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
A N N E X U R E:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:SCCH-20 25 MVC No.3377/2021
PW.1 : Sudha.S PW.2 : Jayashankar.S Documents marked for petitioner: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR, Ex.P.2 : Copy of FIS Ex.P.3 : copy of spot panchanama Ex.P.3(a) : copy of spot sketch Ex.P.4 : copy of MVA report Ex.P.5 : copy of Inquest report Ex.P.6 : copy of PM report Ex.P.7 : Copy of charge sheet Ex.P.8 : copy of work order Ex.P.9 : copy of DL
Ex.P.10-14: Notarized copy of Adhaar card Ex.P.15 : copy of Registration certificate Ex.P.16 : bank statement Ex.P.17 : copy of work order Ex.P.18 : copy of Form 16A Ex.P.19 : copy of Form 16A Ex.P.20 : copy of Form 16A Ex.P.21 : copy of bills summary of L& T constructions Witnesses examined for respondents:
RW-1 Swish Kumar Raushan RW-2 Durendra Yadav RW-3 Chaitresh D Habbu Documents marked for respondents: Ex.R1-2 Authorization letters Ex.R3 Policy Digitally signed by SHARMILA SHARMILA C S CS Date: 2023.02.06 15:23:38 +0530 (Sharmila C S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, SCCH-20 26 MVC No.3377/2021 Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru. SCCH-20 27 MVC No.3377/2021 04.02.2023 (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court vide separate Order) ORDER
The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.28,84,000/- with interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioners are entitled to share in the ratio of 5:2:2:1, with cost and interest and consortium as under.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,42,000/-, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in her name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years. SCCH-20 28 MVC No.3377/2021
The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,76,800/-, entire compensation amount shall be kept as FD in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank till they attain majority.
The petitioner No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,88,400/-, after deposit, entire amount shall be released in her favour with proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw Award accordingly.
V Addl. Judge & 24th ACMM SCCH-20 29 MVC No.3377/2021 AWARD SCCH NO.20 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC. No.3377/2021 PETITIONER: 1. Smt.Sudha.S W/o Late Prasad.G Aged about 32 years,
2. Master.Gagan Prasad.P S/o Late Prasad.G Aged about 07 years,
3. Kum.Aadhya Prasad.P D/o Late Prasad.P Aged about 04 years,
4. Smt.Muniyamma S/o Late Gangappa All are residing at;
# 237, 1st cross, Mahadevapura, Bangalore - 560048 (Petitioner No.2 and 3 being minor represented by their mother and natural guardian Smt.Sudha.S W/o Late Prasad.G ) (By Pleader Sri.T.Manjunatha)
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s Bajaj Allianz GIC Ltd., Motor Claims Hub, No.1/2, 4th floor, Near Sujatha Theater, 59th C Cross, 4th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore - 560010 SCCH-20 30 MVC No.3377/2021
2. M/s ITD Cementation India Ltd., Plot No.1, Sai krupa, A.Narayanapura Main road, Dooravaninagar, Bangalore - 560016 (R1-By pleader Sri.Raghavendra Bhat R2-By pleader Sri.B.S.Basavaraju) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Smt.Sharmila.C.S, XXIV.Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners No.1 to 4 are entitled for compensation of Rs.28,84,000/- with interest @ 6% pa., from the date of petition SCCH-20 31 MVC No.3377/2021 till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall deposit aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest before this tribunal within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioners are entitled to share in the ratio of 5:2:2:1, with cost and interest and consortium as under.
The petitioner No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,42,000/-, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in her name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
The petitioner No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,76,800/-, entire compensation amount shall be kept as FD in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank till they attain majority.
The petitioner No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,88,400/-, after deposit, entire amount shall be released in her favour with proper identification.
SCCH-20 32 MVC No.3377/2021
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2022.
Member, M.A.C.T, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff/s Defendant/s
1. Stamp paid on plaint (C/f)
2. Stamp paid for power
3. Stamp on I.A's
4. Service on Process
5. Advocate
6. Others / Total Decree drafted Decree Scrutinized Member, M.A.C.T, by by Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
SCCH-20 33 MVC No.3377/2021