BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE CITY. SCCH-14 PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl) Member, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE. [CASE NUMBER] Dated this the 11th day of January 2017 Petitioner/s : 1. [ENTITY] W/o late [ENTITY] Aged about 28 years, 2. [ENTITY] D/o Late [ENTITY] Aged about 11 years, 3. [ENTITY] S/o late [ENTITY] Aged about 9 years, Since petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors. Hence, rept., by the mother & Natural guardian [ENTITY] W/o late [ENTITY], All are R/at Bukkasagar, Jigani-Ho, Anekal- Tq, Bangalore -Dist., (By pleader Sri PC) V/s SCCH-14 2 [CASE NUMBER] Respondent/s 1. [ENTITY]., RGOC-28, East Wing, 5th floor, Centerenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore -560 001., 2. SHABARI TOURS & TRAVELS Rept., by its Inchange Manager/Proprietor, No.648, Sadgur Mandir, 36th cross, 24 th main, 4th block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041. (R1-By pleader Sri BCS R2-Exparte) XVI ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore. SCCH-14 3 [CASE NUMBER]
The petitioners have filed this petition U/[SECTION] of the [ACT] against the respondents for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of [ENTITY] S/o late [ENTITY] in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased [ENTITY]. Among them, the petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors and they are represented by their mother i.e., the petitioner no.1. The said [ENTITY] was aged 35 years, was working as a painter and mason at V.S Enterprises, Shobha Developer, Bangalore and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. On 26.09.2014 at 10.30 p.m., the deceased was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-51-
Q-7898 near HCL company Jigani-Bommasanda link road, Jigani, Anekal Taluk, Banglaore and at that time, Tempo Traveller bearing No.KA-03-D-8150 driven by its driver at high speed, in rash and negligent manner, so as to endanger to human life came and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. Due to impact, the said [ENTITY] fell down and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and succumbed to injuries in the spot. After postmortem, the dead body of the deceased was handed over the petitioners who transported it, performed funeral, last rites and death ceremony by incurring Rs.80,000/-. The deceased was hale and healthy. He was the only bread earner of the family. The petitioners are the dependents of the deceased. They have lost their dependency, lost love and affection of the deceased. Due to sudden accidental death of the deceased, the petitioners are facing lot of mental shock and agony, financial difficulties and discomfort. Jigani police have registered [CASE NUMBER] against the driver of Tempo traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8140 for the offences punishable U/[SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION] of [ACT]. The respondents are the insurer and owner of said Tempo traveler and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioners have filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of notice, the respondent no.1 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed his written statement denying the averments of the petition as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable. He has denied the issuance of the policy in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of Tempo traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8140 and contended that he is not liable to pay any compensation, that the policy bearing No.140552355000046 was issued by him, in pursuance of the proposal given by the owner of the Tempo traveler bearing No.KA- 03-D-8140 on receipt of cheque bearing No.157305 for a sum of Rs.64,076/- dated 06.02.2014, that policy was issued only subject to realization of the cheque issued by the owner of tempo traveler, that the cheque issued by the owner of tempo traveler was dishonoured for reason Insufficient fund on 15.02.2014 and therefore, he canceled the policy from the date of its inception and there was no policy in respect of tempo traveler bearing no.KA-03-D-
8150 as on the date of accident, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo Traveller, that the unfortunate accident has occurred only on account of the deceased who was riding the motorcycle without having driving licence to ride the same and without observing the traffic rules and regulations, that due to over speed, the deceased lost control over the motorcycle, fell down on the road and died on spot, that the deceased was solely responsible for the said unfortunate accident, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate to the age, avocation of the deceased and the petitioners are trying to make a windfall out of an unfortunate accident. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased [ENTITY] died in a road traffic accident on 26.09.2014 at about 10.30 p.m., near HCL company, Jigani-Bommasandra link road, Jigani hobli, Anekal taluk, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Passenger Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KA- 03-D-8150?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and for whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined the petitioner no.1 as PW.1 and examined a witness as PW.2. They have got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P15. The respondent no.1 has examined his officer as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 6.
6. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon following rulings:
1. [CASE NUMBER]: [PRECEDENT],
2. [CASE NUMBER]: [PRECEDENT],
3. [CASE NUMBER]: [PRECEDENT],
4. [PRECEDENT]: [PRECEDENT].,
5. [CASE NUMBER]: [ENTITY] & Ors., V. Branch Manager, National Ins.,Co.Ltd.,
6. [PRECEDENT]: [PRECEDENT]., I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.17,16,000/-
from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents stating that [ENTITY] S/o late [ENTITY] died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident which has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. The respondents are stated to be the insured and owner of said Tempo traveler. The respondent no.1 has contested the matter, whereas the respondent no.2 remained exparte. The respondent no.1 has denied the issuance of the policy in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of said Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150, has denied the occurrence of the accident in the manner as stated by the petitioners, has denied the occurrence of the accident due to negligence of the driver of said Tempo traveler. He has contended that policy issued by him in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150 was cancelled due to dishonour of cheque issued by the respondent no.2 towards payment of premium amount, that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased.
9. PW.1:[ENTITY] is the petitioner no.1 and she has reiterated entire averments of the petition and stated that her husband died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident, that the said accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. PW.2:[ENTITY] is an eye witness and he has supported the version of PW.1 and stated that the said [ENTITY] died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident which has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. PW.1 and 2 were cross examined at length. On perusal of said cross examination, it can be gathered that the respondent no.1 has contended that the said [ENTITY] was riding his motorcycle in high speed, in rash and negligent manner, he lost control, fell down and sustained injuries which resulted in his death, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo traveler, that the driver of Tempo traveler tried to avoid the accident and took his vehicle towards divider. PW.1 and 2 have denied the said suggestions as false. However, PW.1 has admitted that she has not seen the occurrence of the accident. Her evidence regarding manner of accident is hearsay. Hence, evidence of PW.1 regarding manner of accident, negligence of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-
03-D-8150 is inadmissible and unbelievable. However, evidence of PW.2 in that regard is acceptable and believable. Denials extracted from him are not sufficient to prove the defence of the respondent no.1.
10. RW.1:[ENTITY] is the Assistant Manager of the respondent no.1 and he has deposed only regarding cancellation of policy due to dishonour of cheque. His evidence is in respect of liability and it may be considered later. His evidence is not helpful to prove the defence of the respondent no.1 that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150.
11. Copies of police records are at Ex.P1 to 6, 14 and 15. Copy of driving licence of the deceased is at Ex.P11 which reveals that the deceased was holding licence to ride a motorcycle on the date of accident. Copy of PM report and Inquest report at Ex.P5 and 6 confirm that the deceased [ENTITY] died due to accidental injuries. The said documents corroborate the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 which collectively establish the death of [ENTITY] due to injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident.
12. Copy of complaint, copy of FIR, copy of panchanama, copy of sketch, copy of charge sheet and copy of letter of RTO at Ex.P1 to 4, 14 and 15 disclose that Jigani police have registered [CASE NUMBER] on 27.09.2014 at about 05.15 a.m., on the basis of information given by PW.2:[ENTITY], investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. The accident has occurred at about 10.30 p.m., on 26.09.2014. The complaint was filed on the next morning. Hence, there was no delay in lodging complaint. Motorcycle and Tempo traveler were detained by the police from the place of accident and were subjected to IMV inspection. There is no evidence that brake system of either of the vehicles was not in order and the accident was due to mechanical defects. Non production of IMV report is not fatal to the case of the petitioners. However, Inspection of both the vehicles can be gathered from the copy of letter at Ex.P15. [ENTITY] and sketch at Ex.P3 and 4 disclose that both the vehicles were going from Jigani towards Bommasandra, that the place of accident is near divider and motorcycle was found in the place of accident. Tempo traveler was found on the other side of the road leading towards Jigani. It means, the Tempo Traveler has crossed the divider and went towards wrong side after causing the accident. This fact indicates that the Tempo traveler was being driven in high speed, in rash and negligent manner. Charge sheet at Ex.P4 is prima-facie evidence of negligence of the driver of said Tempo Traveler. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of charge sheet and to hold that the investigation done by the police is defective or collusive. Evidence of PW.1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P1 to 6, 11, 14 and 15 collectively substantiate the averments of the petition. Evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 to 6 are pertaining cancellation of policy and dishonour of cheque which are not helpful for the respondent no.1 to prove his defence regarding manner of accident. Thus, the respondent no.1 has failed to prove his defence regarding occurrence of the accident due to negligence of the deceased. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced oral and documentary evidence which clearly disclose that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. The respondent no.1 has not examined the driver of Tempo Traveler who was material witness. It is evident from the records that the deceased and one [ENTITY] were proceeding on the motorcycle and the Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150 was driven in rash and negligent manner and was dashed against the motorcycle from behind. The said Tempo traveler went ahead, crossed divider and went towards other side the road. Therefore, I hold that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03- D-8150, that the said [ENTITY] sustained grievous injuries in the said accident and died on the spot. Hence, I answer the issue in affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioners are claiming to be the wife and children of the deceased [ENTITY]. PW.1:[ENTITY] has deposed regarding relationship between them and the deceased. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from her to disbelieve her evidence in that regard. Copy of Adhaar card of the petitioners are at Ex.P9, 10 and 12. The said documents coupled with the copy of driving licence of the deceased at Ex.P11 reveal that the petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased [ENTITY]. Copy of Inquest panachnama at Ex.P6 supports the version of PW.1. I.O has recorded about the relationship between the petitioners and the deceased during investigation. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said oral and documentary evidence. Hence, I hold that the petitioners are the wife and children of the deceased [ENTITY]. They are the Class-I heirs of the deceased. The petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors. Hence, they are dependents of the deceased and are entitled for compensation for the death of [ENTITY] due to accident.
14. PW.1 has deposed that the deceased was aged 35 years. The petitioners have relied upon contents of driving licence at Ex.P11 to prove the age of the deceased. Date of birth of the deceased is shown as 07.06.1979 in the said driving licence. It means, the deceased was aged 35 years. His age is shown as 36 years in PM report and Inquest report. Contents of DL prevail over the contents of PM report and Inquest report. Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 35 years as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier is 16.
15. PW.1 has deposed that her husband was working as a painter and mason in V.B Enterprises and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. The petitioners have produced copy of employer ID and salary certificate which are marked as Ex.P7 and 8. The said documents reveal that the deceased was working as plant helper in V.B Enterprises from 01.07.2013 to 26.09.2014 and his gross salary was Rs.10,450/- per month. One [ENTITY] has issued the said certificate. He has not appeared before the court to substantiate the contents of salary certificate issued by him. His designation is not forthcoming from the certificate. Hence, the contents of Ex.P8 are unacceptable. However, copy of ID at Ex.P7 and copy of Inquest panchanama at Ex.P6 corroborate the oral evidence of PW.1 regarding occupation of the deceased. Same are acceptable and believable. Hence, I hold that the deceased was a painter and a mason and was working in V.B Enterprises. The petitioners have not produced pay slips, bank statement, wage register extract pertaining to salary of the deceased. In the absence of positive evidence, income of the deceased shall have to be assessed notionally. The accident is of the year 2014. The deceased was a skilled worker. He was having definite source of income. Hence, I am inclined to assessed his income @Rs.8,000/- per month which will be just and reasonable. His annual income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He was aged 35 years at the time of death. There shall be an addition of 50% amount towards future prospects as per ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] case. After addition of said amount, gross income of the deceased comes to Rs.1,44,000/- p.a., The petitioners are dependents of the deceased. Hence, 1/3rd amount shall have to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deduction of 1/3rd amount, net income of the deceased comes to Rs.96,000/- p.a., The petitioners have lost their dependency. Their loss of dependency would be Rs.96,000X16=Rs.15,36,000/-.
16. The petitioners have lost love and affection and estate of the deceased. They have spent amount for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 has lost her husband at young age. There is no documentary evidence regarding amount spent for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable amount towards said expenses. Hence, the petitioners are further entitled for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.60,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. The petitioner No.1 is further entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of consortium. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under;
1 Loss of dependency Rs.15.36,000/-
2 Loss of love and affection Rs. 60,000/-
3 Loss of estate Rs. 60,000/-
4 Transportation and Rs. 30,000/-
funeral expenses 5 Loss of consortium Rs. 30,000/-
TOTAL Rs.17,16,000/- Hon'ble Supreme Court in [CASE NUMBER]
(arising out of [PRECEDENT],) and Hon'ble High Court in [CASE NUMBER] ([ENTITY] & Ors., [ENTITY] & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
17. The respondents are stated to be the insurer and owner of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. The accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Tempo Traveler. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioners as stated above. The respondent no.2 remained exparte, whereas the respondent no.1 has denied his liability to compensate the petitioners stating that the policy issued by him in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150 was cancelled for non payment of premium amount, that the cheque issued by the respondent no.2 towards premium amount was dishonoured and as such, the policy was cancelled with intimation to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO. He has examined RW.1:[ENTITY] and got marked cheque, bank memo, copy of policy, copy of letter to the respondent no.2, copy of letter to RTO, Indiranagar, Banglaore and copy of bulk posting as Ex.R1 to 6. The petitioners have not produced any oral and documentary evidence to rebut the evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.P1 to 6.
18. RW.1:[ENTITY] has deposed as per the defence of the respondent no.1 and stated that the respondent no.2 has issued cheque towards payment of premium amount of the policy pertaining to Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150 which came to be dishonoured for 'Insufficient Funds', that the policy of said Tempo traveler was cancelled and an intimation was given to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO, that there was no policy to said Tempo traveler as on the date of accident and as such, the respondent no.1 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 and to compensate the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners has cross examined RW.1 at length by taking up a defence that after bouncing of cheque, the respondent no.2 has paid the amount of premium of policy in cash, that the said policy was in force as on the date of accident, that cancellation of policy was not intimated to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO, that no such cancellation letter was served upon them, that the respondent no.1 is liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 and to compensate the petitioners. RW.1 has denied the said suggestions of the counsel for the petitioners as false and maintained that the policy of Tempo Traveler was cancelled with due intimation to the respondent no.2 and to concerned RTO.
19. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon rulings mentioned supra. In all the said rulings, liability was fixed on the Insurance Company. In the first case, the cancellation was not properly communicated to the insured. In the second case, there was no valid proof of communication to the insured. In third and fourth cases, communication regarding cancellation was issued after occurrence of the accident. In the last two cases, liability was fixed on the Insurance Company in the interest of public and it is ordered for pay and recovery. In the 5th ruling, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"[ACT] [SECTION] and [ACT], section
64.VB-Motor Insurance-Dishonour of cheque- Policy -Cancellation of-Liability of Insurance Company-Cheque issued towards premium was dishonoured and insurance company cancelled the policy, information was communicated to the insured and intimation was also given to the RTO-Postal acknowledgement produced before Tribunal to prove cancellation Accident much after the communication of cancellation of policy- [SECTION] of the [ACT] provides for issuance of valid policy only on receipt of payment of premium and no risk is to be assumed unless premium is received-A contract is based on reciprocal promise, reciprocal promises by the parties are conditions precedent for a valid contract-Tribunal held that insurance company was liable despite cancellation of contract of insurance- High Court held that insurance company was not liable-Whether the insurance company is liable-Held:no:but as the claimants hail from the lowest strata of society, Apex Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under [SECTION] of the [ACT] directed the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation awarded and recover the same from owner of the vehicle, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him".
In the 6th ruling Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"[ACT]-[SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT]-[SECTION] -Liability of insurer when cheque received towards premium dishonoured but policy not avoided- Insurer issuing insurance policy on receiving cheque towards premium- Cheque dishonoured -Insurer informing the insured that the cheque having been dishonoured the insurer would not be at risk-However, the insurer not avoiding the policy for insurer would not be at risk-However, the insurer not avoiding the policy for that reason-In such circumstances, the insurer, even if he was entitled for avoid the policy for not having received the premium, held, nonetheless liable for third party risks as the public interest served by an insurance policy must prevail over the insurer's interest -However, the question whether in the said circumstances, the insurer could have avoided the Insurance policy, left open -public interest".
In this case, evidence of RW.1 and contents of Ex.R1 to 6 disclose that the cheque for Rs.64,076/- dated 06.02.2014 issued by the respondent no.2 in favour of the respondent no.1 was dishonour for Insufficient funds on 15.02.2014. Policy issued in favour of the respondent no.2 in respect of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150 bears policy number 1405542355000046. The said policy number is mentioned in Ex.R6. Notice of cancellation of policy was issued by the respondent no.1 to the respondent no.2 and concerned RTO on 19.02.2014 i.e., well before the occurrence of accident. Ex.R6 reveals that notices were sent to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO under bulk posting. There is no evidence to believe that notice under Ex.R4 was sent to a wrong address. The address shown in Ex.R3 tallies with the address mentioned in Ex.R4. It means, the notice was sent to correct address of the respondent no.2. Therefore, there is deemed service of notice to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO. The petitioners have not produced any evidence to believe that the notices sent under bulk posting were not served to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO. The respondent no.2 remained exparte. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of Ex.R1 to 6. Mere contention of the petitioners that the respondent no.2 has paid premium amount in cash is not sufficient to believe that the policy at Ex.R3 is supported by consideration. Ex.R1 and 2 disclose that the cheque issued by the respondent no.2 is dishonour. The amount of cheque was towards the premium of policies issued in respect of three vehicles. Ex.R6 reveals that notices were issued to the respondent no.2 in respect of several vehicles. The said notice is about 7 months earlier to the accident. Therefore, the rulings relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to this case. The respondent no.1 has cancelled policy for non payment of premium amount and intimation regarding cancellation was given to the respondent no.2 at an earlier point of time and well before occurrence of the accident. There is deemed service of notice to the respondent no.2 and to the concerned RTO. Since, there is no payment of premium amount, contract under policy at Ex.R3 cannot be enforced. The respondent no.1 is not liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 and to compensate the petitioners. The accident has occurred due to negligence of the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA-03-D-8150. Hence, the respondent no.2 being the owner of said vehicle, is vicariously liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioners. The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation amount with proportionate interest as under:
The petitioner No.1 :Rs.7,16,000/-
The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.5,00,000/- each Hence, I answer the issue as above.
20. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/[SECTION] of [ACT] is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.2 is liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1 :Rs.7,16,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.5,00,000/- each After deposit, entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their respective names under the guardianship of the petitioner no.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till they attain majority. Entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition filed by the petitioners as against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of January 2017.) ([ENTITY]) XVI ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 [ENTITY] PW.2 [ENTITY] Respondent' s RW-1 [ENTITY] Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 FIR Ex.P3 [ENTITY] Ex.P4 [ENTITY] Ex.P5 PM report Ex.P6 Inquest report Ex.P7 ID card Ex.P8 Salary certificate Ex.P9 Adhaar card Ex.P10 Adhaar card Ex.P11 Driving license Ex.P12 Adhaar card Ex.P13 Voter ID Respondent's Ex.R1 Cheque Ex.R2 Bank memo Ex.R3 Copy of policy Ex.R4 Copy of letter to respondent no.2 Ex.R5 Copy of letter to RTO Ex.R6 Copy of bulk posting XVI ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore. Dt.11.01.2014 P-PS R1-BCS R2-Exparte For judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment. ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners
U/[SECTION] of [ACT] is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.2 is liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1 :Rs.7,16,000/- The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.5,00,000/- each After deposit, entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their respective names under the guardianship of the petitioner no.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till they attain majority. Entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition filed by the petitioners as against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY [CASE NUMBER] Petitioner/s : 1. [ENTITY] W/o late [ENTITY] Aged about 28 years,
2. [ENTITY] D/o Late [ENTITY] Aged about 11 years,
3. [ENTITY] S/o late [ENTITY] Aged about 9 years, Since petitioner no.2 and 3 are minors. Hence, rept., by the mother & Natural guardian [ENTITY] W/o late [ENTITY], All are R/at Bukkasagar, Jigani-Ho, Anekal- Tq, Bangalore -Dist., V/s (By pleader Sri PC) Respondent/s 1. [ENTITY]., RGOC-28, East Wing, 5th floor, Centerenary Building, M.G road, Bangalore -560 001.,
2. SHABARI TOURS & TRAVELS Rept., by its Inchange Manager/Proprietor, No.648, Sadgur Mandir, 36th cross, 24 th main, 4th block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 041.
(R1-By pleader Sri BCS R2-Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/[SECTION] of the [ACT], praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.[ENTITY], XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioners U/[SECTION] of [ACT] is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are entitled for a compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.2 is liable to pay to the petitioners a compensation of Rs.17,16,000/- with interest. He is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
The petitioners are entitled to share the compensation as under;
The petitioner No.1 :Rs.7,16,000/-
The petitioner No.2 & 3 : Rs.5,00,000/- each After deposit, entire share of the petitioner No.2 and 3 shall be deposited in their respective names under the guardianship of the petitioner no.1 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank till they attain majority. Entire amount and interest of the petitioner No.1 shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claim petition filed by the petitioners as against the respondent no.1 is dismissed without cost.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, [ENTITY]: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR