Datasets:

vegeta

/

nlplegal

like 0

the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent

driving of the BBMP Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-

8658 by its driver and the said Appanna and Swetha

have died in the said accident. Accordingly, issue No.1 of

both MVC.No.4650/2015 and MVC.No.4651/2015 are

answered In the Affirmative.

Issue No.2 in MVC.4650/2015:

19. It is the case of the petitioners that, petitioner

No.1 and 2 are the minor children, petitioner No.3 is the

father and petitioner 3(a) is the sister of the deceased

Appanna. Petitioner No.3 had been examined as P.W.1.

He reiterated the averments and allegations made in the

claim petition. In support of his evidence he had

produced Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.17. Ex.P.10 is

the Ration card, wherein the petitioner No.1 to 3 are

shown as son, daughter and father of the deceased

Appanna. Ex.P.11 is the Aadhaar card of P.W.1

Muniyappa. Ex.P.17 are the Aadhaar cards of Appanna,

20 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

Swetha and petitioner No.1 and 2. In Ex.P.17 the

petitioner No.1 and 2 names are mentioned as son and

daughter of the deceased Appanna. When the matter

was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1, he is reported

as dead and his daughter i.e petitioner No.3(a) brought

on record stating that, she is the paternal aunt of minor

petitioners No.1 and 2 and they are under her care and

custody, hence she may be permitted to prosecute the

case on behalf of minor petitioners. In order to establish

the said relationship, the petitioner No.3(a) herself got

examined as P.W.2. She reiterates the averments and

allegations made in the claim petition. In support of her

evidence, she has produced Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 i.e

Aadhaar card and G-Tree of their family. It is pertinent to

note that, in Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.19 it is no where

mentioned that, Muniyappa is the father and Appanna

was her brother. She has not produced any photographs

or any other ID proof with regard to the relationship with

21 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

the deceased or petitioner No.3. The police document i.e

Inquest Mahazar produced at Ex.P.5 in the said mahazar

Statement of deceased father (Muniyappa), is shown to be

recorded by the police wherein it is mentioned that, the

petitioner No.3 in MVC.4650/2015 i.e Muniyappa had 3

children, namely Narasamma, Gangamma and only son

Appanna. Narasamma and Gangamma are married and

residing separately with their respective husband's

house. That is the only document which shows that,

this petitioner No.3(a) is the daughter of 3rd petitioner

and elder sister of deceased Appanna. During the course

of cross-examination, the relationship of the P.W.2

Narasamma with the deceased is disputed, but not

disputed the relationship of the petitioners No.1 and 2

with the deceased Appanna and Swetha. Further, the

respondents have not placed any evidence to show that,

the petitioner No.1 and 2 are not the children and legal

representatives of the deceased. Under these

22 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

circumstances, the petitioner No.1 and 2 have proved

that, they are the legal representatives of the deceased.

So for as petitioner No.3(a) is concerned according to the

documents available on record she is the elder sister of

deceased Appanna. But she is residing separately with

her husband as per the statement given by her father

Muniyappa at the time of inquest as per Ex.P.5. Whereas

she came on record to represent the petitioners on the

ground that, now she is taking care of the minor

petitioners and they are under her care and custody.

The said aspect is not disputed by any of the parties.

Hence, it can be believed that, now the minor petitioner

No.1 and 2 are under the care and custody of said

petitioner No.3(a).

20. The petitioners are claiming compensation on

account of the death of Appanna in the said Road Traffic

Accident. It is stated in the claim petition as well as in

the evidence of P.W.2 that at the time of accident

23 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

deceased was hale and healthy and was working as a

DTH Installation Technician and Service Engineer at

Bharat Systems and was drawing salary of Rs.9,000/-

per month. P.w.2 has deposed that, that if her deceased

brother was alive, he would have earn Rs.20,000/- per

month in future and has lost bright future prospects.

He was maintaining the entire family and was the sole

bread earning member of the family. He was contributing

his entire earnings to their family. Due to the

unfortunate accident, their family is put to great

hardship, mental shock and starvation. In order to

substantiate the avocation and earnings of the deceased,

the petitioners have produced Ex.P.9, i.e 2-Salary Slips

for the month of June-2015 and July-2015. Wherein, it is

mentioned that Appanna had drawn the net salary of

Rs.8,003.80/- after deduction of PF and ESI of

Rs.979.20. In this regard petitioners have examined one

witness Mr. H.K. Bojaraja, Manager at Bharat Systems as

24 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015