It is pertinent to note here that, initially, the Petitioner had filed the present petition only as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 and later, as per the Order dated 10.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.IX filed by the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.3 is impleaded as party to the present petition. Hence, the present petition is pending for consideration and disposal as against the Respondents No.1 to 3.

2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 to 3 under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., with costs, in respect of death of Sri. Sri. Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bachhe Gowda S/o Late B.H.Gangadharaiah.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 3 (SCCH-7)

3. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case are as follows;

a) She is the mother of the deceased Sri Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bachhe Gowda.

b) On 12.06.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 along with his friend Mr.Pramod Kumar, who was proceeding as a pillion rider on the said Motor Cycle from Tumkur side to Tiptur side on N.H.206 Road, Near Kamagondanahalli Gate, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, at that time, 108 Ambulance vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, endanger to human life, came at high speed from K.B. Cross side to Tumkur side, as, one Sujatha K.S., who was injured, was shifting to Sridevi Hospital, Tumkur from Government Hospital, Tiptur, in the said Ambulance vehicle and dashed against the said Motor Cycle on the said road. As a result of the collision of the said Motor Cycle and the Ambulance in question, the deceased along with the said Motor Cycle was thrown to road side bridge and the deceased fell down along with the said Motor Cycle, resulting in, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and both the said Ambulance and Motor Cycle were damaged.

c) Immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Tiptur, wherein, he took treatment. Later, the deceased was died on the way to Bangalore at around night 12.00 p.m., on the date of accident, while he was shifting to the Hospital at Bangalore for further treatment.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 4 (SCCH-7) Later, his dead body was shifted back to Government Hospital, Tiptur and its duty Doctors have conducted post-mortem on the dead body and handed over the dead body to her. Later, she had performed his last rites and thereafter, she had performed his 11th ceremony, which incurred her a sum of Rupees 20,000/-.

d) The inmate of the said Ambulance vehicle staff nurse one Mr.Rajanna. C. S/o Chandrappa, having colluded with the driver of the said Ambulance vehicle, has lodged the false complaint as against the rider of the said Motor Cycle in order to avoid criminal case.

e) The Kibbanahalli Cross Police have registered a case in Crime No.60/2012 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. Later, the said Police had submitted before the Principal Civil Judge (J.D.) & J.M.F.C. Court for adapting Section 304(A) of IPC in the said Crime number after the death of Sri.Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bachhe Gowda.

f) This incident/accident was occurred due to involvement of both the said Motor Cycle and Ambulance in question.

g) The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and hard worker. He had no vice. He was affectionate towards her. He was an Auto driver and getting a monthly income of Rupees 3,300/- and used to contribute the same for the maintenance of her. As a result of the traffic death of the deceased, she is put to great shock, untold mental agony and great financial loss. Hence, this Petition.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 5 (SCCH-7)

4. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.1, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 19.02.2013.

5. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel and has filed the written statement.

6. It is pertinent to note here that, as per the Order dated 10.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.IX filed by the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.3 is impleaded as party to the present petition. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.3 through RPAD, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte on 01.07.2015.

7. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;

a) The claim petition as presented against it is not maintainable either in law, facts and circumstances of the case.

b) The various averments made by the Petitioner with regard to her relationship with the deceased Bettaswamy, his age and income and the occurrence of the accident is not within its knowledge.

c) The accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of Motor Bike, i.e., Bettaswamy, who died in the accident, since he was riding the said bike unmindful of the ongoing traffic and he himself hit the insured vehicle resulting in grievous injuries. Since the said Bettaswamy himself being a M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 6 (SCCH-7) tort feasor, the Petitioner is not entitled to any compensation, much less, the compensation claimed.

d) The petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of proper parties to the proceedings. Admittedly, two vehicles are involved in the accident, as such, the insurer and the insured of the Motor Bike are necessary and proper parties to the proceedings. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of proper parties to the proceedings. Further, the petition is also liable to be dismissed for non-disclosure of material particulars, such as, the amount of compensation received from the insurer of the Motor Bike involved in the accident.

e) The Petitioner is a resident of Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Tumkur district. As such, this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition and hence, it is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the driver of the insured Ambulance Van is not negligent and no negligence can be attributed to the driver of the insured vehicle.

f) The amount of compensation to the tune of Rupees 10,00,000/- as claimed by the Petitioner is an exorbitant and excessive and there is no basis for the said claim.

g) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the compensation claimed, since, the insured has failed to inform it regarding the occurrence of the accident, furnish the particulars of R.C., F.C. and permit of the insured vehicle along with the details of the driver along with driving licence particulars as required under the terms and conditions of the M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 7 (SCCH-7) policy. This act on the part of the insured amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy issued.

h) The vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident alleged to be insured with its Branch Office at Chikkamagalur, vide Policy No.241400/31/11/01/00014183, valid from 16.11.2011 to 15.11.2012, is not admitted. However, admission of the policy if any, is subject to confirmation from the concerned policy issuing Office and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy issued.

i) The driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. The insured deliberately and consciously entrusted the vehicle to a person, who did not possess a valid licence, which amounts to breach of the terms and conditions of the policy issued and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation.

j) The Petitioner may be directed to file an undertaking before the Tribunal to the effect that, they are not agitating the claim before any other Court/Authorities on the same cause of action.

k) It seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to contest the case on merits as provided under Section 170 of M.V. Act in the event of the insured failing to contest the case on merits colluding with the Petitioner or under the changed circumstances of the case. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 8 (SCCH-7)

8. Based on the above said pleadings, my Predecessors- in-Office has framed the following Issues and Additional Issue and I have framed Re-casted Issue No.2;

1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, she is the dependent or legal representative of deceased Sri.Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bachhe Gowda?

2. Whether the Petitioners proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 108 Ambulance bearing Reg.No.KA-07-G-483 by its driver and in the said accident, Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bachhe Gowda died?

3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

4. What order or Award?

ADDITIONAL ISSUE

1. Whether this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to try this petition?

RECASTED ISSUE NO.2

1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, in the alleged accident both the vehicles, i.e., Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-

succumbed to the accidental injuries as alleged?

9. In order to prove her case, the Petitioner herself has been examined as P.W.1 and has also examined one witness as P.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.1 and Driver as R.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1.

10. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has filed the written arguments.

11. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Sri. Venkatesha Naidu. R. has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,

i) 2012 ACJ 1335 High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Mohanan and Others), wherein, it is observed that, MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Maintainability of-Negligence of victim-Collision between two Motor Cycles resulting in injuries to pillion riders and death of one of the Motor Cyclists-Tribunal awarded compensation under Section 163-A-Contention that, deceased was responsible for the accident and claim application under Section 163-A and when negligence is irrelevant contributory negligence will also be irrelevant- liability under section 163-A does not depend on negligence or fault-If two vehicles are involved in accident and driver of one vehicle suffers injury/death due to his own negligence then the claimant/heirs M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 10 (SCCH-7) cannot claim against the insurer of the vehicle which he was driving But, they can stake claim against the owner and insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident- Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation under section 163-A from the owner and Insurance Company of the other vehicle-Held : yes. (2003 ACJ 2033 (Kerala) relied.

ii) 2013 ACJ 2304 High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga (Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Lalitabai and Others), wherein, it is observed that, MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Maintainability of-Negligence- Collision between two wheeler and truck resulting in death of two wheeler rider-Evidence on record and particularly FIR indicated that, accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased-No dispute about involvement of the truck-Whether claimants are entitled to compensation without a finding on negligence- Held: yes.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , Sections 163-A read with Second Schedule-Quantum-Fatal accident

-Death of two-Wheeler rider-Claimants; widow, parents and 5 children-Tribunal awarded Rupees 3,36,000 for loss of dependency plus Rupees 45,000/- under other conventional heads-Appellate Court allowed Rupees 3,36,000 plus Rupees 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rupees 5,000/- for loss of consortium and Rupees 2,500/- for loss to estate-Award of Rupees 3,81,000 reduced to Rupees 3,45,000/-.

iii) 2014 ACJ 2235 High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam (National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Gracy and Others), wherein, it is observed that, M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 11 (SCCH-7) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Maintainability of-Negligence of victim-Collision between a car and truck coming from opposite directions resulting in death of car driver- Accident occurred solely due to negligence of the deceased who came on to the wrong side of his road-Whether Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to legal heirs of the deceased under Section 163-A against Insurance Company of truck- Held: yes; two vehicles were involved in the accident and deceased was a third party with regard to the truck (2004 ACJ 934 (SC) followed.

iv) 2012 ACJ 2206 High Court of Kerala At Ernakulam (United Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Ratheesh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Joint tort-feasors-collision between a van and Motor Cycle, Motor Cyclist and two pillion riders sustained injuries and one of them succumbed to injuries-claimants filed claim applications against driver, owner and Insurance Company of van under section 163-A- Tribunal held Insurance Company of van liable- Appeal by Insurance Company contending that, when more than one vehicle is involved in accident, owners and Insurance Companies of all vehicle are liable to answer claim; owner and Insurance Company of Motor Cycle must be made liable to the extent of 50%-Whether claimant has unfettered right to claim compensation under section 163-A against either or both owners and Insurance Companies of the vehicles involved in the accident-Held: yes (2012 ACJ 1986 (Kerala) confirmed.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, sections 163-A and 147(1) Motor insurance- Policy-Liability of Insurance Company -In a claim application filed under section 163-A policy is relevant to only ascertain the status as authorised insurer and thereafter terms of policy become irrelevant and M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 12 (SCCH-7) liability of Insurance Company is as specified in Section 163-A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A-

negligence- Composite negligence-

Apportionment of inter se liability-Questions of negligence is irrelevant alien and foreign to claim filed under section 163-A-Whether Tribunal may attempt to identify the responsibility for the accident to decide inter se dispute between owners insurers of the vehicles involved in a claim under Section 163-A-held : No: it would go against the very grain of the liability created under the section (2003 ACJ 2033(Kerala) and 2007 ACJ 1511(Kerala)followed:2011 ACJ 1790 (Kerala)distinguished).

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , Section 163-A read with second schedule-Quantum-injury-Leg, arm, face and head-Type III open fracture left femoral shaft with vascular compromise, fractures of left tibia, left patella, left humerus and laceration wounds on left ear and face with head injury- injured workshop mechanic, earning Rupees 3,000 p.m., and Doctor opined that, he has suffered permanent physical disablement of 50 percent-Tribunal awarded Rupees 12,000/- for loss of income for 6 months, Rupees 14,600/- for medical expenses, Rupees 5,000/- for pain and suffering and Rupees 1,15,200 for permanent disablement-Appellate court assessed income at Rupees 3,000/- p.m., loss of earning capacity at 45 percent and further allowed Rupees 6,000/- for loss of income and Rupees 1,44,000/- for disablement-Award of Rupees 1,46,800 enhanced to Rupees 2,96,800/-

v) 2013 ACJ 1492 High Court of Karnataka At Bangalore (Sanaulla and Another V/s Divisional Manager, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation), wherein, it is observed that, M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 13 (SCCH-7) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Negligence-Accident with Corporation bus resulting in death of Motor Cyclist and pillion rider-Claimants filed claim against Corporation under Section 163-A contending that, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus- Claimants further contended that, they need not prove negligence of bus driver-Specific case of Corporation is that, Motor Cyclist at high speed lost control over Motor Cycle, dashed against road median divider, both riders on Motor Cycle fell on other side of the road while bus was coming from opposite direction and its driver could not anticipate that, both riders would fall on other side of the road-Corporation is in no way responsible for the accident and claim application is not maintainable-Tribunal found that, claimants proved the accident, they need not prove negligence of the bus driver and awarded compensation -Tribunal's finding upheld.

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- read with second schedule Sl.No.1 -Quantum- Fatal accident -principles of assessment- personal and living expenses of the deceased- Whether Tribunal was justified in deducting ½ of income of the deceased who was a bachelor in claim by his parents under section 163-A-Held:

14 (SCCH-7)

vi) 2015 ACJ 1271 High Court of Karnataka At Bangalore (Fazaluddin and Another V/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and Another), wherein, it is observed that, MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Contributory Negligence- Joint tort feasers-Liability of-Scooter dashed against a Motor Cycle resulting in death of pillion rider on Motor Cycle-Tribunal found that, riders of both the vehicles were equally responsible for the accident and fastened liability on the owner of Motor Cycle and owner and Insurance Company of scooter jointly and severally-Insurance Company of scooter contended that, its liability is limited to 50%- In a claim application filed under section 163-A the cause of accident is not a question to be decided and mere involvement of the vehicle is sufficient to entitle a person claiming compensation to seek the same-Finding of contributory negligence on the part of Motor Cycle rider will not exonerate the owner and Insurance Company of other vehicle and their liability cannot be limited to 50% when a claim application is filed under section 163-A-Whether Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the owner of Motor Cycle and owner and Insurance Company of scooter jointly and severally and claimants are entitled to recover compensation from any of the tortfeasers-Held:

r/w Sch.II and S.166-Finality of proceedings under S.163-A-Claims under Ss-163-A and 166 whether can be pursued simultaneously-Held, proceedings under S.163-A determine rights and obligations of parties finally-Various considerations, including the detailed scheme and structured formula provided for determining M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 15 (SCCH-7) quantum of compensation, in terms of Sch.II, discussed in detail in this regard-Further held, remedy for payment of compensation under Ss.163A and 166 being final and independent of each other, a claimant cannot pursue his remedies there under simultaneously and must opt/elect to go for either a proceeding under S.163-A or under S.166-Incongruities that, would result from allowing a simultaneous recourse to Ss.163-A and 166 highlighted- Gujarat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989- Rr.211 &

231. B. Compensation -Generally-Finality of provisions providing for-Presumption of - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.163-A Contract Act, 1872- S.73 .

C. Interpretation of Statues-Basic Rules- Purposive construction-Statue to be read in entirely and purport and object of Act to be given its full effect.

D. Interpretation of Statutes-Basic rules- Liberal construction-Beneficial legislation-Extent of liberal construction permissible in extending benefit under.

The question that, arose on appeal before the Supreme Court was whether a proceeding under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a final proceeding, by reason whereof a claimant, who has been granted compensation under Section 163-A, is debarred from proceeding with any further claims on the basis of fault liability in terms of Section 166 .

Held; It is now well settled that, for the purpose of interpretation of a statue, the same is to be read in its entirety. The purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect by applying the principles of purposive construction.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 16 (SCCH-7)

viii) 2014 ACJ 653 Supreme Court of India (Sanjay Kumar V/s Ashok Kumar and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Quantum-injury-leg-amputation of right leg above knee-injured was Hospitalized for 46 days and remained under treatment for 3 months- injured an embroiderer, earning Rupees 4,500 p.m. and as per entry 18, Part II, Schedule 1 of Workmen's Compensation Act , suffered 70 percent loss of earning capacity-Tribunal taking into consideration minimum wages for unskilled worker assessed income at Rupees 3,160 p.m., adopted multiplier of 16 and awarded Rupees 4,83,472-High Court adopted multiplier of 18 and enhanced the award to Rupees 6,35,808- Apex Court taking into consideration that, injured was a skilled worker, accepted his claim of income of Rupees 4,500 per month, allowed 50 percent increase for future prospects, took loss of earning capacity at 70 percent, adopted multiplier, of 18 and allowed Rupees 10,20,600 plus Rupees 13,500 for loss of income during treatment Rupees 75,000 for medical expenses, attendant and conveyance Rupees 75,000 for loss of marriage prospects, Rupees 1,5,000 for mental agony and pain and sufferings Rupees 1,00,000/- for loss of amenities and Rupees 25,000/- as cost of litigation-Award of Rupees 6,35,808 enhanced to Rupees 14,59,100/-.

Quantum-Interest-Tribunal allowed interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till realization-Apex Court allowed interest at 9% from the date of accident till realization.

ix) 2013 ACJ 2856 Supreme Court of India (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Sunil Kumar and Another), wherein, it is observed that, M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 17 (SCCH-7) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988, Section 163-A- Claim application- Maintainability of Negligence of victim-Insurance Company resisted the claim on the ground that, injured who was driving the vehicle was negligent-Tribunal awarded compensation for injuries sustained by claimant-Appeal by Insurance Company dismissed by High Court-Liability under Section 163-A is on the principle of no fault-Legislature never wanted the claimant to plead or establish negligence of owner or driver-No provision in section 163-A for apportionment of liability- Whether owner or Insurance Company can be permitted to prove contributory negligence or default or wrongful act on the part of victim or claimant-Held: no; otherwise it would defeat the very object and purpose of the provisions; but, in view of Sinitha's case, 2012 ACJ 1 (SC) matter referred to larger Bench.

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 sections 163-A, 170 and 149 (2) -Motor Insurance-Appeal-Defenses available to Insurance Company-Tribunal allowed compensation to the claimant on his application under Section 163-A for injuries sustained by him- Insurance Company failed to obtain order of the Tribunal under Section 170 but, filed appeal against the quantum of compensation -High Court relying upon Nicolletta Rohtagi's Case, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC), dismissed appeal-Correctness of Nicolletta Rohtagi's case doubted in Shila Datta's case, 2011 ACJ 2729 (SC)-Matter referred to larger Bench.

x) 2015 ACJ 1441 Supreme Court of India (Khenyei V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd, and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Negligence-Composite negligence-Joint tortfeasors-Apportionment of inter se liability- Collision between a bus and trailer-truck due to composite negligence of both the drivers and claimants sustained injuries-Respective blame M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 18 (SCCH-7) for the trailer-truck driver being 1/3rd and that, of bus driver 1/3rd whether the claimants are entitled to claim entire compensation from both or nay one of the joint tortfeasors-Held: yes; liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. Negligence-Composite negligence-Joint tortfeasors-Apportionment of interse liability- Collision between a bus and trailer truck due to composite negligence of both the drivers and claimants sustained injuries- Apex Court discussed the case law on the question of liability of joint tortfeasors and formulated the principles.

The principles are;

(i) In the case of composite negligence, Plaintiff/claimant is entitled to both or any one of the joint tortfeasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.

(ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tortfeasors vis-avis the Plaintiff/claimants is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tortfeasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient it s open tot h court/Tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tortfeasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the Plaintiff/claimant to the extent, it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment /extent of their negligence has been determined by the Court/Tribunal in main case, on joint M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 19 (SCCH-7) tortfeasor can recover the amount from the other in the execution proceedings.

(iv) It would not be appropriate for the court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of impleadment of other joint tortfeasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tortfeasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tortfeasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award.

12. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 Sri. L. Sreekanta Rao has placed reliance upon the decision reported in, 2012 ACJ 1 Supreme Court of India (National Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s Sinitha and others), wherein it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , Section 163- A-Claim application-Maintainability of- Negligence of victim-Motor Cyclist hit a large stone lying on tar road and sustained fatal injuries-Claimants filed claim under Section 166 and later, got it converted as under

Held : yes; but in this case deceased was driving the motor cycle which hit the stone but insurance company failed to establish that, the was negligent; insurance company also led no evidence to establish the relationship between the deceased and owner of vehicle or that deceased represented the owner and was not a third party; insurance company is liable.

On the conjoint reading of Sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the legislative intent is clear, namely, that a claim for compensation raised under section 163-A of the Act need not be based on pleadings or proof at the hands of the claimants showing absence of 'wrongful act', being 'neglect' or 'default'. But that is not sufficient to determine that the provision falls under the 'fault' liability principle, the M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 21 (SCCH-7) converse has also to be established, i.e., whether a claim raised there under can be defeated by the concerned party (owner or insurance company) by pleading and proving 'wrongful act', 'neglect' or 'default' ... we have not hesitation in concluding that it is open to the owner or insurance company, as the case may be, to defeat a claim under Section 163- A of the Act by pleading and establishing through cogent evidence a 'fault' ground ('wrongful act' or 'neglect' or 'default'). It is therefore, doubtless that Section 163-A of the Act is founded under the 'fault' liability principle.

13. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;

14. ADDITIONAL ISSUE :- As the very maintainability of the present petition is involved in this Additional Issue and as the finding on this Additional Issue is very much required for consideration of other Issues, this Additional Issue is taken first for consideration.

15. It is contented by the Respondent No.2 in its written statement that, the Petitioner is a resident of Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and the accident occurred within the jurisdiction of Tumkur District and as such, this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim petition and hence, it is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

16. On perusal of the cause title of the petition, it appears that, the Petitioner has shown her native place as Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District in the cause title of the petition. But, only based on the same and the contentions taken by the Respondent No.2 in its written statement, it cannot be said that, this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition, as, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, she was residing with the deceased in Bangalore and both were residing at Bangalore, Timber Layout since 10 years and her other sons are also residing at Bangalore. Further, Ex.P.9 Election Identity Card relating to the Petitioner clearly disclosed that, she is a resident of 2nd Main Road, Raghav Nagar, New Timber Yard Layout, Mysore Road, Bangalore. Even though, the accident was taken place near Kamagondanahalli, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the above M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 23 (SCCH-7) said Election Identity Card relating to the Petitioner clearly disclosed that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was residing at Bangalore. Further, on perusal of the cause title of the petition, it further clarify the fact that, the Respondent No.1, who is a registered owner of 108 Ambulance, the Respondent No.2, who is an Insurance Company and the Respondent No.3, who is a registered owner of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890, are residing at Bangalore. It is also clear from the cause title of the petition that, the Petitioner is also residing at Bangalore. Therefore, this Tribunal has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present petition. Accordingly, without much discussion, I answered Additional Issue in the Negative.

17. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner, i.e., who is also the mother of the deceased, has stated in her examination-in-chief that, she is a mother of deceased Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bachhe Gowda and on 12.06.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased was riding the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 along with his friend Mr.Pramod Kumar, who was proceeding as a pillion rider on the said Motor Cycle, from Tumkur side to Tiptur side on N.H.206 Road, Near Kamagondanahalli Gate, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, at that time, 108 Ambulance vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, endanger to human life, came at high speed from K.B. Cross side to Tumkur side and dashed against the said Motor Cycle on the said road and as a result of the collision of the said Motor Cycle and the Ambulance, her son along with the said Motor Cycle was thrown to road side bridge and her son fell down along with the Motor Cycle, M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 24 (SCCH-7) resulting her son had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately, her son was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tiptur, wherein, he took treatment and Later, her son died on the way to Bangalore at around night 12.00 p.m., on the date of accident, while he was shifting to the Hospital at Bangalore for further treatment from Government Tiptur Government Hospital.

18. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Requisition, Ex.P.6 Inquest Mahazar, Ex.P.7 Post-mortem Report, Ex.P.8 Driving Licence relating to the deceased Bettaswamy, Ex.P.9 Voters Identity Card, Ex.P.10 Death Certificate relating to Bettaswamy, Ex.P.11 Transfer Certificate relating to B.G. Bettaswamy, Ex.P.12 SSLC Marks Card relating to B.G. Bettaswamy, Ex.P.13 Genealogical Tree and Ex.P.14 Ration Card, which clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner is a mother of deceased B.G.Bettaswamy S/o Late B.H. Gangadharaiah, who died on 12.06.2012 at 12.00 p.m. on the way to the Hospital due to the accidental injuries, which was taken place on 12.06.2012 at 7.00 p.m., near Kamagondanahalli Gate, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk, when he was proceeding on the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 as a rider and 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483 dashed to his Motor Cycle. No doubt, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, she has 5 issues, out of them, 4 are sons and one daughter and her eldest son is residing at Byadagere, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and they are having 3 Acres of land at Byadagere. But, the other sons and daughters of the Petitioners are not made as parties to the present petition and the Petitioner, who being a mother of the deceased alone has filed the present petition. The M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 25 (SCCH-7) other sons and daughters of the Petitioner are not the proper and necessary parties to the present petition, as, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, deceased Bettaswamy was an unmarried at the time of accident. The same is also clear from the contents of above said Police and medical documents. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross- examination has clearly stated that, now she is eking her livelihood out of some amount left by her deceased son. Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioner as a mother of the deceased, who died unmarried claiming compensation as a legal heir and dependant of her deceased unmarried son, is proper and correct and as such, it is maintainable. Therefore, the Petitioner being a mother of the deceased is a legal representative and was depending upon the said deceased at the time of accident. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.

19. ISSUE NO.2 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, on 12.06.2012 at about 7.00 p.m., while her deceased son, i.e., B.G.Bettawamy @ Bachhe Gowda was riding the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 along with his friend Mr. Promod Kumar, who was proceeding as a pillion rider on the said Motor Cycle from Tumkur side to Tiptur side on N.H.206 Road, near Kamagondanahalli Gate, Kibbanahalli Hobli, Tiptur Taluk and at that time, 108 Ambulance vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, endanger to human life at high speed from K.B. Cross side to Tumkur side as one Sujatha K.S., who was injured, was shifted to Sridevi Hospital, Tumkur from Government Hospital, Tiptur, in the said Ambulance vehicle and dashed against the said Motor Cycle on the said road. She has M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 26 (SCCH-7) further stated that, as a result of collision of the Motor Cycle and the Ambulance, her son was thrown to road side bridge and her son fell down along with the said Motor Cycle, resulting in, her son had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and both the said Ambulance and Motor Cycle were damaged. She has further stated that, immediately after the accident, her son was shifted to the Government Hospital, Tiptur, wherein, he took treatment and later, her son was died on the way to Bangalore at around12.00 p.m. night on the date of accident, while he was shifting to the Hospital at Bangalore for further treatment. She has further stated that, later, the dead body of her son was shifted back to the Government Hospital, Tiptur and the duty Doctors have conducted post-mortem on her deceased son. She has further stated that, the inmate of the said Ambulance vehicle staff nurse one Mr.Rajanna S/o Chandrappa, having colluded with the driver of the said Ambulance vehicle, has lodged a false complaint as against her son with an intention to over come the legal hassles. She has further stated that, this accident was occurred due to involvement of both the said Motor Cycle and Ambulance in question. She has further stated that, the Kibbanahalli Cross Police have registered a case in Crime No.60/2012 under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and later, the said Police had submitted the memo before Principal Civil Judge (J.D.) and J.M.F.C. Court, Tiptur, for adopting Section 304(A) of IPC after the death of her son.

20. To consider her oral version, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Requisition, Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 MVI Report, Ex.P.6 Inquest M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 27 (SCCH-7) Mahazar, Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report and Ex.P.10 Death Certificate relating to Bettaswamy.

21. It is pertinent to note here that, the Petitioner has filed the present claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 as against the Respondents claiming compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- in respect of death of her son B.G.Bettaswamy S/o Late B.H. Gangadharaiah due to the accidental injuries sustained in the said road traffic accident, which was taken place on 12.06.2012 at 7.00 p.m., in between the Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE- 1890 and 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss in detail about the negligence of the driver of 108 Ambulance and the rider of the said Motor Cycle, wherein, the deceased was proceeding as a rider and the only point to be considered is about the involvement of the said vehicles in question in the road traffic accident. Therefore, even though the Police have filed a charge sheet as against the said deceased, it is not necessary to discuss in detail about the negligence on the part of the deceased in the commission of the said road traffic accident.

22. On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint, it clearly goes to show that, the accident was taken place on 12.06.2012 at 7.00 p.m., in between the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 and 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483 and in the said road traffic accident, the rider of the said Motor Cycle, who is the deceased himself, was riding the said Motor Cycle at the time of accident, are very much clear.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 28 (SCCH-7)

23. It is clear from the contents of Ex.P.3 Requisition that, the deceased Bettaswamy succumbed to the injuries on the way to the Hospital and as such, along with Section 279 and 337 of IPC, Section 304(A) of IPC is inserted in the said Crime No.60/2012.

24. The contents of EX.P.4 Spot Mahazar and Ex.P.5 MVI Report further clearly disclosed about the very involvement of the said Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 in the said road traffic accident, which was taken place on 12.06.2012 at 7.00 p.m., near Kamagondanahalli Gate, N.H.206 Road. The damages caused to both the vehicles are clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.5 MVI Report that, the accident was not occurred due to nay mechanical defects of the said vehicle.

25. Ex.P.6 Inquest Mahazar and Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report further clearly disclosed about the very involvement and use of the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 and 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483, in the said road traffic accident and the accident was taken place in between the said vehicles and the deceased had sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries itself. It is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 Post Mortem Report that, the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple fracture and injury to vital organ. The death due to the accidental injuries in the road traffic accident, wherein, the said Motor Cycle and 108 Ambulance were used and involved, is clearly proved from the contents of Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 29 (SCCH-7)

26. The contents of Ex.P.10 Death Certificate further clearly disclosed that, on 12.06.2012, i.e., on the date of accident itself, the deceased Bettaswamy B.G. died.

27. The Petitioner has also examined the pillion rider of the said Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 as P.W.2, whose evidence also clearly disclosed that, the road traffic accident was taken place in between the said Motor Cycle and 108 Ambulance. The very use of the said Motor Cycle and 108 Ambulance is clear from the said evidence of P.W.2. He has further clearly stated in his cross-examination that, at the time of accident, he was a pillion rider and their Motor Cycle was proceeding with a speed of 25-30 k.m., which was ridden by the deceased Bettaswamy and the 108 Ambulance, which caused the accident was coming on the opposite side and he had seen the same about 150-200 feet. He has further clearly stated that, he also sustained injuries in the said road traffic accident and he had taken first-aid treatment at Tiptur Government Hospital and thereafter, taken treatment at Manipal Hospital and the Police have recorded his statement and Rajanna had lodged the complaint. He has further clearly stated about the involvement of the said Motor Cycle and 108 Ambulance in the said road traffic accident.

28. The Respondent No.2 has examined its Administrative Officer as R.W.1 and the driver of the said 108 Ambulance as R.W.2, who have stated about the negligence on the part of the deceased Bettaswamy in the said road traffic accident, who was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 and also the very filing of the charge sheet as against him for the offences punishable under Section 279, M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 30 (SCCH-7) 338 and 304(A) of IPC R/w 196 of M.V. Act , i.e., abated charge sheet. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1989 and hence, only the use and involvement of the vehicles can be looked into for consideration. Hence, it is not necessary to discuss the oral version of R.W.1 and R.W.2 in detail.

29. The Respondent No.2 has produced Ex.R.1 Charge Sheet, which disclosed that, the Investigating Officer, after thorough investigation, has filed a charge sheet as against the deceased. Further, the R.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, she has gone through the contents of Police documents and the Ambulance driver was given complaint to the Police in respect of the alleged accident and as per IMV Report, both the vehicles were damaged and due to collusion of both the vehicles, the said accident was taken place. It is also clear from the evidence of R.W.2 that, at the time of accident, he was driving the 108 Ambulance. He has further clearly stated in his cross-examination that, in the said accident, the Ambulance was damaged as shown in Ex.P.5 MVI Report and he has given statement before the Police and the Ambulance Van has dashed the deceased and he was taken to Tiptur Government Hospital. From the said evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2, it is further made crystal clear that, the above said Motor Cycle and 108 Ambulance Auto Rickshaw very much involved and used in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased succumbed to the injury, who was a rider of the said Motor Cycle.

30. From the above said material evidence, it is made crystal clear that, the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 31 (SCCH-7) 02-EE-1890 and 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA- 07-G-483, are very much involved and used in the road traffic accident, which was taken place on 12.06.2012 at 7.00 p.m., wherein the deceased succumbed to the injuries, who was riding the said Motor Cycle at the time of accident. Accordingly, I answered Re-casted Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.

31. ISSUE NO.3 :- The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 Driving Licence, Ex.P.11 Transfer Certificate and Ex.P.12 SSLC Marks Card relating to the deceased, which disclosed that, the date of birth of the deceased is on 06.01.1982. The date of accident is on 12.06.2012. From the said dates, it appears that, at the time of accident, the deceased was 31 years old. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 31 years at the time of accident.

32. The P.W.1 has stated that, her deceased son was hale and healthy prior to the accident and hard worker and he was an Auto driver and getting a monthly income of Rupees 3,300/-. Further the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that, her deceased son was having own Auto Rickshaw. Except her oral version, the Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents to consider the avocation and income of her deceased son Sri. Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bacche Gowda S/o Late B.H. Gangadharaiah, at the time of accident. Further, though the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 Driving Licence relating to the deceased, she has not produced the vehicle documents relating to the Auto Rickshaw. She has clearly admitted in her cross examination that, she has not produced any documents regarding the Auto Rickshaw owned by the deceased. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly stated that, her M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 32 (SCCH-7) son was earning Rupees 3,000/- per month at the time of demise and he died unmarried. The petition filed by the Petitioner is under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased cannot be exceed Rupees 40,000/-. Though there is no evidence to consider the avocation and income of the said deceased, the earning of Rupees 3,000/- P.M. as admitted by the P.W.1 in her cross- examination relating to her deceased son does not appeared to be exaggeration, as, even in normal circumstances, a coolie would get Rupees 3,000/- P.M. Hence, the income of Rupees 3,000/- P.M. as admitted by the P.W.1, who is the mother of the deceased, in her cross-examination, relating to the said deceased cannot be doubted. Hence, the income of the said deceased is considered as Rupees 3,000/- P.M. at the time of accident.

33. The P.W.1 has stated that, her deceased son had no voice, he was affectionate to her and used to contribute his income for the maintenance of the family. She has further stated that, due to the death of her son, she has put to great shock, untold mental agony, great financial loss and difficulty to lead the family as he was totally depending on his son's income as her husband late Sri.B.H.Gangadharaiah was expired earlier to his deceased son.

34. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner is a mother and dependant of the said deceased at the time of accident.

35. As per the Schedule - II annexed to M.V. Act, 1988 , 1/3rd income of the deceased has to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. As this Tribunal has already M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 33 (SCCH-7) considered the income of the deceased is of Rupees 3,000/- P.M. Therefore, the loss of dependency comes to Rupees 2,000/- (Rs.3,000/- (-) Rs.1,000/-).

36. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, at the time of accident, the age of the deceased Sri Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bacche Gowda S/o Late B.H.Gangadaharaiah was 31 years. The multiplier under Schedule - II applicable to the age, i.e., 31 years of deceased is

17. Therefore, the loss of dependency for monthly income of Rupees 2,000/- by applying multiplier by 17 comes to Rupees 4,08,000/- (Rupees 2,000 X 12 X 17). Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rupees 4,08,000/- towards loss of dependency.

37. The P.W.1 has stated that, after conducting the post- mortem, the dead body was handed over to her and later she has performed the last right of her deceased son and thereafter, she had performed his 11th day ceremony for which, she has spent Rupees 30,000/-.

38. But, as per the Schedule - II, the Petitioner is only entitled for Rupees 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rupees 2,500/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for Rupees 2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rupees 2,500/- towards loss of estate.

39. As the Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act, 1989, she is not entitled for any compensation under other heads.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 34 (SCCH-7)

40. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation:-

41. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rupees 4,12,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of Petition till payment.

42. While answering Issue No.2, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, both the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 and 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA-07-G-483 are very much used and involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the deceased Bettaswamy B.G. @ Bettegowda S/o Late B.H.Gangadharaiah had sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the accidental injuries on the way to the Hospital. Initially, the Petitioner has made the Respondent No.1, who is an owner and the Respondent No.2 who is an insurer of the 108 Ambulance as parties to the present proceedings. Later, as per the Order dated 10.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.IX filed by the Respondent No.2, the Respondent No.3, who is the registered owner of the said Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890 is impleaded as party to the present proceedings.

43. The Respondent No.2 has denied the very issuance of the Insurance Policy to the said 108 Ambulance, in its written M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 35 (SCCH-7) statement. But, the R.W.1, who is the Administrative Officer of the Respondent No.2, has clearly admitted in her cross- examination that, as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy relating to the offending vehicle, i.e., 108 Ambulance was in force. The Petitioner has clearly mentioned in the cause title of the petition about the Policy No.241400/31/11/01/00014183, Valid from 16.11.2011 to 15.11.2012, which is relating to 108 Ambulance. From this, it appears that, at the time of accident, the insurance policy relating to the said 108 Ambulance bearing Registration No.KA- 07-G-483 was valid. Based on the same, it can be safely held that, at the time of accident, the said 108 Ambulance was having a valid insurance policy, which covers the date of accident. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent No.3, who is a registered owner of the said Motor Cycle, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte. Ex.R.1 Charge Sheet clearly disclosed that, the said Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-02-EE-1890, wherein, the deceased was proceeding as a rider was not having a valid Insurance Policy at the time of accident. Though the Respondent No.3, who is a registered owner of the said Motor Cycle has impleaded as party to the present petition as Respondent No.3, the liability to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner cannot be fixed on the Respondent No.3, as, it is a well settled principle of law that, the Petitioner can file a petition under Section 163-A of M.V. Act claiming compensation as against any owner and insurer of the vehicles, which involved and used in the road traffic accident and as such, the present Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the registered owner and insurer of the said 108 Ambulance. Furthermore, it is held by this Tribunal that, the M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 36 (SCCH-7) said 108 Ambulance is very much used and involved in the said road traffic accident. Since the said Motor Cycle was not having a valid Insurance Policy at the time of accident and since, the Petitioner has not impleaded the Respondent No.3 at the initial point of time and as per the Order passed on the application filed by the Respondent No.2 itself, the Respondent No.3 is impleaded in the present petition, it is just, proper and necessary to fix the liability to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner by the Respondents No.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the said 108 Ambulance. Therefore, the Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Since the Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.1. In view of the above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. On the other hand, the principles enunciated in the decision cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered accordingly.

44. ISSUE NO.4 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;

ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.

interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.

The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.

In the event of deposit of the said compensation, 50% of the compensation amount relating to Petitioner shall be released in her favour through account payee cheque, on proper identification.

Remaining 50% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of her choice, for a period of three years.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 29th day of September, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.

M.V.C.NO.7875/2012 38 (SCCH-7) ANNEXURE

1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-

3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-

4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-