Bangalore District Court
Have Not Taken Steps As Against The vs No.2 on 4 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 4th day of November, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.1097/2014
C/w. M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014
1. Sri. Syed Illyaz Pasha, ..... PETITIONERS IN
S/o. Syed Ali, M.V.C.No.1097/2014
Aged about 54 years.
2. Smt. Raziya Sulthana,
W/o. Syed Illyaz Pasha,
Aged about 42 years.
Both the Petitioners are
R/o. D.No.23, Bovi Lane,
D. Street, Ashok Nagar,
Bangalore - 25.
(By Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwal, Adv.,)
V/s
..... RESPONDENTS IN
1. Sri. Nasin Khan,
M.V.C.No.1097/2014
S/o. S.J. Ummar Khan,
Major,
R/o. D.No.246, Austin Town,
Centre Road,
SCCH-7 2 MVC.No.1095/2014
Bangalore - 560 047.
(Owner of the Maruthi Swift Dzire
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823)
2. The Manager,
The HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
No.108, Off KH Road,
1st Cross, Ramamurthy Extension,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
And also at;
Unit No.108/109/110/111,
1st Floor, H.M. Geneva House,
No.14, Next to Forties Hospital,
Cunnigham Road,
Bangalore - 560 052.
3. Mallappa Ukki,
S/o. Basappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Badge No.11729,
33rd Depo,
Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru.
4. The Managing Director,
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation,
Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sir. Madhu Kiran, Adv.,)
(R-3 Dismissed)
(R-2 By Sri. K.M. Sanath Kumara, Adv.,)
SCCH-7 3 MVC.No.1095/2014
1. Sri. Mohammed Syed, ..... PETITIONERS IN
Aged about 54 years. M.V.C.No.1095/2014
2. Smt. Asma Jabeen,
W/o. Sri. Mohammed Syeed,
Aged about 44 years.
Both the Petitioners are
R/o. D.No.27/1,
Pulyara Koil Street,
Ashok Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 025.
(By Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwal, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Sri. Nasin Khan, ..... RESPONDENTS IN
S/o. S.J. Ummar Khan, M.V.C.No.1095/2014
Aged about 50 years,
R/o. D.No.246, Centre Road,
Austin Town,
Bangalore - 560 047.
(Owner of the Maruthi Swift Dzire bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823)
2. The Manager,
The HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
No.108, Off KH Road,
1st Cross, Ramamurthy Extension,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
And also at;
Unit No.108/109/110/111,
1st Floor, H.M. Geneva House,
SCCH-7 4 MVC.No.1095/2014
No.14, Next to Forties Hospital,
Cunnigham Road,
Bangalore - 560 052.
3. Mallappa Ukki,
S/o. Basappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Badge No.11729,
33rd Depo, Uttarahalli,
Bengaluru.
4. The Managing Director,
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation,
Shanthi Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sir. Madhu Kiran, Adv.,)
(R-2 Dismisssed)
(R-2 By Sri. K.M. Sanath Kumara, Adv.,)
1. Sri. Lakshimachand Sharma, ..... PETITIONERS IN
S/o. Rathan Lal, M.V.C.No.1096/2014
Aged about 49 years.
2. Smt. Kusum Latha Sharma,
W/o. Sri Lakshmichand Sharma,
Aged about 45 years.
Both the Petitioners are
R/o D.No.18/19,
Pulyara Koil Street,
Ashok Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 047.
(By Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwal, Adv.,)
SCCH-7 5 MVC.No.1095/2014
V/s
..... RESPONDENTS IN
1. Sri. Nasin Khan, M.V.C.No.1096/2014
S/o. S.J. Ummar Khan,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o. D.No.246, Centre Road,
Austin Town,
Bangalore - 560 047.
(Owner of the Maruthi Swift Dzire bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823)
2. The Manager,
The HDFC ERGO General Insurance
Company Ltd.,
No.108, Off KH Road,
1st Cross, Ramamurthy Extension,
Bengaluru - 560 027.
And also at;
Unit No.108/109/110/111,
1st Floor, H.M. Geneva House,
No.14, Next to Forties Hospital,
Cunnigham Road,
Bangalore - 560 052.
3. Mallappa Ukki,
S/o. Basappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Badge No.11729,
33rd Depo,Uttarahalli,
Bangaluru.
4. The Managing Director,
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation,
Shanthi Nagar,
SCCH-7 6 MVC.No.1095/2014
Bengaluru - 560 027.
(R-1 Exparte)
(R-2 By Sir. Madhu Kiran, Adv.,)
(R-2 Dismissed)
(R-2 By Sri. K.M. Sanath Kumara, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Orders dated 27.06.2015, 28.01.2015 and
27.06.2015 passed on Memos in M.V.C.No.1097/2014,
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014 are clubbed with
the said M.V.C.No.1097/2014 and the common evidence is
recorded in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.1097/2014,
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014 are pending for
consideration and disposal before this Tribunal by passing a
common Judgment.
2. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed the present
petition in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 as against the Respondents No.1
to 4 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to
award compensation of Rupees 40,00,000/- with costs, in respect
of the death of Sri. Syed Ayub Pasha S/o. Syed Illyaz Pasha.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case in M.V.C.
No.1097/2014 are as follows;
a) As on the date of accident, the Respondent No.1 and
the Respondent No.4 were the R.C. Owners of the Maruthi Swift
SCCH-7 7 MVC.No.1095/2014
Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and BMTC Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and the Respondent No.2
was the Insurer of the Car.
b) On 14.09.2013, the deceased Sri. Syed Ayub Pasha
S/o. Sri. Syed Illyaz Pasha, their son, was traveling in the Maruthi
Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 with 4
others including the driver. While they were moving in front of
Sommanahalli KEB Quarters on Bangalore - Kanakapura Road,
the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner
and due to the front right side tyre burst of the Car, the driver of
the vehicle lost control of the Car and the Car hit to the BMTC
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and due to the
accident, all the 5 inmates of the Car including deceased Syed
Ayub Pasha died on the spot due to the accidental injuries.
c) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825. The
jurisdictional Thalaghattapura Police Station have registered a
Case bearing No.589/2013 as against the driver of the said
offending vehicle.
d) They are the parents of the deceased. They have been
put to untold misery and mental agony due the tragic death of
their son Syed Ayub Pasha in a road traffic accident.
e) The deceased Syed Aub Pasha was aged 22 years and
was an employee in IBM Company, Bangalore, having income of
SCCH-7 8 MVC.No.1095/2014
Rupees 15,000/- p.m., and he was hale, healthy and hard
working prior to the accident and he was having bright future.
f) They were entirely depending on the earning of the
deceased and finding extremely difficult to eake out their
livelihood as the only bread earner of their family and now the
family is put to heavy financial stress and mental agony. Hence,
this petition.
4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 22.04.2014.
5. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 22.04.2014. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 21.07.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 08.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
6. Since inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Petitioners have not taken steps as against the Respondent No.3,
the petition filed by the Petitioners as against the Respondent No.3
is dismissed on 17.10.2014.
SCCH-7 9 MVC.No.1095/2014
7. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.4 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
8. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1097/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either on facts or in
law against him.
b) He has issued a Policy bearing
No.23112001877331011000 in respect of Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 and the said policy was in
force from 28.01.2013 to 27.01.2014. Without prejudice to the
confirmation of the policy, the liability of it, if any, will be
subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy, verification of
Engine and Chassis Number, the validity and the effective driving
licence of the rider of the vehicle and subjected to the provisions of
the M.V. Act.
c) He seeks protection under the Section 147 and 149 of
the M.V. Act, 1998.
d) As per Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act, 1998, it is
mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.1, to furnish the
particulars of policy, RC, DL and FC, but, the insured/Respondent
No.1 has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, he is not
liable to pay compensation.
SCCH-7 10 MVC.No.1095/2014
e) The driver was driving the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823, without possessing a
valid and effective driving licence on the date of the alleged
accident. Hence, as there was breach of condition, He is not liable
to indemnify of the Respondent No.1.
f) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from
the date of the information. But, the Thalaghattapura Police
Station Authorities have failed to forward the documents and not
complied with the statutory demand.
g) The Petitioners claimed interest at the rate of 12%,
which is highly excessive and the same is contrary to Section 3 of
the Interest Act, 1978 and the observation of the various
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
h) The Petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of Judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court.
i) The deceased's driver drove the Car on the road in a
negligent manner without taking proper precautions and without
observing the movement of the vehicles. The accident occurred
during the evening at around 4-10 p.m. The deceased's driver
without having proper conscious, along with the four other
inmates had consumed alcohol, i.e., 'Drink and Drive' as per the
SCCH-7 11 MVC.No.1095/2014
Postmortem and FSL Report, the driver himself hit the said BMTC
Bus while driving on the road. The deceased driver in having
taken the risk while having consumed alcohol and driving on the
road in a haphazard manner being the evening hours without
taking proper precautions, without noticing the oncoming vehicles
and as such, the Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation
from him.
j) He craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all
defences available to it, under Section 170 of M.V. Act and contest
the case on all grounds, apart from those specified under Section
149(2) of the Act.
k) He craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to his knowledge.
l) Without prejudice to the said contentions, the amount
of Rupees 40,00,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the
Petitioners in the petition is more excessive, exorbitant and
exaggerated and the Petitioners are not entitled for the same from
him. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs, else, his
Company will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
9. The Respondent No.4 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1097/2014, has further contended
as follows;
SCCH-7 12 MVC.No.1095/2014
a) At the out-set, the very petition is misconceived and
not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-
1241 on 14.09.2013 was in its schedule trip from Banashankari
to Kempaiahnapalya in Route No.213D/1. When the Bus was
proceeding, in a road in front of Somanahally KEB, slowly,
cautiously by following all the traffic rules in extreme left side of
the road (mud road adjacent to the Tar road), the driver of the
Swift Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 came in a
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with
intoxication of alcohol along with other inmates of the Car, those
were also under the intoxication of alcohol and all of a sudden
deviated to extreme right (wrong direction) and dashed as against
the BMTC Bus with great force at left side of the Bus and caused
the accident. In this process, the driver of the Car exposed to that
angle and caused the accident. If the driver of the Car had taken
little care while driving the Car, the alleged accident could have
been avoided. Under those circumstances, he is not at all
responsible for the alleged accident nor his driver and at any rate,
he is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the huge
amount claimed in the petition vicariously or otherwise as alleged
in the petition.
c) The compensation claimed Rupees 40,00,000/- for the
death of deceased is highly excessive, exorbitant, imaginary,
unaffordable and astromical and have no relation to facts and
circumstances of the case. He is not liable to pay the same as
SCCH-7 13 MVC.No.1095/2014
claimed under the facts and circumstances of the case, that too,
when actually the driver of the Car exposed for the accident by his
own negligent and careless attitude.
d) The averments made in Column 22 by way of
additional and other information has been used by the Petitioners
for the purpose of concocting false and unbelievable story for the
purpose of somehow extracting a huge compensation from him for
the alleged accident, for which, neither BMTC Bus not his driver
in no way responsible, connected or concerned and they are not at
all responsible for the accident.
e) The averments made with an oblique motive by the
Petitioners in order to extract huge sum by way of compensation,
when actually he or his driver was not at all responsible for the
accident.
f) He reserves his right to file additional Written
Statement, if the occasion demands at later date or stage. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost.
10. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 as against the Respondents No.1 to 4 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 40,00,000/- with costs, in respect of
death of Sri. Mohammed Junaid S/o. Mohammed Syeed.
SCCH-7 14 MVC.No.1095/2014
11. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case in M.V.C.
No.1095/2014 are as follows;
a) As on the date of accident, the Respondent No.1 and
the Respondent No.4, were the R.C. Owners of the Maruthi Swift
Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and BMTC Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and the Respondent No.2
was the Insurer of the Car.
b) On 14.09.2013, the deceased Sri. Mohammed Junaid
S/o. Sri. Mohammed Syeed (son of the Petitioners) was traveling
in the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-
9825 with 4 others including the driver. While they were moving in
front of Sommanahalli KEB Quarters on Bangalore - Kanakapura
Road, the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and due to the front right side tyre burst of the
Car, the driver of the vehicle lost control of the Car and the Car hit
to the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and due
to the accident, all the 5 inmates of the Car, including deceased
Mayur Sharma died on the spot due to the accidental injuries.
c) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825. The
jurisdictional Thalaghattapura Police Station have registered a
Case bearing No.589/2013 as against the driver of the said
offending vehicle.
SCCH-7 15 MVC.No.1095/2014
d) They are the parents of the deceased. They have been
put to untold misery and mental agony due the tragic death of
their son Mohammed Junaid in a road traffic accident.
e) The deceased Mohammed Junaid was aged 21 years
and was a businessman, having income of Rupees 15,928/- p.m.,
and he was hale and healthy and hard working prior to the
accident and he was having bright future.
f) The deceased Mohammed Junaid was supporting his
family financially earlier to the accident and due to the accident,
they finding extremely difficult to eake their livelihood and now,
the family is put to heavy financial stress and mental agony.
Hence, this petition.
12. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 22.04.2014.
13. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 22.04.2014. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 18.08.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
SCCH-7 16 MVC.No.1095/2014
dated 08.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
14. Since inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Petitioners have not taken steps as against the Respondent No.3,
the petition filed by the Petitioners as against the Respondent No.3
is dismissed on 17.10.2014.
15. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.4 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
16. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1095/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either on facts or in
law against him.
b) He has issued a Policy bearing
No.23112001877331011000 in respect of Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 and the said policy was in
force from 28.01.2013 to 27.01.2014. Without prejudice to the
confirmation of the policy, the liability of it, if any, will be
subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy, verification of
Engine and Chassis Number, the validity and the effective driving
licence of the rider of the vehicle and subjected to the provisions of
the M.V. Act.
SCCH-7 17 MVC.No.1095/2014
c) He seeks protection under the Section 147 and 149 of
the M.V. Act, 1998.
d) As per Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act, 1998, it is
mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.1, to furnish the
particulars of policy, RC, DL and FC, but, the insured/Respondent
No.1 has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, he is not
liable to pay compensation.
e) The driver was driving the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823, without possessing a
valid and effective driving licence on the date of the alleged
accident. Hence, as there was breach of condition, He is not liable
to indemnify of the Respondent No.1.
f) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from
the date of the information. But, the Thalaghattapura Police
Station Authorities have failed to forward the documents and not
complied with the statutory demand.
g) The Petitioners claimed interest at the rate of 12%,
which is highly excessive and the same is contrary to Section 3 of
the Interest Act, 1978 and the observation of the various
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
SCCH-7 18 MVC.No.1095/2014
h) The Petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of Judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court.
i) The deceased driver drove the Car on the road in a
negligent manner without taking proper precautions and without
observing the movement of the vehicles. The accident occurred
during the evening at around 4-10 p.m. The deceased's driver
without having proper conscious, along with the four other
inmates had consumed alcohol, i.e., 'Drink and Drive' as per the
Postmortem and FSL Report, the driver himself hit the said BMTC
Bus while driving on the road. The deceased driver in having
taken the risk while having consumed alcohol and driving on the
road in a haphazard manner being the evening hours without
taking proper precautions, without noticing the oncoming vehicles
and as such, the Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation
from him.
j) He craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all
defences available to it, under Section 170 of M.V. Act and contest
the case on all grounds, apart from those specified under Section
149(2) of the Act.
k) He craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to his knowledge.
SCCH-7 19 MVC.No.1095/2014
l) Without prejudice to the said contentions, the amount
of Rupees 40,00,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the
Petitioners in the petition is more excessive, exorbitant and
exaggerated and the Petitioners are not entitled for the same from
him. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs, else, his
Company will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
17. The Respondent No.4 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1095/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) At the out-set, the very petition is misconceived and
not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-
1241 on 14.09.2013 was in its schedule trip from Banashankari
to Kempaiahnapalya in Route No.213D/1. When the Bus was
proceeding, in a road in front of Somanahally KEB, slowly,
cautiously by following all the traffic rules in extreme left side of
the road (mud road adjacent to the Tar road), the driver of the
Swift Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 came in a
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with
intoxication of alcohol along with other inmates of the Car, those
were also under the intoxication of alcohol and all of a sudden
deviated to extreme right (wrong direction) and dashed as against
the BMTC Bus with great force at left side of the Bus and caused
the accident. In this process, the driver of the Car exposed to that
angle and caused the accident. If the driver of the Car had taken
SCCH-7 20 MVC.No.1095/2014
little care while driving the Car, the alleged accident could have
been avoided. Under those circumstances, he is not at all
responsible for the alleged accident nor his driver and at any rate,
he is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the huge
amount claimed in the petition vicariously or otherwise as alleged
in the petition.
c) The compensation claimed Rupees 40,00,000/- for the
death of deceased is highly excessive, exorbitant, imaginary,
unaffordable and astromical and have no relation to facts and
circumstances of the case. He is not liable to pay the same as
claimed under the facts and circumstances of the case, that too,
when actually the driver of the Car exposed for the accident by his
own negligent and careless attitude.
d) The averments made in Column 22 by way of
additional and other information has been used by the Petitioners
for the purpose of concocting false and unbelievable story for the
purpose of somehow extracting a huge compensation from him for
the alleged accident, for which, neither BMTC Bus not his driver
in no way responsible, connected or concerned and they are not at
all responsible for the accident.
e) The averments made with an oblique motive by the
Petitioners in order to extract huge sum by way of compensation,
when actually he or his driver was not at all responsible for the
accident.
SCCH-7 21 MVC.No.1095/2014
f) He reserves his right to file additional Written
Statement, if the occasion demands at later date or stage. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost.
18. The Petitioners No.1 and 2 have filed
M.V.C.No.1096/2014 as against the Respondents No.1 to 4 under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 40,00,000/- with costs, in respect of
death of Sri. Mayur Sharma S/o. Lakshmichand Sharma.
19. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case in M.V.C.
No.1096/2014 are as follows;
a) As on the date of accident, the Respondent No.1 and
the Respondent No.4, were the R.C. Owners of the Maruthi Swift
Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and BMTC Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and the Respondent No.2
was the Insurer of the Car.
b) On 14.09.2013, the deceased Sri. Mayur Sharma S/o.
Lakshmichand Sharma (son of the Petitioners) was traveling in the
Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825
with 4 others including the driver. While they were moving in front
of Sommanahalli KEB Quarters on Bangalore - Kanakapura Road,
the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner and due to the front right side tyre burst of the Car, the
driver of the vehicle lost control of the Car and the Car hit to the
BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and due to the
SCCH-7 22 MVC.No.1095/2014
accident, all the 5 inmates of the Car, including deceased Mayur
Sharma died on the spot due to the accidental injuries.
c) The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825. The
jurisdictional Thalaghattapura Police Station have registered a
Case bearing No.589/2013 as against the driver of the said
offending vehicle.
d) They are the parents of the deceased. They have been
put to untold misery and mental agony due the tragic death of
their son Mohammed Junaid in a road traffic accident.
e) The deceased Mayur Sharma was aged 21 years and
was a businessman, having income of Rupees 16,000/- p.m., and
he was hale and healthy and hard working prior to the accident
and he was having bright future.
f) The deceased Mayur Sharma was supporting his family
financially earlier to the accident and due to the accident, they
finding extremely difficult to eake their livelihood and now, the
family is put to heavy financial stress and mental agony. Hence,
this petition.
20. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 22.04.2014.
SCCH-7 23 MVC.No.1095/2014
21. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 22.04.2014. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 21.07.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 08.01.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed
by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
22. Since inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the
Petitioners have not taken steps as against the Respondent No.3,
the petition filed by the Petitioners as against the Respondent No.3
is dismissed on 17.10.2014.
23. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.4 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and
has filed the written statement.
24. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1096/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) The petition is not maintainable either on facts or in
law against him.
b) He has issued a Policy bearing
No.23112001877331011000 in respect of Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
SCCH-7 24 MVC.No.1095/2014
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 and the said policy was in
force from 28.01.2013 to 27.01.2014. Without prejudice to the
confirmation of the policy, the liability of it, if any, will be
subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy, verification of
Engine and Chassis Number, the validity and the effective driving
licence of the rider of the vehicle and subjected to the provisions of
the M.V. Act.
c) He seeks protection under the Section 147 and 149 of
the M.V. Act, 1998.
d) As per Section 134(c) of the M.V. Act, 1998, it is
mandatory duty of the insured/Respondent No.1, to furnish the
particulars of policy, RC, DL and FC, but, the insured/Respondent
No.1 has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, he is not
liable to pay compensation.
e) The driver was driving the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823, without possessing a
valid and effective driving licence on the date of the alleged
accident. Hence, as there was breach of condition, He is not liable
to indemnify of the Respondent No.1.
f) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all the
relevant documents to the concerned Insurer within 30 days from
the date of the information. But, the Thalaghattapura Police
SCCH-7 25 MVC.No.1095/2014
Station Authorities have failed to forward the documents and not
complied with the statutory demand.
g) The Petitioners claimed interest at the rate of 12%,
which is highly excessive and the same is contrary to Section 3 of
the Interest Act, 1978 and the observation of the various
Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
h) The Petitioners are not entitled to claim any interest on
non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of Judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court.
i) The deceased driver drove the Car on the road in a
negligent manner without taking proper precautions and without
observing the movement of the vehicles. The accident occurred
during the evening at around 4-10 p.m. The deceased's driver
without having proper conscious, along with the four other
inmates had consumed alcohol, i.e., 'Drink and Drive' as per the
Postmortem and FSL Report, the driver himself hit the said BMTC
Bus while driving on the road. The deceased driver in having
taken the risk while having consumed alcohol and driving on the
road in a haphazard manner being the evening hours without
taking proper precautions, without noticing the oncoming vehicles
and as such, the Petitioners are not entitled to any compensation
from him.
j) He craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all
defences available to it, under Section 170 of M.V. Act and contest
SCCH-7 26 MVC.No.1095/2014
the case on all grounds, apart from those specified under Section
149(2) of the Act.
k) He craves the leave of this Hon'ble Court to file an
additional counter at a later stage as and when the better
particulars come to his knowledge.
l) Without prejudice to the said contentions, the amount
of Rupees 40,00,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the
Petitioners in the petition is more excessive, exorbitant and
exaggerated and the Petitioners are not entitled for the same from
him. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs, else, his
Company will be put to irreparable loss and injury.
25. The Respondent No.4 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1096/2014, has further contended
as follows;
a) At the out-set, the very petition is misconceived and
not maintainable either in law or on facts.
b) The BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-
1241 on 14.09.2013 was in its schedule trip from Banashankari
to Kempaiahnapalya in Route No.213D/1. When the Bus was
proceeding, in a road in front of Somanahally KEB, slowly,
cautiously by following all the traffic rules in extreme left side of
the road (mud road adjacent to the Tar road), the driver of the
Swift Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 came in a
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with
SCCH-7 27 MVC.No.1095/2014
intoxication of alcohol along with other inmates of the Car, those
were also under the intoxication of alcohol and all of a sudden
deviated to extreme right (wrong direction) and dashed as against
the BMTC Bus with great force at left side of the Bus and caused
the accident. In this process, the driver of the Car exposed to that
angle and caused the accident. If the driver of the Car had taken
little care while driving the Car, the alleged accident could have
been avoided. Under those circumstances, he is not at all
responsible for the alleged accident nor his driver and at any rate,
he is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the huge
amount claimed in the petition vicariously or otherwise as alleged
in the petition.
c) The compensation claimed Rupees 40,00,000/- for the
death of deceased is highly excessive, exorbitant, imaginary,
unaffordable and astromical and have no relation to facts and
circumstances of the case. He is not liable to pay the same as
claimed under the facts and circumstances of the case, that too,
when actually the driver of the Car exposed for the accident by his
own negligent and careless attitude.
d) The averments made in Column 22 by way of
additional and other information has been used by the Petitioners
for the purpose of concocting false and unbelievable story for the
purpose of somehow extracting a huge compensation from him for
the alleged accident, for which, neither BMTC Bus not his driver
in no way responsible, connected or concerned and they are not at
all responsible for the accident.
SCCH-7 28 MVC.No.1095/2014
e) The averments made with an oblique motive by the
Petitioners in order to extract huge sum by way of compensation,
when actually he or his driver was not at all responsible for the
accident.
f) He reserves his right to file additional Written
Statement, if the occasion demands at later date or stage. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost.
26. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.1097/2014
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
they are the dependents and legal
representatives of deceased
SRI.SYED AYUB PASHA?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Maruthi
Swift Dzire Car Bearing Reg.No.KA-
03-ML-9825 by its driver and Sri.
Syed Ayub Pasha died due to the
injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
4. What Order?
SCCH-7 29 MVC.No.1095/2014
In M.V.C.No.1095/2014
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
they are the dependents and legal
representatives of deceased
SRI.MOHAMMED JUNAID?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the
Maruthi Swift Dzire Car Bearing
Reg.No.KA-03-ML-9825 by its
driver and Sri. Mohammed Junaid
died due to the injuries sustained
in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
4. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.1096/2014
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
they are the dependents and legal
representatives of deceased
SRI.MAYUR SHARMA?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the
Maruthi Swift Dzire Car Bearing
Reg.No.KA-03-ML-9825 by its
driver and Sri. Mayur Sharma died
due to the injuries sustained in
the accident?
SCCH-7 30 MVC.No.1095/2014
3. Whether the Petitioners are
entitled for compensation? If so,
how much and from whom?
4. What Order?
27. In order to prove their respective cases, the Petitioners
in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 have examined the Petitioner No.1 as
P.W.1 by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and have
placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.21
and the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1095/2014 have examined the
Petitioner No.1 as P.W.2 by filing an affidavit as his examination-
in-chief and have placed reliance upon Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.15,
Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.25 and Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.36 and the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.1096/2014 have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.3
filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and have placed
reliance upon Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.33, Ex.P.37 and Ex.P.38. On the
other hand, the Respondent No.2 has examined the Doctor as
R.W.1 and his Manager-Legal as R.W.2 by filing the affidavits as
their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1
and Ex.R.1. On the other hand, the Respondent No.4 has
examined his Driver as R.W.3 by filing an affidavit his
examination-in-chief and no documents got marked on his behalf.
Ex.P.34 is marked through R.W.2 during the course of cross-
examination, by confrontation.
28. It is pertinent to note here that, Ex.R.1 True copy of
Charge Sheet is marked with consent and again Ex.R.1 True copy
SCCH-7 31 MVC.No.1095/2014
of FSL Report dated 30.01.2014 is marked through R.W.1. Hence,
to avoid the confliction in identifying the said marked documents,
Ex.R.1 True copy of FSL Report dated 30.01.2014, which is
marked through R.W.1, is considered as Ex.R.2 in the following
discussion.
29. Heard the arguments.
30. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioners Sri. Rahamathulla Kothwal has
placed reliance upon the decision reported in,
Civil Appeal No.8612 of 2013 Supreme Court of India (M.
Mansoor and Another V/s. United India Insurance Company
Ltd., and Another), wherein, it is observed that,
17. Appellants produced the salary
certificate of deceased Amjath Khan Arabu,
which has been marked as Ex.P.8. It shows
that, the deceased was earning Rupees
18,100/- per month. The Tribunal has
rightly taken into consideration the
aforesaid income for computing the
compensation. The annual income comes to
Rupees 2,17,200/-. If 50% of the said
income is deducted towards personal and
living expenses of the deceased the
contribution to the family will be Rupees
1,08,600/-. At the time of accident, the
deceased Amjath Khan Arabu was a
bachelor about 24 years old hence on the
basis of the decision in Sarla Verma Case
(supra) applying the multiplier of 18, the
amount will come to Rupees 19,54,800/-.
SCCH-7 32 MVC.No.1095/2014
Besides this amount the claimants are
entitled to get Rupees 50,000/- each
towards the loss of affection of the son, i.e.,
Rupees 1,00,000/- and Rupees 10,000/- on
account of funeral and ritual expenses.
Therefore, the total amount comes to
Rupees 20,64,800/- and the claimants are
entitled to get the said amount of
compensation instead of the amount
awarded by the Tribunal and the High
Court. They would also be entitled to get
interst at the rate of 6% per annum from
the date of the filing of the claim petition till
realization.
31. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.1097/2014
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 16,95,000/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
SCCH-7 33 MVC.No.1095/2014
M.V.C.No.1095/2014
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 15,33,000/-
with interest at the rate of
8% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.No.1096/2014
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 15,33,000/-
with interest at the rate of
8% p.a. from the date of
the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
SCCH-7 34 MVC.No.1095/2014
for the following;
REASONS
32. ISSUE NO.1 IN M.V.C.NO.1097/2014 :- The P.W.1,
who is the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.1097/2014, has stated in
his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner No.2 is his wife and
the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha was their son, who died in the road
traffic accident, which was taken place on 14.09.2013, when he
was traveling in the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 with 4 other persons including the driver Yasir
Khan and due to the said accident, his son Syed Ayub Pasha died
on the spot due to the accidental injuries. He has further stated
that, they were depending upon their son for their livelihood. The
Petitioners have produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.4
Inquest, Ex.P.5 Postmortem Report, Ex.P.6 Death Certificate
relating to Syed Ayub Pasha, Ex.P.16 B.Com Certificate relating to
Syed Ayub Pasha, Ex.P.17 Aashaar Card relating to Syed Iliyaz
Pasha, Ex.P.18 Aadahar Card relating to Raziya Sultana, Ex.P.19
Election Identity Card relating to Syed Ayub Pasha, Ex.P.20
Election Identity Card relating to Syed Iliyaz Pasha and Ex.P.21
Election Identity Card relating to Raziya Sultana. On perusal of
the said oral evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the contents of the
said material documents, it clearly goes to show that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of
the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha, who died due to the accidental
injuries on the accidental spot itself on 14.09.2013 at 1-30 p.m.,
when he was traveling in the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825, which hit to the BMTC
SCCH-7 35 MVC.No.1095/2014
Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241. Hence, it can be
safely held that, the Petitioner No.1 being a father and the
Petitioner No.2 being a mother are the legal representatives of the
said deceased. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that,
both the Petitioners are the dependents upon the said deceased,
as, it is well settled principle of law that, the father cannot be
considered as a dependent upon the son and though the P.W.1 in
his cross-examination has stated that, he is not doing any work,
to consider the same, no acceptable material documentary
evidence is produced by the Petitioners. Hence, the Petitioners
No.2 being a mother of the deceased can only be considered as a
dependent upon the said deceased. Accordingly, I answered
Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 partly in the Affirmative.
33. ISSUE NO.1 IN M.V.C.NO.1095/2014 :- The P.W.2,
who is the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.1095/2014, has stated in
his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner No.2 is his wife and
the deceased Mohammed Junaid was their son, who died in the
road traffic accident, which was taken place on 14.09.2013, when
he was traveling in the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 with 4 other persons including
the driver Yasir Khan and due to the said accident, his son
Mohammed Junaid died on the spot due to the accidental injuries.
He has further stated that, they were depending upon their son for
their livelihood. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.11 Burial
Report dated 17.09.2013, Ex.P.12 Death Certificate relating to
Mohammed Junaid, Ex.P.15 Aadhaar Card relating to Mohammed
Junaid, Ex.P.22 SSLC Marks Card relating to Mohammed Junaid,
SCCH-7 36 MVC.No.1095/2014
Ex.P.23 Aadhaar Card relating to Mohammed Junaid, Ex.P.24
Aadahar Card relating to Moahmmed Sayeed, Ex.P.25 Aadhaar
Card relating to Asma Jabeen, Ex.P.35 Inquest and Ex.P.36
Postmortem Report. On perusal of the said oral evidence of P.W.2
coupled with the contents of the said material documents, it
clearly goes to show that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father and the
Petitioner No.2 is a mother of the deceased Mohammed Junaid,
who died due to the accidental injuries on the accidental spot
itself on 14.09.2013 at 1-30 p.m., when he was traveling in the
offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-
ML-9825, which hit to the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-
01-FA-1241. Hence, it can be safely held that, the Petitioner No.1
being a father and the Petitioner No.2 being a mother are the legal
representatives of the said deceased. But, based on the same, it
cannot be said that, both the Petitioners are the dependents upon
the said deceased, as, it is well settled principle of law that, the
father cannot be considered as a dependent upon the son.
Further, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated
that, he is working in a Hotel as a Assistant, which clearly
disclosed that, the Petitioner No.1, who is a father of the deceased
is having his own independent income. Hence, the Petitioners No.2
being a mother of the deceased can only be considered as a
dependent upon the said deceased. Accordingly, I answered
Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.1095/2014 partly in the Affirmative
34. ISSUE NO.1 IN M.V.C.NO.1096/2014 :- The P.W.3,
who is the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.1096/2014, has stated in
his examination-in-chief that, the Petitioner No.2 is his wife and
SCCH-7 37 MVC.No.1095/2014
the deceased Mayur Sharma was their son, who died in the road
traffic accident, which was taken place on 14.09.2013, when he
was traveling in the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 with 4 other persons including the driver Yasir
Khan and due to the said accident, his son Mayur Sharma died on
the spot due to the accidental injuries. He has further stated that,
they were depending upon their son for their livelihood. The
Petitioners have produced Ex.P.26 Burial Report dated
15.09.2013, Ex.P.27 Death Certificate relating to Mayur Sharma,
Ex.P.28 Certificate dated 14.01.2015, Ex.P.29 SSLC Marks Card
relating to Mayur Sharma. L., Ex.P.30 Election Identity Card
relating to Mayur Sharma. L., Ex.P.31 Election Identity Card
relating to R. Lakshmichand Sharma, Ex.P.32 Aadhaar Card
relating to Kusam, Ex.P.33 Aadhard Card relating to R.
Lakshmichand Sharma, Ex.P.37 Inquest and Ex.P.38 Postmortem
Report. On perusal of the said oral evidence of P.W.3 coupled with
the contents of the said material documents, it clearly goes to
show that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is
a mother of the deceased Mayur Sharma, who died due to the
accidental injuries on the accidental spot itself on 14.09.2013 at
1-30 p.m., when he was traveling in the offending Maruthi Swift
Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825, which hit to
the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241. Hence, it
can be safely held that, the Petitioner No.1 being a father and the
Petitioner No.2 being a mother are the legal representatives of the
said deceased. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that,
both the Petitioners are the dependents upon the said deceased,
as, it is well settled principle of law that, the father cannot be
SCCH-7 38 MVC.No.1095/2014
considered as a dependent upon the son. Further, the P.W.3 in his
cross-examination has clearly stated that, he is working as a
Manager in Jain Trust, which clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner
No.1, who is a father of the deceased, is having his own
independent income. Hence, the Petitioners No.2 being a mother
of the deceased can only be considered as a dependent upon the
said deceased. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in
M.V.C.No.1096/2014 partly in the Affirmative
35. ISSUE NO.2 IN ALL THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who is
the Petitioner No.1 in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, on 14.09.2013 his deceased son Syed
Ayub Pasha was traveling in the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 with 4 other including the driver
Yasir Khan and while they were moving in front of Sommanahalli
KEB Quarters on Bangalore - Kanakapura Road at about 1-10
p.m., the driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner and due to the front right side tyre burst of the
Car, the driver of the vehicle lost control of the Car and the Car hit
to the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and due
to the accident, all the 5 inmates of the Car including his deceased
son died on the spot due to the accidental injuries. He has further
stated that, on 14.09.2013, the said accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent act of the driver of the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and the Thalaghattapura
Police Station have registered a Case No.589/2013 as against the
driver of the said offending vehicle.
SCCH-7 39 MVC.No.1095/2014
36. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner No.1 in
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 has stated the same evidence of P.W.1, in
his examination-in-chief and has further stated that, on
14.09.2013, his son deceased Mohammed Junaid was traveling in
the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-
9825, who died on the spot due to the accidental injuries.
37. The P.W.3, who is the Petitioner No.1 in
M.V.C.No.1096/2014 has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2, in his examination-in-chief and has further stated
that, on 14.09.2013 his son deceased Mayur Sharma was
traveling in the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825, who died on the spot due to the accidental
injuries.
38. No doubt, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 are not the eye witnesses
of the accident in question. In this regard, they have stated in
their cross-examination that, they have not seen the accident.
Further, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 have not lodged the complaint about
the alleged accident before the jurisdictional Police in respect of
the accident caused to their respective sons. In this regard, the
P.W.1 to P.W.3 have also stated in their cross-examination that,
they have not lodged a complaint about the alleged accident.
Further, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 have clearly stated in their cross-
examination that, they have not challenged the Charge Sheet filed
by the concerned Police by alleging that, at the time of accident,
all the inmates of the Car including their son are not under the
influence of intoxication. They have clearly stated that, they have
SCCH-7 40 MVC.No.1095/2014
not challenged the Charge Sheet filed by the Investigating Officer
by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. It is
pertinent to note here that, after investigation, the Investigating
Officer has filed the Charge Sheet as against the driver of the
offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-
ML-9825, namely, Yasir Khan, wherein, all 3 deceased were
traveling in the said Maruthi Swift Dzire Car. It is further
pertinent to note here that, in the Charge Sheet, it is alleged by
the Investigating Officer that, at the time of accident, the said
driver Yasir Khan was under the influence of intoxication. Further,
the P.W.1 to P.W.3 have shown their ignorance about the contents
of the Charge Sheet as well as the complaint that, they do not
know the contents of the complaint and the Police have filed the
Charge Sheet as against the driver of the Car, namely, Yaseer
Khan. Further, they have stated that, they do not know that, due
to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the
said Car, the said accident was taken place. Further, the
Petitioners have not produced the Spot Hand Sketch to know the
scene of the accident in question. Further, the R.W.1, who is the
Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Karwar
Institute of Medical Sciences, Karwar, has produced Ex.R.2 FSL
Report dated 30.01.2014 and has stated in his cross-examination
that, he has conducted the examination of postmortem of
Mohammed Junaid, Mayur Sharma and Syed Ayub Pasha and the
blood of the said persons was sent to FSL for examination and
report and he has entered the cause of death in Postmortem
Reports and if a person is having alcohol contents of 30 mili
grams per 100 mili blood, he can be considered as under alcoholic
SCCH-7 41 MVC.No.1095/2014
intoxication and if a person having 50 mili grams alcoholic
contents per 100 mili blood, he is not under his control and at
the time of postmortem examination, the bodies of the said
persons were fresh. Further, the R.W.2, who is the Manager-Legal
of the Respondent No.2 has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, all deceased were consumed the alcohol at the time of
traveling in Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-
03-ML-9823 at about 4-10 p.m., on 14.03.2013 and as per the
postmortem report, the Hospital Authority/Doctor have mentioned
the percentage of alcohol consumed by the deceased. He has
further stated that, their Insurance Company had lead the
evidence of the Doctor as R.W.1, who was done the postmortem
and produced the FSL Report of all the deceased same is marked
as Ex.R.2 and as per the FSL Report, quantum of alcohol found
deceased Mohammed Junaid 55.6 mg/100 ml of blood, deceased
Mayur Sharma 50.6/10 ml and deceased Syed Ayub Pasha
65.4/100 ml blood. He has further stated that, it clearly shows
that, all the deceased including driver of the Car were drunk at
the time of accident and the accident was occurred due to the
highly consumption of alcohol of the deceased not due to the burst
of the tyre of the offending vehicle. He has further stated in his
cross-examination that, there is mentioned in postmortem reports
relating to the deceased that, the deceased were consumed the
alcohol and in Ex.R.1 Charge Sheet, it is mentioned that, the front
Car wheel was burst. Further, the Respondent No.4 has examined
the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-
1241 as R.W.3, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that,
on 14.09.2013, he was manning the BMTC Bus bearing
SCCH-7 42 MVC.No.1095/2014
Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 as a driver, on schedule trip from
Banashankari to Kempaiahnapalya in Route No.213D/1 and when
he was proceeding in a road in front of Somanahally KEB Gate,
slowly, cautiously by following all the traffic rules in extreme left
side of the road (on mud road adjacent to the tar road), at that
point of time, the driver of the Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 came in a opposite direction, rash and
negligently with high speed in reckless manner under the
intoxication of alcohol along with other inmates of the Car, those
were also under the intoxication of alcohol and all of a sudden
deviated to extreme right side of the Car (wrong direction) and
dashed against the BMTC Bus in a high speed at left side of the
Bus and caused the alleged accident and the alleged accident was
caused due to the sole rash and negligent act of the driver of the
Swift Car and he is not responsible in any manner and as such,
the Talaghattapura Police have registered a case as against the
driver of the Swift Car in Crime No.589/2013 and subsequently,
Charge Sheet has also been filed as against the driver of the Car.
He has further stated that, the alleged accident is not due to his
fault and therefore, his Corporation is not liable to pay any
compensation to the Petitioners in the present cases. He has
further stated that, as per the petition averments, the alleged
accident is caused by driver of the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and the Police Officials Charge
Sheeted the driver of the Maruthi Swift Car and therefore, the
Respondent No.4, BMTC is not liable to pay compensation to the
Petitioners.
SCCH-7 43 MVC.No.1095/2014
39. But, based on the said grounds, it cannot be said that,
the contributory negligence is also attributed on the part of the
deceased Mohammed Junaid, Mayur Sharma and Syed Aub Pasha
in driving the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 by driving its driver, which was
driving by the deceased Yasir Khan and the entire negligence is
not on the part of the driver Yasir Khan in driving the Maruthi
Swift Dzire Car, as, the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 have
produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama,
Ex.P.4 Inquest, Ex.P.5 Postmortem Report and Ex.P.6 Death
Certificate relating to Syed Ayub Pasha and the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 have produced Ex.P.11 Burial Report dated
17.09.2013, Ex.P.12 Death Certificate relating to Mohammed
Junaid, Ex.P.35 Inquest and Ex.P.36 Postmortem Report and the
Petitioners in M.V.C.No.1096/2014 have produced Ex.P.26 Burial
Report dated 15.09.2013, Ex.P.27 Death Certificate relating to
Mayur Sharma, Ex.P.37 Inquest and Ex.P.38 Postmortem Report,
which clearly disclosed that, the said deceased were the inmates
of the said offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 and at the time of accident, the deceased
driver of the said offending Car was driving it with very high
speed, rash and negligent manner and due to which itself, the
front wheel of the said Car was burst and the deceased driver had
lost his control over the said Car and due to which, he dashed the
offending Car to the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-
1241, which was coming on the opposite side from Bangalore and
due to the said impact, the offending Car entered into the lower
part of the Bus and due to which, the entire Car was damaged and
SCCH-7 44 MVC.No.1095/2014
the deceased driver Yasir Khan and the inmates, i.e., the deceased
Mohammed Junaid, Mayur Sharma and Syed Aub Pasha had
sustained severe grievous injuries on their head and all over the
body and all 5 persons are died on the accidental spot itself and
the driver of the said offending Car, namely, Yasir Khan was
under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident and as such,
the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased driver of the
offending Car, which is clear from the following discussion.
Further, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 have clearly stated in their cross-
examination that, the said Car was owned by Naseer Hussain, i.e.,
the Respondent No.1 and the deceased driver of the said offending
Car, namely, Yasir Khar S/o. Naseer Hussain is a son of the
Respondent No.1. It is pertinent to note here that, though the
notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained
absent and hence, he is placed as exparte. If really, there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the said offending Car,
namely, Yasir Khan S/o. Naseer Hussain, in the commission of
the said road traffic accident and the said accident was taken
place due to burst of the front wheel of the said Car and due to
which, the said deceased driver had not controlled over the said
Car and the said deceased driver was not under the influence of
alcohol at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 being a father
of the said deceased driver and owner of the said offending Car
could have been definitely challenged the very registration of the
criminal case as against his deceased son, by preferring an appeal
or revision before the Hon'ble Appellate Court. Further, the
Respondent No.1 could have definitely contested all the petitions
by filing the Written Statement. The non-appearance of the
SCCH-7 45 MVC.No.1095/2014
Respondent No.1 in all the petitions clearly implies that, he has
indirectly admitted the entire case made out by the Petitioners as
against his deceased son, who was a driver of the offending
Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825.
When the entire negligence is on the part of the deceased driver of
the said offending Swift Dzire Car, non-challenging of the Charge
Sheet by all the Petitioners by preferring an appeal or revision
before the Hon'ble Appellate Court questioning the allegations
made by the Investigating Officer in the Charge Sheet that, at the
time of accident, all the inmates of the Car including their were
sons under intoxication, cannot be arise for consideration at all.
Further, the P.W.1 to P.W.3 have clearly stated in their cross-
examination that, in the said Car, Ayub Pasha, Naseer, Mayur,
Zunudh, Yarab and Yaseer were traveling to Kanakapura for
party, which was arranged for the persons, who are going to
Hudge on 16.09.2013 and the Thousif Ahamed telephoned them
about the accident and on that day, there were 5 persons in the
Car and the right tye of the said Car was burst. Furthermore, the
Respondent No.2 has not produced Investigation Report, which is
prepared by their Investigating Officer. Further, the R.W.1 has
clearly admitted the contents of Ex.P.34 MVI Report, which clearly
disclosed about the damages caused to the offending Maruthi
Swift Dzire Car. Further, the R.W.3 has clearly stated in his cross-
examination that, at the time of accident, his Bus was not moving,
but, it was about to moving and the left side of their Bus was
damaged. He has further stated that, the width of the accidental
road was 35-40 ft. On perusal of the said evidence of R.W.3, it is
further made crystal clear that, if the deceased driver of the
SCCH-7 46 MVC.No.1095/2014
offending Car was not under the influence of alcohol and he was
not driving with it with very high speed, rash and negligent
manner at the time of accident, he could have avoided the said
road traffic accident and could have saved the valuable life of all
the deceased, including him. From this, it is made crystal clear
that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the
offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-
ML-9825 and there was no negligence on the part of the R.W.3 in
the commission of the said road traffic accident, when he was a
driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241
and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased, who are travelling in the said offending Car, when the
deceased driver driving it at the time of accident.
40. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the eye witness had lodged Ex.P.2
Complaint before the Thalaghattapura Police Station, as against
the driver of the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825, namely, Yasir Khan, by alleging
that, on 14.09.2013 at 4-10 p.m., when he was proceeding on his
Motor Cycle on Bangalore to Kanakapura Road in front of
Somanahalli KEB quarters for work at Kaggalipura, at that time,
the Car was proceeding with very high speed, rash and negligent
manner in front of him and he heard tyre burst sound and the
driver of the said Car took right turn and dashed to the front
portion of the BMTC Bus and when, he came to nearby the said
accident, he saw that, the front portion of the said Car was
entered into lower portion of the said Bus and immediately, the
SCCH-7 47 MVC.No.1095/2014
passengers, who were traveling in the said Bus pulled it on its
behind and the said entire Car was crushed and 5 persons, who
were in the said Car including the driver had sustained grievous
injuries on their head, chest, hands, legs and they died on the
accidental spot itself and when, he saw the front portion of the
said Car, he came to know that, the right wheel of the said Car
was burst and its number was KA-03-ML-9825 Maruthi Swift
Dzire Car and the number of the BMTC Bus is KA-01-FA-1241
and the said Car and Bus were caused damages and the name of
the deceased persons are, the driver Yasir Khan and others
Mohammed Juned, Mayur Sharma, Syed Ayub Pasha and Yarab
Abbas and they were residence of Neelasandra, Ashokanagar,
Bangalore and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action
as against the driver of the Car namely, Yasir Khan and the said
Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the
said offending Car for the offences punishable under Section 279
and 304(A) of IPC under Crime No.589/2013. It is also clear from
the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no
delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the eye witness in
respect of the said road traffic accident.
41. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.34
MVI Report clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the
part of the driver of the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825, who dashed to the BMTC Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241 and at the time of
accident, the driver of the said offending Car was driving it with
very high speed rash and negligent manner and due to which, the
SCCH-7 48 MVC.No.1095/2014
tyre of the said Car was burst and there was no negligence on the
part of the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-
1241 in the commission of the said road traffic accident. The very
involvement of the said offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 as well as its driver in the said
road traffic accident are clearly proved from the contents of the
said material documents.
42. The contents of Ex.P.4 Inquest, Ex.P.5 Postmortem
Report and Ex.P.6 Death Certificate relating to Syed Ayub Pasha
clearly disclosed that, due to the accidental injuries itself, the said
deceased Syed Ayub Pasha died on the accidental spot itself and
the cause of death is due to shock and injuries sustained to head
and cervical spine.
43. The contents of Ex.P.11 Burial Report dated
17.09.2013, Ex.P.12 Death Certificate relating to Mohammed
Junaid, Ex.P.35 Inquest and Ex.P.36 Postmortem Report further
clearly disclosed that, the deceased Mohammed Junaid died on
the accidental spot itself due to the accidental injuries and the
cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple
injuries sustained.
44. The contents of Ex.P.26 Burial Report dated
15.09.2013, Ex.P.27 Death Certificate relating to Mayur Sharma,
Ex.P.37 Inquest and Ex.P.38 Postmortem Report further clearly
disclosed that, the deceased Mayur Sharma died on the accidental
SCCH-7 49 MVC.No.1095/2014
spot itself due to the accidental injuries and the cause of death is
due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained.
45. No doubt, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 Postmortem
Report, Ex.P.36 Postmortem Report and Ex.P.38 Postmortem
Report that, blood is preserved, packed. Labeled, sealed and
handed over to concern Police for qualitative and quantitative
estimation of alcohol. Further, the R.W.1 in his cross-examination
has stated that, blood of the said deceased persons was sent to
FSL for examination and report. Further, Ex.R.2 FSL Report dated
30.01.2014 disclosed that, all the said deceased were under the
influence of alcohol at the time of accident. But, while discussing
above, this Tribunal has already observed and come to the
conclusion that, there was no contributory negligence on the part
of the said deceased in the commission of the said road traffic
accident and the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of
the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-
03-ML-9825, namely, Yasir Khan, who was driving it with very
high speed, rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and
at that time, the wheel of the offending Car was burst and took
right side and dashed to the said BMTB Bus. Hence, it can be
safely held that, due to the accidental injuries itself, the said 3
deceased persons were died on the accidental spot itself.
46. The contents of Ex.R.1 Charge Sheet further clearly
disclosed that, the driver of the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825, namely, Yasir Khan was
driving it with very high speed, rash and negligent manner from
SCCH-7 50 MVC.No.1095/2014
Kanakapura towards Bangalore on 14.09.2013 at 4-10 p.m., in
front of KEB Official Quarters, Bangalore to Kanakapura Main
Road, N.H.209 near Somanahalli Village, Utharahalli, Bangalore
South Taluk and due to which, the front wheel of the said Car was
burst and the said deceased driver could not control the said Car
and due to which, it dashed to the front portion of the BMTC Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241, which was coming on
opposite direction and due to which, the said Car was entered into
lower portion of the said Bus and the inmates of the said Car Syed
Ayub Pasha, Mohammed Junid, Mayur Sharma and Yarab Abbas
had sustained grievous injuries on their head, hands and all over
the body and died all the said 5 persons on the accidental spot
itself and at the time of accident, the driver of the said Car as well
as inmates were under the influence of the alcohol and as such,
after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a
charge sheet as against the driver of the offending Car for the
offences punishable under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC R/w
Section 185 of IMV Act. From this, it is made crystal clear that,
the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending
Car, who was also under the influence of alcohol, who died in the
said accident itself.
47. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the deceased driver, namely, Yasir Khan S/o. Nasir
Khan, in the commission of the said road traffic accident, who was
driving the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 and he and the said offending Maruthi Swift
SCCH-7 51 MVC.No.1095/2014
Dzire Car are very much involved in the said road traffic accident,
wherein, the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha, Mohammed Junid,
Mayur Sharma and Yarab Abbas, who were traveling in the said
offending Car at the time of accident had sustained grievous
injuries on their head and all over the body and died on the
accidental spot including the said driver. Accordingly, I
answered Issues No.2 in M.V.C.No.1097/2014,
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014 in the
Affirmative.
48. ISSUES NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1097/2014,
M.V.C.NO.1095/2014 AND M.V.C.NO.1096/2014 :-
49. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1097/2014 :- The P.W.1
has stated that, at the time of accident, his son was only aged 22
years. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.19 Election Identity
Card relating to the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha, which disclosed
that, the date of birth of the deceased is on 31.10.1989. The date
of accident is on 14.09.2013. On perusal of the said dates, it
appears that, at the time of accident, the said deceased was 24
years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 24 years
at the time of accident.
50. The P.W.1 has stated that, his deceased son was
employed in IBM Daksh Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Manyata Embassy Business Park, Block D4, 1st Floor, Outer Ring
Road, Nagawara, Bangalore - 45 and he was earning Rupees
15,000/- p.m. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
SCCH-7 52 MVC.No.1095/2014
stated that, his deceased son was working as an Accountant in
IBM Dhaksha Business Process Services Pvt. Ltd., The Petitioners
have produced Ex.P.7 Letter dated 08.10.2013 along with
Annexure, Ex.P.8 Welcome Letter, Ex.P.9 Appointment Letter
dated 23.12.2011 along with Annexure and Ex.P.16 B.Com
Certificate relating to the deceased. On perusal of the said
evidence of P.W.1 as well as the contents of the said material
documents, it appears that, the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha was
B.Com Graduate at the time of accident and he was working as a
Practitioner-CRM Operations at IBM Daksh Business Process
Services (P) Ltd., from 11.01.2012 to 14.09.2013 and the said
Company has paid the death benefits of the said deceased as full
and final settlement. But, the Petitioners have not produced any
authenticated documents to show that, at the time of accident, the
said deceased was earning Rupees 15,000/- p.m. Further, the
P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, he has not
produced the pay slips relating to his deceased son and 18
months prior to the accident, his deceased son was working in the
said Company. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has
stated that, he has no hurdle to examine the employer of his
deceased son to consider his income at the time of accident.
Further, the employer of the deceased also not been examined by
the Petitioners. Hence, the income of the said deceased of Rupees
15,000/- as stated by the P.W.1 cannot be believed and accept.
However, at the time of accident, the deceased was 24 years old
and he was a bachelor and he was a B.Com Graduate and he was
working as a Practitioner-CRM Operation and he is having the
Petitioners as his parents, by considering the same, this Tribunal
SCCH-7 53 MVC.No.1095/2014
feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider the notional
income of the deceased is of Rupees 10,000/- p.m. Hence, the
notional income of the deceased is considered as Rupees 10,000/-
p.m., at the time of accident.
51. The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, his
son deceased Syed Ayub Pasha was hale, healthy and hard
working and was having bright future and further his son was
supporting his family financially and due to the death of his son in
the said accident, they are finding extremely difficult to eake out
their livelihood and they are put heavy financial stress and
further, they are put to untold misery, financial loss, mental agony
and hardship due to the tragic death of their son in the said
accident.
52. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners are the
legal representatives and the Petitioner No.2 is a dependent upon
the said deceased. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has
already observed and come to the conclusion that, the entire
negligence is on the part of the deceased driver, namely, Yasir
Khan S/o. Nasir Khan in the commission of the said road traffic
accident, who was driving the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and he and the said
offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car are very much involved in the
said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha,
who was traveling in the said offending Car at the time of accident
had sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over the body
SCCH-7 54 MVC.No.1095/2014
and died on the accidental spot including the said driver. Hence,
the Petitioners No.1 and 2 being the legal representatives and the
Petitioner No.2 being a dependent upon the said deceased are
entitled for compensation under the following heads.
53. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the
deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident, towards
future prospects 50% of the income has to be added. So, 50% of
Rupees 10,000/- comes to Rupees 5,000/-. Therefore, the income
of the deceased comes to Rupees 15,000/- p.m. (Rs.10,000/- +
5,000/-).
54. The Petitioner No.2 is considered as a dependent of the
deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind one dependent. As per
the principles laid down in ILR 2012 KAR 2859 (New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by Senior Divisional Manager
V/s. Sri. David. T. and Another), whenever there is a sole
dependent, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is
proper. Therefore, considering the number of the dependent, i.e.,
1, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 7,500/- (50% of
Rs.15,000/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees
7,500/- (Rs.15,000/- (-) Rs.7,500/-). The multiplier corresponding
to the age of the deceased, i.e., 24 years, is 18 as per Sarala
Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees
16,20,000/- (Rs.7,500/- x 12 x 18). Therefore, the Petitioners are
SCCH-7 55 MVC.No.1095/2014
entitled for Rupees 16,20,000/- towards loss of dependency due to
death of Syed Ayub Pasha S/o Syed illyaz Pasha.
55. The P.W.1 has stated that, due to the accident, they
were made to spent Rupees 50,000/- towards the funeral
ceremony and such other expenses of their son. In this regard, the
Petitioners have not produced any scrap of paper.
56. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and
Others), loss of love and affection has to be compensated by
awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be
Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of
the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of
Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees
25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
57. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of
Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body
of deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence,
the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards
transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and
Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate.
58. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
SCCH-7 56 MVC.No.1095/2014
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 16,20,000-00
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
4. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00
of dead body
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 16,95,000-00
59. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 16,95,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
60. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1095/2014 :- The P.W.2
has stated that, at the time of death, his son was only aged 21
years. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.22 SSLC Marks Card
relating to the deceased Mohammed Junaid, which disclosed that,
his date of birth is on 20.05.1992. The date of accident is on
14.09.2013. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the
time of accident, the said deceased was 22 years old. Hence, the
age of the deceased is considered as 22 years at the time of
accident.
61. The P.W.2 has stated that, his deceased son was
studying in 2nd PUC and along with his studies, he was also doing
full time job in the night shift in Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide
Limited, Bangalore, OPS APAC-CRM-Delivery Department and his
SCCH-7 57 MVC.No.1095/2014
salary was Rupees 15,928/- p.m. The P.W.2 in his cross-
examination has stated that, his deceased son was working as a
Clerk in Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide Ltd., Bangalore. The
Petitioners have produced Ex.P.13 Pay Slip for the Month of July
2011 and Ex.P.14 Appointment dated 21.04.2011 along with
Annexure. The said evidence of P.W.2 as well as the contents of
Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14 disclosed that, at the time of accident, the
said deceased was working at Aditya Birla Minacs Worldwide
Limited and his Gross Salary was of Rupees 15,928/- p.m., and
Net Salary was of Rupees 14,539/-. But, based on the same, it
cannot be said and come to the conclusion that, at the time of
accident, the said deceased was earning Rupees 15,928/- p.m., as
Gross Salary and Rupees 14,539/- p.m., as Net Salary, as,
Ex.P.13 Pay Slip is relating to the Month of July 2011, which is
much prior to the date of accident. Further, the Petitioners have
not produced the pay slip of the said deceased covering the date of
accident and the Bank Statement to show the actual income of the
deceased at the time of accident. Even, the Petitioners have not
examined the employer of the said deceased to consider his nature
of work and income at the time of accident. In this regard, the
P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he has not
produced the pay slips relating to his deceased son for the year
2013 and also the Bank statement to show his actual income at
the time of accident. Though the P.W.2 has further stated that, 6
months prior to the accident, his deceased son was working in the
said Company and they have no hurdle to examine the employer
of his deceased son, the Petitioners did not care to examine the
employer of the said deceased. Hence, the income of the said
SCCH-7 58 MVC.No.1095/2014
deceased, which is of Rupees 15,928/- p.m., as stated by the
P.W.2 cannot be taken into for consideration. However, at the time
of accident, the deceased was 22 years and he has passed SSLC
and he was having Petitioners as his parents, by considering the
same, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to
consider the notional income of the deceased is of Rupees 9,000/-
p.m., at the time of accident. Hence, the notional income of the
deceased is considered as Rupees 9,000/- p.m., at the time of
accident.
62. The P.W.2 has stated that, at the time of accident, his
son deceased Mohammed Junaid was hale, healthy and hard
working and was having bright future and further his son was
supporting his family financially and due to the death of his son in
the said accident, they are finding extremely difficult to eake out
their livelihood and they are put heavy financial stress and
further, they are put to untold misery, financial loss, mental agony
and hardship due to the tragic death of their son in the said
accident.
63. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners are the
legal representatives and the Petitioner No.2 is a dependent upon
the said deceased. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has
already observed and come to the conclusion that, the entire
negligence is on the part of the deceased driver, namely, Yasir
Khan S/o. Nasir Khan in the commission of the said road traffic
accident, who was driving the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
SCCH-7 59 MVC.No.1095/2014
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and he and the said
offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car are very much involved in the
said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased, Mohammed
Junid, who was traveling in the said offending Car at the time of
accident had sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over
the body and died on the accidental spot including the said driver.
Hence, the Petitioners No.1 and 2 being the legal representatives
and the Petitioner No.2 being a dependent upon the said
deceased, are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
64. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the
deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident, towards
future prospects 50% of the income has to be added. So, 50% of
Rupees 9,000/- comes to Rupees 4,500/-. Therefore, the income
of the deceased comes to Rupees 13,500/- p.m. (Rs.9,000/- +
4,500/-).
65. The Petitioner No.2 is considered as a dependent of the
deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind one dependent. As per
the principles laid down in ILR 2012 KAR 2859 (New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by Senior Divisional Manager
V/s. Sri. David. T. and Another), whenever there is a sole
dependent, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is
proper. Therefore, considering the number of the dependent, i.e.,
1, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 6,750/- (50% of
Rs.13,500/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees
SCCH-7 60 MVC.No.1095/2014
6,750/- (Rs.13,500/- (-) Rs.6,750/-). The multiplier corresponding
to the age of the deceased, i.e., 22 years, is 18 as per Sarala
Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees
14,58,000/- (Rs.6,750/- x 12 x 18). Therefore, the Petitioners are
entitled for Rupees 14,58,000/- towards loss of dependency due to
death of Mohammed Junaid S/o Mohammed Syed.
66. The P.W.2 has stated that, due to the accident, they
were made to spent Rupees 50,000/- towards the funeral
ceremony and such other expenses of their son. In this regard, the
Petitioners have not produced any scrap of paper.
67. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and
Others), loss of love and affection has to be compensated by
awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be
Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of
the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of
Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees
25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
68. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of
Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body
of deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence,
the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards
transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and
Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate.
SCCH-7 61 MVC.No.1095/2014
69. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 14,58,000-00
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
4. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00
of dead body
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 15,33,000-00
70. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 15,33,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
71. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1096/2014 :- The P.W.3
has stated that, at the time of death, his son was only aged 21
years. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.29 SSLC Marks Card
relating to the deceased Mayur Sharma. L., and Ex.P.30 Election
Identity Card relating to Mayur Sharma. L., which disclosed that,
his date of birth is on 10.05.1992. The date of accident is on
14.09.2013. On perusal of the said dates, it appears that, at the
time of accident, the said deceased was 22 years old. Hence, the
age of the deceased is considered as 22 years at the time of
accident.
SCCH-7 62 MVC.No.1095/2014
72. The P.W.3 has stated that, his deceased son was doing
Mobile Servicing Job and was employed in M/s. Chandan Agency,
Castle Street, Ashok Nagar, Bangalore and he was earning Rupees
16,000/- p.m. He has further stated in his cross-examination
that, his deceased son was completed SSLC at the time of accident
and he was working as a Recharger in M/s. Chandan Agencies.
The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.28 Certificate dated
14.01.2015 issued by M/s. Chandan Agency, which disclosed
that, the deceased was an employee of the said Firm from
01.08.2011 to 13.09.2013 and he was paid a monthly salary of
Rupees 16,000/- and last salary was paid to him on 05.09.2013.
But, only based on the said oral evidence of P.W.3 as well as the
contents of Ex.P.28, it cannot be believed and accept that, at the
time of accident, the deceased Mayur Sharma was doing Mobile
Servicing Job and was employed in M/s. Chandan Agency, by
drawing a salary of Rupees 16,000/- p.m., as, the Petitioners have
not examined the employer of the deceased and they have not
produced the Bank Statement. Hence, the income of the said
deceased, which is of Rupees 16,000/- p.m., as stated by the
P.W.3 cannot be taken into for consideration. However, at the time
of accident, the deceased was 22 years and he has passed SSLC
and he was having Petitioners as his parents, by considering the
same, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to
consider the notional income of the deceased is of Rupees 9,000/-
p.m., at the time of accident. Hence, the notional income of the
deceased is considered as Rupees 9,000/- p.m., at the time of
accident.
SCCH-7 63 MVC.No.1095/2014
73. The P.W.3 has stated that, at the time of accident, his
son deceased Mayur Sharma was hale and healthy and hard
working and was having bright future and further his son was
supporting his family financially and due to the death of his son in
the said accident, they are finding extremely difficult to eake out
their livelihood and they are put heavy financial stress and
further, they are put to untold misery, financial loss, mental agony
and hardship due to the tragic death of their son in the said
accident.
74. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
observed and come to the conclusion that, the Petitioners are the
legal representatives and the Petitioner No.2 is a dependent upon
the said deceased. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has
already observed and come to the conclusion that, the entire
negligence is on the part of the deceased driver, namely, Yasir
Khan S/o. Nasir Khan in the commission of the said road traffic
accident, who was driving the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and he and the said
offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car are very much involved in the
said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased, Mayur Sharma.
L., who was traveling in the said offending Car at the time of
accident had sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over
the body and died on the accidental spot including the said driver.
Hence, the Petitioners No.1 and 2 being the legal representatives
and the Petitioner No.2 being a dependent upon the said
deceased, are entitled for compensation under the following heads.
SCCH-7 64 MVC.No.1095/2014
75. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403
(Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and Others) and as the
deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident, towards
future prospects 50% of the income has to be added. So, 50% of
Rupees 9,000/- comes to Rupees 4,500/-. Therefore, the income
of the deceased comes to Rupees 13,500/- p.m. (Rs.9,000/- +
4,500/-).
76. The Petitioner No.2 is considered as a dependent of the
deceased. Therefore, deceased left behind one dependent. As per
the principles laid down in ILR 2012 KAR 2859 (New India
Assurance Co. Ltd., represented by Senior Divisional Manager
V/s. Sri. David. T. and Another), whenever there is a sole
dependent, deduction of 50% towards personal expenses is
proper. Therefore, considering the number of the dependent, i.e.,
1, 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal
expenses of the deceased, i.e., Rupees 6,750/- (50% of
Rs.13,500/-). Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees
6,750/- (Rs.13,500/- (-) Rs.6,750/-). The multiplier corresponding
to the age of the deceased, i.e., 22 years, is 18 as per Sarala
Varma's Case. Therefore, loss of dependency comes to Rupees
14,58,000/- (Rs.6,750/- x 12 x 18). Therefore, the Petitioners are
entitled for Rupees 14,58,000/- towards loss of dependency due to
death of Mayur Sharma S/o. Lakshmichand Sharma.
77. The P.W.3 has stated that, due to the accident, they
were made to spent Rupees 50,000/- towards the funeral
SCCH-7 65 MVC.No.1095/2014
ceremony and such other expenses of their son. In this regard, the
Petitioners have not produced any scrap of paper.
78. As per the principles laid down in the decision reported
in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s. Rajbir Singh and
Others), loss of love and affection has to be compensated by
awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses should be
Rupees 25,000/-. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of
the deceased. Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of
Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees
25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
79. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of
Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body
of deceased and Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence,
the Petitioners are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards
transportation expenses of the dead body of the deceased and
Rupees 20,000/- towards loss of estate.
80. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 14,58,000-00
2. Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000-00
3. Loss of Love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
4. Expenses of transportation Rs. 5,000-00
of dead body
SCCH-7 66 MVC.No.1095/2014
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 20,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 15,33,000-00
81. In all, the Petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rupees 15,33,000/- along with interest at the
rate of 8% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
petition till payment.
82. The P.W.1 to P.W.3 have stated that, at the time of
accident, one Yasir Khan was driver of the Car and he was having
valid driving licence bearing DL. No.KA0120100003982, date of
issue : 01.04.2010 and was valid till 31.03.2030 and as he is also
dead on the spot, he is not made as a party to this case. They have
further stated that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1
was a Owner of the Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 and the Respondent No.2 was the Insurer of
the said Car bearing Policy No.23112001877331011000, valid
from 28.01.2013 to 27.01.2014 and the Respondent No.3 was the
driver of the BMTC Bus and the Respondent No.4 was the
Registered Owner of the said BMTC Bus and hence, all the
Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to them.
83. While answering Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.1097/2014,
M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014, this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the deceased driver, namely, Yasir Khan S/o. Nasir
SCCH-7 67 MVC.No.1095/2014
Khan in the commission of the said road traffic accident, who was
driving the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration
No.KA-03-ML-9825 and he and the said offending Maruthi Swift
Dzire Car are very much involved in the said road traffic accident,
wherein, the deceased Syed Ayub Pasha, Mohammed Junid,
Mayur Sharma and Yarab Abbas, who were traveling in the said
offending Car at the time of accident had sustained grievous
injuries on their head and all over the body and died on the
accidental spot including the said driver. It is clearly mentioned by
the respective Petitioners in the cause title of the petitions that,
the Respondent No.1 is an Owner and the Respondent No.2 is an
Insurer of the offending Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 and the Respondent No.3 is a
driver and the Respondent No.4 is the Owner of the BMTC Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241. The Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.1097/2014 have produced Ex.P.10 B-Register Extract
relating to vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825, i.e.,
the offending Car. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement
has clearly stated that, it has issued a Policy bearing
No.23112001877331011000 in respect of Maruthi Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 and the said policy was in
force from 28.01.2013 to 27.01.2014 and without prejudice to the
confirmation of the policy, the liability of it, if any, will be
subjected to the terms and conditions of the policy, verification of
Engine and Chassis Number, the validity and the effective driving
licence of the rider of the vehicle and subjected to the provisions of
the M.V. Act. The R.W.2, who is a Manager-Legal of the
Respondent No.2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
SCCH-7 68 MVC.No.1095/2014
third Respondent had issued the policy bearing
No.23112001877331011000 in respect of Swift Dzire Car bearing
Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 and the said policy was in force
from 28.01.2013 to 27.01.2014. On perusal of the said oral
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, the contents of Ex.P.10 B-Register
Extract, contentions taken by the Respondent No.2 in his written
statement and the evidence of R.W.2, it appears that, at the time
of accident, the Respondent No.1 was a R.C. Owner and the
Respondent No.2 was an Insurer of the offending Swift Dzire Car
bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 and its Insurance Policy
was valid, which covers the date of accident. It is also clear from
the pleadings and evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that, at the time of
accident, the R.W.3, i.e., the Respondent No.3 was a driver of the
BMTC Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-FA-1241. Further, there
is no allegations leveled by the Investigating Officer in Ex.R.1
Charge Sheet as against the deceased driver of the offending Swift
Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 that, he was
not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class
of offending Car at the time of accident.
84. But, based on the said reasons, it cannot be said and
come to the conclusion that, the Respondent No.1 being a R.C.
Owner and the Respondent No.2 being an Insurer of the offending
Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823 are jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation and interest to the all
the Petitioners, as, while answering Issue No.2 in all the cases,
this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion
that, at the time of accident, the deceased driver of the offending
SCCH-7 69 MVC.No.1095/2014
Car was under influence of alcohol. Further, it is clearly alleged by
the Investigating Officer in Ex.R.1 Charge Sheet that, at the time
of accident, the deceased driver of the offending Car was under the
influence of alcohol and as such, he has inserted Section 185 of
M.V. Act along with Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Hence, the
Respondent No.1 being a R.C. Owner of the said offending Swift
Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9823, is alone liable
to pay the compensation to all the Petitioners. Hence, the petitions
filed by the Petitioners are liable to be allowed as against the
Respondent No.1 and they are liable to dismissed as against the
Respondent No.2 and 4. It is pertinent to note here that, the
petitions filed by the Petitioners as against the Respondent No.3
was dismissed on 17.10.2014 as steps not taken. In view of the
above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles
enunciated in the decision cited by the Learned Counsel appearing
for the Petitioners are applicable to some extent. Hence, Issues
No.3 in M.V.C.No.1097/2014, M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and
M.V.C.No.1096/2014 are answered accordingly.
85. ISSUE NO.4 IN M.V.C.No.1097/2014 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly SCCH-7 70 MVC.No.1095/2014 allowed with costs as against the Respondent No.1.
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby dismissed as against the Respondents No.2 and 4 without costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 16,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners shall share the compensation and interest in the ratio of 20:80.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, the entire share relating to the Petitioner No.1 SCCH-7 71 MVC.No.1095/2014 and 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
55. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1095/2014 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor SCCH-7 72 MVC.No.1095/2014 Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs as against the Respondent No.1.
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby dismissed as against the Respondents No.2 and 4 without costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 15,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners shall share the compensation and interest in the ratio of 20:80.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, the entire SCCH-7 73 MVC.No.1095/2014 share relating to the Petitioner No.1 and 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
55. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.NO.1096/2014 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor SCCH-7 74 MVC.No.1095/2014 Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs as against the Respondent No.1.
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby dismissed as against the Respondents No.2 and 4 without costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rupees 15,33,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
The Petitioners shall share the compensation and interest in the ratio of 20:80.
SCCH-7 75 MVC.No.1095/2014In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, the entire share relating to the Petitioner No.1 and 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques, on proper identification.
Remaining 50% share relating to the Petitioner No.2 shall be kept in FD in her name, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1097/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.1095/2014 and M.V.C.No.1096/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 4th day of November, 2016.) SCCH-7 76 MVC.No.1095/2014 (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Syed Illyaz Pasha P.W.2 : Sri. Mohammed Syed P.W.3 : Sri. Lakshmichand Sharma
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of Inquest
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Postmortem Report
Ex.P.6 : Death Certificate of Syed Ayub Pasha
Ex.P.7 : Letter dated 08.10.2013 along
with Annexure
Ex.P.8 : Welcome Letter
Ex.P.9 : Appointment Letter dated
23.12.2011 along with Annexure Ex.P.10 : B-Register Extract relating to vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-03-ML-9825 Ex.P.11 : True copy of Burial Report dated 17.09.2013 Ex.P.12 : True copy of Death Certificate relating to Mohammed Junaid Ex.P.13 : Pay Slip for the Month of July 2011 Ex.P.14 : Appointment Letter dated 21.04.2011 along with Annexure Ex.P.15 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Mohammed Junaid Ex.P.16 : Notarized Xerox copy of B.Com.
SCCH-7 77 MVC.No.1095/2014Certificate relating to Syed Ayub Pasha Ex.P.17 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Syed Iliyaz Pasha Ex.P.18 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Raziya Sultana Ex.P.19 : Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Syed Ayub Pasha Ex.P.20 : Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Syed Iliyaz Pasha Ex.P.21 : Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Raziya Sultana Ex.P.22 : Notarized Xerox copy of SSLC Marks Card relating to Mohammed Junaid Ex.P.23 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Mohammed Junaid Ex.P.24 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Mohammed Sayeed Ex.P.25 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Asma Jabeen Ex.P.26 : Burial Report dated 15.09.2013 Ex.P.27 : Death Certificate relating to Mayur Sharma Ex.P.28 : Certificate dated 14.01.2015 Ex.P.29 : Notarized Xerox copy of SSLC Marks Card relating to Mayur Sharma. L. Ex.P.30 : Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Mayur Sharma. L. Ex.P.31 : Notarized Xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to R. Lakshmichand Sharma Ex.P.32 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to Kusam Ex.P.33 : Notarized Xerox copy of Aadhaar Card relating to R. Lakshmichand Sharma SCCH-7 78 MVC.No.1095/2014 Ex.P.34 : MVI Report Ex.P.35 : True copy of Inquest Ex.P.36 : True copy of Postmortem Report Ex.P.37 : True copy of Inquest Ex.P.38 : True copy of Postmortem Report
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Dr. Ravikumar. R.
R.W.2 : Sri. Jayashekar
R.W.3 : Sri. Mallappa Huggi
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : Charge Sheet
Ex.R.2 : True copy of FSL Report dated
30.01.2014
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.