Bangalore District CourtIn Mvc No.1628/2015 1. Shashikala vs Sreenath on 27 January, 2017IN THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
               TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
                      SCCH-14

        PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI.,       B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
                 Member, MACT,
                  XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
                  Court of Small Causes,
                  BANGALORE.

              MVC No.1628/2015 and 1629/2015

         Dated this the 27th DAY OF JANUARY 2017.

Petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015   1. SHASHIKALA
                                     W/o Raju
                                     Aged about 41 years
                                  2. RAJU
                                     S/o Srinivasagowda
                                     Aged about 48 years,
                                  R/at Garalapura village,
                                  Kodihalli Hobli,
                                  Kanakapura Taluk,
                                  Ramanagara District.

                                         (By pleader Sri NKG)
                          Vs.
Respondents                       1. SREENATH
                                      S/o Adi Shivashankar Reddy
                                      Aged about 38 years,
                                     The Managing Director of
                                      M/s SVG Exports Pvt., Ltd.,
                                      No.19/1, 24th cross,
                                      6th block, N.S Garden,
                                      Jayanagara,
                                      Bangalore -560 011.
 SCCH-14                     2        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




                                  2. TATA AIG GENERAL
                                      INS.,CO.LTD.,
                                      5th floor, West entrance,
                                       Khanija Bhavana,
                                       Race Course road,
                                       Bangalore -560 001.

                                           (R1-Exparte
                                            R2-By pleader Sri JNR)

Petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015    KIRAN
                                  S/o late Manikya
                                  Aged about 21 years
                                  R/at Arallmaradadoddi village,
                                  Kodihalli Hobli,
                                  Kanakapura Taluk,
                                  Ramanagara District.
                                         (By pleader Sri NKG)
                            Vs.
Respondents                       1. SREENATH
                                      S/o Adi Shivashankar Reddy
                                      Aged about 38 years,
                                     The Managing Director of
                                      M/s SVG Exports Pvt., Ltd.,
                                      No.19/1, 24th cross,
                                      6th block, N.S Garden,
                                      Jayanagara,
                                      Bangalore -560 011.

                                  2. TATA AIG GENERAL
                                      INS.,CO.LTD.,
                                      5th floor, West entrance,
                                       Khanija Bhavana,
                                       Race Course road,
                                       Bangalore -560 001.

                                  3. SRI SOMASHEKAR
                                      S/o Chikke Gowda
                                      Major
 SCCH-14   3       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




                   R/at Garalapura Village,
                   Kodihalli H.O,
                   Kanakapura Taluk,
                   Ramanagara District.

               4. THE UNITED INDIA
                  INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                 Regional Office,
                  No.18, 5th & 6th floors
                  Krishibhavan
                  Hudson circle,
                  Bangalore-560 001.

                        (R1, 3 & 4 -Exparte
                         R2-By pleader Sri JNR)



                    XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
              Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
                        BANGALORE.
 SCCH-14                                4            MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




                              COMMON JUDGMENT

       The petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015 have filed the petition
U/Sec.166of   Motor   Vehicles       Act    claiming    compensation      of
Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of Abhishek S/o Raju in a road traffic
accident and the petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015 has filed the
petition U/Sec.166of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic
accident. Since, these two petitions are arising out of the same
accident, they are clubbed together for common trial and for
disposal by a common Judgment.


      2.       Brief facts of the cases are as under:

      On 03.11.2014 at about 06.45 p.m., the deceased Abhishek
was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA-42-S-0876 along with his
friend i.e., the petitioner Kiran as pillion rider from Kanakapura side
towards      Garalapura.    When   they          reached    near   petrol   bunk,
Kodihalli,     Kanakapura-Kodihalli          road,         Kanakapura       Taluk,
Ramanagar District, at that time, driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-10-
3411 without following any traffic rules and regulations, negligently
and endangering to human life, without switching on the hazard
parking lights, without giving any signals, very carelessly parked his
lorry in the middle of the road. Due to this, the deceased Abhishek
went and dashed the motorcycle against the lorry from behind and
caused the accident. Due to impact, both occupants of the
motorcycle fell down and sustained severe head injuries. The said
Abhishek succumbed to fatal injuries on the spot. After postmortem,
 SCCH-14                           5           MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




the dead body of the deceased Abhishek was handed over to the
petitioners who performed the last rites for which they have spent
more than Rs.2,00,000/-. The deceased was the only earning
member of the family of the petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015. Due
to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners are under going
deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and hardship. They have
lost love and affection and their future life has become dark. Prior to
the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy, was aged 21 years,
was final year B.Com., student at Kodihalli Govt., College. He was a
brilliant student and used to participate in extra curricular
activates. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as a milk vendor.
The   deceased   was    contributing    his   entire   income    for     the
maintenance of the family. The petitioners have put great financial
hardship, untold misery and depressed. The petitioners have lost
caretaker son.

      The petitioner Kiran was taken to Kanakapura Govt.,
Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and then, he was
referred to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore. Later, he was shifted to
Victoria Hospital for treatment. Again, the petitioner was admitted
as an inpatient at Kanakapura Govt., Hospital, from 04.11.2014 to
08.11.2014. During the course of treatment, x-rays, CT scans were
taken. He has lost four teeth and was discharged with an advice to
take follow up treatment and bed rest. The petitioner is still
continuing   follow    up   treatment   and     bed    rest.   He   spent
Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and nourishment charges, etc., Prior
to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged
21 years, was B.Com., student at Kanakapura Municipal College.
 SCCH-14                            6        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




He was a brilliant student and used to participate in extra
curricular activities. Due to accidental injuries, he cannot attend his
exam and was failed as a result loss of education and put to great
financial hardship, untold misery and depressed. The petitioner
cannot walk, sit squat, cannot expose to sun light. He is getting
partial head ache, he cannot chew food and can't speak properly.
Kodihalli police have registered Cr.No.131/2014 against the driver
of lorry bearing     No.KA-10-3411 for      the offences punishable
U/Sce.279, 338 and 304(A) ofIPC. After completing investigation,
the said police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of said
lorry. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the
said lorry and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
Hence, the petitioners have sought awarding compensation of
Rs.30,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively with cost and
interest. Originally, the petition was filed against the respondent
No.1 and 2. During the proceedings, the owner and insurer of
motorcycle   bearing    No.KA-42-S-0876     are   impleaded     as     the
respondent No.3 and 4 as per the order on IA filed by the
respondent no.2 in MVC No.1629/2015.

      3.     In pursuance of the notice, the respondent no.2 has
appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed objection
statement in both the cases denying the averments of the petitions
as false and contended that the petitions are not maintainable
either in law or on facts, that the petitions are bad for non joinder of
necessary parties. He has admitted the issuance of the policy in
favour of the respondent no.1 in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-10-
 SCCH-14                             7     MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




3411, but he has contended that the insured vehicle was not
involved in the accident, that the insured and concerned police have
not complied with their mandatory duties, that the driver of insured
vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the
said vehicle was not having valid RC, FC, permit and route permit at
the time of alleged accident, that the insured has violated the terms
and conditions of the policy, that he is not liable to indemnify the
respondent no.1, that the insured vehicle in question is falsely
implicated to have wrongful gain, that the compensation claimed by
the petitioners is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and
speculative when compared to comparable cases which have been
disposed off. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petitions.
The notice was not served upon the respondent no.1 in the ordinary
course. Hence, notice was issued to him by substitute service i.e.,
by paper publication. Inspite of publication of notice in newspaper,
the respondent no.1 remained absent. The respondent no.3 and 4
remained absent inspite of service of notice. Hence, the respondent
no.1, 3 and 4 are placed exparte.

      4.    On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues
have been framed:

                    ISSUES in MVC No. 1628/2015
               1. Whether the petitioners prove that
                Abhishek S/o Raju died due to injuries
                sustained by him in an accident
                occurred on 03.11.2014 at about 06.45
                p.m., near Petrol bunk, Kanakapura-
                Kodihalli   main     road,  Kodihalli,
                Kanakapura       taluk,    Ramanagar
                District, arising due to rash and
 SCCH-14                          8        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




                 negligent driving of driver of Lorry
                 bearing No.KA-10-3411?

               2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
                for compensation? If so, how much
                and from whom?

               3. What Order or Award?


                     ISSUES in MVC No. 1629/2015


               1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
                  sustained grievous injuries in the
                  nature of permanent disablement on
                  03.11.2014 at about 06.45 p.m., near
                  Petrol   bunk, Kanakapura-Kodihalli
                  main road, Kodihalli, Kanakapura
                  taluk, Ramanagar District, arising due
                  to rash and negligent driving of driver
                  of Lorry bearing No.KA-10-3411?

               2. Whether the petitioner is
                  entitled for compensation? If so,
                  how much and from whom?
                3. What Order or Award?


      5.     At the instance of the petitioners, the petitions have
been clubbed together for common evidence and for common
disposal.   During the trial, the petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015
have examined petitioner no.2 as PW.1 and the petitioner in MVC
No.1629/2015 has examined himself as PW.2. The petitioners have
examined one witness as PW.3 and have got marked documents as
Ex.P1 to 20. The respondent no.2 has examined three witnesses as
RW.1 to 3 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 4.
 SCCH-14                              9    MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




      6.    Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon following rulings:

              1.2007(a) T.A C 795(SC):New India Assurance
                   Co.Ltd., V. Smt. Kalpana & Ors.,
              2. ILR 2014 KAR 2558: Mr.Devaraju Vs. The
                   United India Ins.,Co.Ltd., rep., by its
                   Manager, Bangalore & Anr.,
              3. ILR 2002 KAR 893: A.S Chandraprakash Vs.
                   The Labour Officer and Minimum Wages
                   Enquiring Authority, Chikamangaluru &
                   Anr.,
              4. 2007(4) KCCR 2810: M/s Mahesh centre &
                   Anr., Vs., People Charity Fund by Trustees
              5. (2009) 15 SCC 165: North West Karnataka
                   Road Transport Corporation Vs. Gourabai
                   & Ors.,

    The counsel for the respondent no.2 has relied upon
following rulings:

                1. Civil Appeal No.3171/2009: North West
                   Karnataka Road Transport Corporation V.
                   Gourabai & Ors.,
                2. ILR 2009 KAR 2921: Bajaj Allianz General
                   Ins.,Co.Ltd., Vs. B.C Kumar & Anr.,
                3. ILR 2009 KAR 3562: Veerappa & Anr., Vs.
                   Siddappa & Anr.,
                4. ILR 2015 KAR 401: Mr.Vijay V. Shetty Vs.
                   Mr. V.Sharada & Ors.,
                5. MFA             No.5314/2009:         H.B
                   Hemakeshwarappa Vs. Abdul Roop Khan
                   & Anr.,
                6. 2011 (4) AIR KAR 91: Divisional Controller
                   K.S.R.T.C Urban Division, Bannimatnap,
                   Mysore, V. Mahadevamma & Ors.,
                7. MFA No.11445/2012(MV): Kanthamma A.C
                   Vs. The Branch Manager & Anr.,


      I have gone through said rulings and perused the records.
 SCCH-14                              10        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




      7.     My findings to the above issues are as under:-
                             MVC NO.1628/2015

                     Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
                      Issue No.2: In Affirmative.
                                   For Rs.9,94,000/-
                                   from the respondent no.2
                      Issue No.3 : As per final order:
             For the following:

                              MVC NO.1629/2015
                    Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
                    Issue No.2 : In Affirmative. For Rs.90,000/-
                                from the respondent no.2.
                     Issue No.3 : As per final order:
                              for the following:

                                REASONS

      8.     ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES: These issues are
interlinked and pertaining to same point and hence, I have taken
them together for common discussion. One among the cases is a
case of death and the other one is a case of injury. The petitioners in
first case are parents of the deceased, whereas the petitioner in the
other case is the victim. Their common assertion is that the accident
was due to sole negligence of the driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-
3411 as he had negligently parked the lorry in the middle of the
road without switching on parking lights or indicators, that due to
said negligence, the rider of motorcycle bearing no.KA-42-S-0876
i.e., the deceased Abhishek could not locate the lorry, went and
dashed against its rear portion resulting in his death and severe
injuries to the pillion rider i.e., the petitioner in 2nd case.
 SCCH-14                         11       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




      9.    There is no dispute that the said Abhishek died on the
spot and the petitioner Kiran sustained injuries due to accident,
that both of them were traveling on motorcycle bearing no.KA-42-S-
0876 at the time of accident, that the petitioner Kiran was taken to
Govt. hospital, Kanakapura and then, was shifted to NIMHANS
hospital and later, was admitted in Victoria hospital, Bangalore,
that Kodihalli police have registered Cr.No.131/14 on 3.11.2014 at
7.30 p.m., on the basis of information given by one Suresh,
investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of
lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 for the offences punishable U/s 279,
337, 338 and 304A ofIPC. The respondent no.1, 3 and 4 are
exparte, whereas the respondent no.2 has contested the matter. He
has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the respondent
no.1, but he has denied the case of the petitioners as false. He has
disputed the involvement of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 in the
alleged accident. He has contended that the accident has not
occurred in the manner as stated by the petitioners, but the actual
facts have been twisted for their convenience in order to have
wrongful gain from him.


      10.   The petitioners have relied upon oral evidence of PW-1
to 3 and documentary evidence at Ex.P-1 to 20 to prove their case.
Among the witnesses, PW-1 is the mother of deceased Abhishek.
She is not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, her evidence as to
manner of accident, involvement of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411
and occurrence of accident due to negligence of its driver is
inadmissible and unbelievable. But, her evidence as to death of
 SCCH-14                           12        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




Abhishek in road accident and involvement of motorcycle bearing
no.KA-42-S-0876 in the accident is believable and acceptable. Copy
of inquest panchanama and PM report are at Ex.P-5 and 6 which
disclose that Abhishek died due to head injury and other fatal
injuries. Such injuries could have occurred due to road traffic
accident.

      11.   PW-2:Kiran is the victim and he has deposed as per the
averments of his petition. His evidence corroborates the evidence of
PW-1 as to cause for the death of Abhishek. PW-3:Suresh is the first
informant and eye witness to the accident and he has supported the
version of PW-1 and 2 as to occurrence of accident, as to death of
Abhishek, as to causing of injuries to PW-2 and as to negligence of
driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 for the occurrence of accident.
Specific suggestions given to PW-1 to 3 and answers given by them
during cross examination are as under:
             PW.1:
                    "It is true to suggest that the said
            Suresh is the first informant in police
            case".
                "It is true to suggest that Kiran has
            sustained     simple     injuries.  Witness
            volunteers that his teeth were broken".
                "It is false to suggest that due to skid of
            motorcycle, my son fell down and sustained
            injuries. It is false to suggest that though it
            was a self fall, we colluding with the police
            got implicated the lorry in the accident".

            PW.2:
                  "It is false to suggest that I was
            riding the motorcycle at the time of
            accident and I deposing falsely that
 SCCH-14                         13        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




           Abhishek was riding the motorcycle
           thinking that if I say the truth, I will not
           get compensation and created documents
           by colluding the police. The width of the
           road in the place of accident was about 18
           feet. Lorry was parked on the road. It is
           true to suggest that our motorcycle has
           dashed against parked lorry. Witness
           volunteers that there were no parking
           lights to see the lorry".
               "It is false to suggest that lorry bearing
           No.KA-10-3411 was not involved in the
           accident and we fell down from the
           motorcycle due to skid and sustained
           injuries".

           PW.3:

                  "The accident has occurred at about
           06.45 p.m., It was a cloudy day and there
           was no sun light at that time".
                  "There are no street lights in the said
           place".
                  "It is true to suggest that one cannot
           see in dark without switching on head
           light".
                   "It is false to suggest that I cannot
           tell on whose negligence the accident has
           occurred. Witness volunteers that Abhishek
           and Kiran went and dashed against the
           lorry which was parked on the middle of
           the road".
             "It is false to suggest that Abhishek and
           Kiran fell down due to skid of motorcycle".

      The above cross examination makes the defence of the
respondent no.2 clear. He has denied the involvement of lorry
bearing no.KA-10-3411 in the accident and contended that the rider
of motorcycle bearing no. KA-42-S-0876 i.e., the deceased Abhishek
rode the motorcycle in high speed, in rash and negligent manner
 SCCH-14                             14       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




which resulted in the accident, that Abhishek died and PW-2
sustained injuries due to skid and fall from bike. He has examined
RW-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.R-1 to 4 to prove his defence. The
other     respondents   are   exparte.   RW-1:Rajanna    has   produced
authorization letter and case sheet of NIMHANS which are marked
as Ex.R-1 and 2. RW-2:Dr.Muralidhar has produced MLC extract of
Govt hospital, Kanakapura pertaining to the petitioner Kiran which
is marked as Ex.R-3. Authorization letter of RW-3 is at Ex.R-4.
Evidence of RW-3 is as per the defence of the respondent no.2. But,
his evidence that 3 persons were traveling on the motorcycle bearing
no.KA-42-S-0876 at the time of accident and suggestion of the
counsel for the respondent no.2 during cross examination of PW.2
that he was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was the pillion
rider are inconsistent with pleading of the respondent no.2 and
police records. RW.3 has admitted that there was no delay in
lodging complaint, that rider of motorcycle died on the spot. He has
shown ignorance as to detention of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 by
police on the same day, but he has denied the suggestion that the
respondent no.1 has got it released from police by executing
indemnity bond. He tried to narrate the manner of accident, but he
is not an eye witness to the accident and hence, his evidence in that
regard is inadmissible.


        12.   Copy of spot panchanama, of IMV report and of charge
sheet are at Ex.P-2, 3 and 7 which reveal that lorry bearing no.KA-
10-3411 was involved in the accident, that it was parked in the
place of accident, that motorcycle bearing no.KA-42-S-0876 went
 SCCH-14                          15        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




and dashed against rear portion of said lorry. The police have
detained the said lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 from the place of
accident and it was subjected to inspection. IMV report reveals that
no damages were found on the said lorry, but its brake system was
in order and the accident was not due to mechanical defects. This
makes it clear that the accident was due to human error i.e.,
negligence of the deceased or of the driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-
3411 or of the both. Only on the basis of the fact that the lorry had
no damages, it can not be said that lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411
was not involved in the accident and it is falsely implicated in the
case. The detention of vehicles is not challenged. The driver and
owner of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 have not questioned the
detention of vehicle and registration of crime. These aspects make it
clear that lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 was involved in the accident
and it was parked in the place of accident.


      13.   Case sheet of NIMHANS hospital at Ex.R-2 supports the
evidence of RW-3 that Abhishek died and the petitioner Kiran
sustained injuries due to skid and fall from bike. Ex.P-15 is
emergency case record issued by NIMHANS hospital and it
corroborates the evidence of RW-3. History of injuries of the
deceased Abhishek and of the petitioner Kiran is shown as RTA in
medical records at Ex.P-14, 16, 18 and 19. Details of accident are
not mentioned in any of the said records. Ex.P-18 and Ex.R-3 are
one and the same. RW-2 has admitted that the petitioner Kiran
sustained injury to his mouth and he was not able to speak properly
when he was taken to Govt. hospital, Kanakapura. PW-2 has stated
 SCCH-14                          16        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




that he did not give history of injuries to doctors at NIMHANS, that
one Somashekar took him to hospital. RW-2 confirms about
presence of Somashekhar. Since, Somashekhar has not seen the
accident, history of injuries as mentioned in medical records and
emergency case records of NIMHANS hospital is unacceptable.

      14.   There is implied admission by the respondent no.2 as to
manner of accident. Portion of cross examination of PW-2 is as
under:
               "It is true to suggest that our motorcycle
            has dashed against parked lorry".

      He is denying the collision on the fact that the insured lorry
was not damaged. His suggestions to PW-2 and 3 are as under:

                  PW.2:
                  "It is true to suggest that if two
               vehicles involved in the accident, there
               will be chance of causing the damages to
               both the vehicles. It is true to suggest that
               as per IMV report lorry was not damaged".
               PW.3:
               "It is true to suggest that if a lorry is hit
               by motorcycle from behind, there is
               chance of getting both the vehicles
               damaged".

      Copy of police records at Ex.P-1 to 7 disclose that Kodihalli
police have registered Cr.No.131/14 on 3.11.2014 at 7.30 p.m., on
the basis of information given by PW-3 Suresh, investigated the
matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of lorry for the
offences punishable U/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A ofIPC. There was
no delay in lodging complaint. The charge sheet filed by the police is
 SCCH-14                           17         MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




prima facie evidence as to negligence of the driver of lorry bearing
no.KA-10-3411 for the occurrence of accident. But, it is not a
conclusive proof of said fact.


      15.   IMV Report at Ex.P-3 reveals that the motorcycle
bearing no. KA-42-S-0876 was having following damages:
                   1. Head light vyser damaged,
                   2. Front left side indicator damaged,
                   3. Crash guard damaged.

      The said damages could occur when motorcycle goes and
dashes against another object. Spot panchanama and sketch at
Ex.P-2 and 4 reveal that lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 was parked in
the middle of the road, that the motorcycle went and dashed against
the lorry, but impact was between the rear metalic portion of lorry
and head of the deceased Abhishek. PW-3 has explained about non
causing of damages to the lorry by stating that rear portion of lorry
was a matalic body. His explanation is acceptable and believable.
Same is consistent with the sketch and panchanama. When the
impact was between metalic body of the lorry and head of the
deceased, it was possible that the lorry would not sustain any
damages. I am of the opinion that evidence of PW-2 and 3 and
contents of Ex.P-1 to 7 disclose that motorcycle bearing no.KA-42-S-
0876 went and dashed against lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 from
behind. This evidence supports evidence of PW-1. Hence, evidence of
RW-3 as to false implication of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 is
unacceptable and is liable to be rejected.
 SCCH-14                          18       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




      16.   Evidence of PW-1 to 3 and contents of Ex.P-1 to 7, 14,
18 and 19 substantiate the averments of the petition as to
negligence of driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 for the
occurrence of accident. Evidence of RW-3 and contents of Ex.P-15
and Ex.R-2 disclose that it was a skid and fall. There is no dispute
that rider of motorcycle Abhishek died on the spot, that the
petitioner Kiran was taken to Govt. hospital, Kanakapura, was
shifted to NIMHANS and then was admitted to Victoria hospital.
History of his injuries is mentioned as under in those medical
records:
             Govt. Hospital, Kanakapura        :   wound
            certificate at Ex.P14:
                  RTA near Kodihalli, Petrol bunk at
            Kodihalli, Kananapura main road at about
            06.30 p.m.,

             Govt. Hospital, Kananakapura:          MLC
            extract at Ex.P18 and Ex.R3:

                 RTA details not known. Kodihalli
            main road. Petrol bunk at about 06.30 p.m.,

             Victoria Hospital: MLC extract at Ex.P19:
                  RTA at around 06.30 p.m., on
            03.11.2014 when he hit a parked truck
            near petrol bunk, Kodihalli.


      History of skid and fall has come only in records of NIMHANS
Hospital. Medical records prior to and subsequent to it disclose that
the petitioner sustained injuries due to hit to a lorry. The person
who gave history of injuries at NIMHANS Hospital was not an eye
witness. History of injuries of Kiran was recorded in NIMHANS
 SCCH-14                          19        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




hospital at about 10.30 p.m., on 03.11.2014, but FIR and complaint
at Ex.P-1 disclose that eye witness Suresh i.e., PW-3 has lodged
complaint against the driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 at 7.30
p.m., on 3.11.2014. It means, complaint was registered much
earlier to the time the petitioner Kiran was taken to NIMHANS
hospital. Ex.P-15 and Ex.R-2 are records subsequent to filing of
complaint. Hence, contents of complaint at Ex.P-1 prevail over the
records of NIMHANS hospital. It is not possible to implicate lorry
bearing no.KA-10-3411 within such a short span of time. Hence,
I disbelieve the contents of Ex.P-15 and Ex.R-2 regarding history of
injuries of Kiran. On the contrary, evidence of PW-2 and 3 is direct
and is believable. Police records corroborate their evidence and
reveal that motorcycle bearing no.KA-42-S-0876 went and dashed
against lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411 from behind, that rider of
motorcycle Abhishek died on the spot due to accidental injuries,
whereas the petitioner Kiran sustained injuries due to accident.


      17.   The counsel for the respondent no.2 has tried to elicit
from PW-2 and 3 that the accident has occurred due to negligence
of the rider of motorcycle. He has succeeded to get an admission
from PW-3 that head light of motorcycle of the deceased was not
switched on and the petitioner Kiran was not wearing helmet. But, it
is to be noted that the road in the spot is 18' wide. Sketch discloses
that the lorry was parked in the middle of the road. No person can
expect parking of a bigger vehicle in such manner. It was about to
sun set and there was darkness as per PW.3. Not switching of light
can not be the cause for the accident. Not wearing helmet was not
 SCCH-14                          20       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




even an offence at the time of accident. If the lorry bearing no.KA-
10-3411 was not parked in the said place or if parking lights or
indicator of lorry were switched on, then the accident would not
have occurred. It was main road from Kanakapura to Kodihalli. In
such main road, normal speed of vehicles would be about 50-60
kmph. In such speed, one can not control the vehicle and avoid
dashing the vehicle which was parked negligently in the middle of
the road without parking lights or indicator even if head lights were
on. The respondent no.2 has not examined the driver of lorry to
prove that proper precautionary measures were taken on that day.
In the absence of such direct evidence, oral evidence of PW-2 and 3
can be believed. I am of the opinion that the accident has occurred
due to sole negligence of the driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411
who parked his vehicle without parking lights or indicators. The
evidence of RW-1 to 3 and contents of Ex.P-15, Ex.R-1 to 4 are not
sufficient to hold that the deceased Abhishek was also negligent and
contributed for the occurrence of accident. Thus, the respondent
no.2 has failed to prove his defence. On the other hand, the
petitioners have succeeded to prove the issues and I answer the
issues in affirmative.


      18.   ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC No.1628/2015: The petitioners
are claiming to be the parents of the deceased Abhishek. The
respondent no.2 has generally denied the relationship between the
petitioners and the deceased. The petitioners have relied upon oral
evidence of PW.1 and documents at Ex.P8 to 12 to prove their
status as LRs of the deceased.
 SCCH-14                           21       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




      19.   PW.1:Raju is the father of the deceased and he has
stated that he is the father and the petitioner no.1 is the mother of
the deceased. Nothing is elicited from him to disbelieve his evidence.
Copy of student ID, study certificate, copy of driving license, copy of
ration card and copy of adhaar card are at Ex.P8 to 12. These
documents corroborate the evidence of PW.1 and reveal that the
petitioners are the parents of the deceased Abhishek. Inquest
panchanama at Ex.P5 supports the version of PW.1. Hence, I have
no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are the mother and father
of the deceased. They are LRs of the deceased and are entitled for a
compensation under all heads.

      20.   Evidence of PW.1 and contents of student ID, driving
licence and Adhaar card disclose that the deceased was born on
24.07.1994. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the date of
birth shown in said documents. Age of the deceased is mentioned as
20 years inquest panchanama and PM report at Ex.P5 and 6.
Hence, I hold that the deceased was aged 20 years as on the date of
accident. Looking to the contents of student IDs and study
certificate, it can be easily said that the deceased was in 3rd year
B.Com., It corroborates the evidence of PW.1 that the deceased was
a student. The petitioners have produced milk pass book to
establish that the deceased was also doing milk vending business.
The said pass books are in the name of the deceased, but the
petitioners have not examined the author of the said pass book.
PW.1 has admitted that these pass books are pertaining to
 SCCH-14                         22       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




2012-13 and several dates and months in the said books are
overwritten. These admissions and non examination of author of
pass books induce the court disbelieve the contents of pass book.
Hence, I am of the opinion that the deceased was a student of
B.Com., at the time of accident. He was not having any income of
his own. However, he was having capacity to get job on the basis of
qualification of degree holder after completing B.Com., Therefore,
income of the deceased shall have to be assessed notionally. I am of
the opinion that if the income of the deceased is considered as
Rs.8,000/- per month, it will meet the ends of justice. Since, the
deceased was not having actual income as on the date of accident,
there shall be no addition towards future prospects. His annual
income comes to Rs.96,000/-. He was aged 20 years on the date of
accident. Appropriate multiplier is 18. The deceased was a bachelor.
50% amount shall be deducted towards personal expenses of the
deceased. On such deduction, net income of the deceased comes to
Rs.48,000/- p.a., The petitioners have lost dependency, have lost
love and affection and estate of the deceased. They have spent
amount for transportation of dead body and funeral expenses. There
is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 that the petitioners
spent Rs.2,00,000/- for transportation of dead body and funeral
expenses. However, the petitioners are entitled for reasonable
amount towards said expenses. Loss of dependency of the
petitioners would be Rs.46,000X18=Rs.8,64,000/-. The petitioners
are further entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss
of love and affection, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of estate and
Rs.30,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral
 SCCH-14                               23        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




expenses. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for just and reasonable
compensation as under:

            1     Loss of dependency                Rs.8,64,000/-
            2     Loss of love and affection        Rs. 50,000/-
            3     Loss of estate                    Rs. 50,000/-
            4     Transportation of dead            Rs. 30,000/-
                  body and funeral
                  expenses
                                       Total        Rs.9,94,000/-

      Hon'ble      Supreme    Court    in   Civil    Appeal   No.3238/2015
(arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs.
Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016
(Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of
interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the petitioners are
entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date
of payment. They are entitled to share the amount as under:
                 Petitioner no.1 : Rs.6,00,000/-
                 Petitioner no.2 : Rs.3,94,000/-.
      Liability aspect is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the
issue as above.


      21.       ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC No.1629/2015: The petitioner
Kiran is claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in the accident. The respondent no.2 has denied
the claim of the petitioner as excessive and exorbitant. The
petitioner has examined himself as PW.2 and got marked copy of
wound certificate, emergency case record, OPD book, student ID,
MLC extracts as Ex.P14 to 19. The respondent no.2 has examined
 SCCH-14                            24       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




RW.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.R1 to 4. But, the oral and
documentary evidence produced by the respondent no.2 are not
sufficient to disprove the case of the petitioner Kiran.


      22.    PW.2: Kiran has deposed as per the averments of the
petition and stated that he sustained severe head injury and
fracture injuries in the accident, that his lips were contused, that he
has sustained lacerated wound over left forehead, abrasion of right
forearm, abrasion over left wrist, abrasion on left leg in the accident.
He has stated that he took treatment in Kanakapura Govt. Hospital,
in NIMHANS Hospital, in Victoria Hospital, during period from
03.11.2014    to   08.11.2014   and     spent   Rs.1,50,000/-   towards
treatment, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, etc.,
He has further stated that he lost teeth in the accident and requires
Rs.50,000/- for the replacement of same. He has stated about his
difficulties due to accidental injuries and stated that he is
permanently disabled. In cross examination, he has admitted that
he was given free treatment in Victoria Hospital. He has denied the
suggestion that he has not lost academic year, but he has admitted
that there is semester system in B.Com., and he has no difficulty to
produce marks cards. Since, the petitioner has not produced marks
cards, his evidence that he lost academic year and has failed in all
subjects cannot be believed.


      23.    On perusal of wound certificate, emergency case record,
OPD book and MLC extract at Ex.P14 to 16, 18 and 19, it reveals
that the petitioner has sustained following injuries in the accident:
 SCCH-14                          25       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




            1. Lips contused with a lacerated wound
            2. A lacerated wound over forehead
            3. Abrasion over right forearm over lower
                third over the bony aspects,
            4. Abrasion over left wrist back of hand
            5. Abrasion over front of left leg

      There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner has
sustained fracture injuries, lost teeth and severe head injury. There
is no neurological deficit. The petitioner has not suffered motor or
cognitive disability. His injuries at Sl.No.2 to 5 are described as
simple and injury no.1 which caused to lips is described as grievous
in nature. The petitioner has not examined any doctors to prove that
the accidental injuries have resulted in permanent disability. The
said injuries of in such nature which requires follow up treatment
and rest for a period about 4 to 6 weeks. Total laid up period comes
to 2 months. The petitioner might have spent amount for
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges during the said
period apart from incurring medical expenses. Medical bills are not
produced. PW.2 has admitted that he was given free treatment in
Victoria Hospital. However, he might have spent some amount for
treatment. Student ID at Ex.P17 goes to show that the petitioner
was a student of 3rd year B.Com., in Government First Grade
College. He might have missed classes for about 2 months resulting
in set back in studies. He might have suffered some difficulties
which persisted for a short period resulting in temporary loss of
amenities. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner has
suffered disfiguration. However, the petitioner has sustained severe
facial injury, injury to teeth and lips in the accident. There is
nothing on record to believe that the petitioner has lost his teeth.
 SCCH-14                             26            MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a
compensation    of    Rs.40,000/-    towards         pain     and   sufferings,
Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards set
back in studies, Rs.10,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and
attendant charges and Rs.25,000/- towards temporary loss of
amenities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable
compensation as under:

            1   Pain and suffering                  Rs. 40,000/-
            2   Medical expenses                    Rs. 5,000/-
            3   Set back in studies                 Rs. 10,000/-
            4   Nourishment,                        Rs. 10,000/-
                conveyance and
                attendant charges
            5   Temporary loss of                   Rs. 25,000/-
                amenities
                                          Total     Rs.90,000/-

      Hon'ble   Supreme    Court     in    Civil     Appeal    No.3238/2015
(arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs.
Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016
(Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & 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. Liability aspect is discussed separately. Hence, I answer
the issue as above.

      LIABILITY

      24.   The respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of
Lorry bearing No.KA-10-3411. The respondent no.3 and 4 are the
 SCCH-14                             27        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15




owner and insurer of motorcycle bearing No.KA-42-S-0876. It is
held above that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of
the driver of lorry bearing no.KA-10-3411. Hence, the respondent
no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and
interest to the petitioners. The respondent no.3 and 4 are not liable
to pay any compensation. There is no evidence to establish the
defence of the respondent no.2 that the driver of lorry was not
holding a valid and effective driving licence and the said vehicle was
not having RC, FC and permit as on the date of accident. However,
it is admitted that the policy of lorry was in force on the date of
accident. Hence, the respondent no.2 is liable to indemnify the
respondent no.1 and to compensate the petitioners as stated above.
Consequently, I answer the issue regarding liability as above.


      25.    ISSUE NO.3 IN BOTH CASES: In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:

                                    ORDERThe petitions in MVC No.1628/2015 and
            MVC No.1629/2015 filed U/Sec. 166 ofM.V
            Actby the petitioners are hereby partly allowed
            with cost.The petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015
            are    entitled   for        a   compensation      of
            Rs.9,94,000/- with interest @ 9% from the
            date of petition till the date of payment.SCCH-14                            28       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15They are entitled to share the amount
          with proportionate interest as under:Petitioner no.1 : Rs.6,00,000/-
                 Petitioner no.2 : Rs.3,94,000/-The petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015 is
          entitled for a compensation of Rs.90,000/-
          with interest @ 9% from the date of petition till
          the date of payment

                 The respondents are jointly and severally
          liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,94,000/- to
          the petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015 and to
          pay    compensation      of   Rs.90,000/-     to   the
          petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015 with interest
          @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of
          payment. In view of policy, the respondent no.2
          is liable to deposit the amount before the Court
          within one month from the date of award.After deposit of the amount Rs.3,00,000/-
          out of the share of the petitioner no.1 in MVC
          No.1628/2015 shall be deposited in her name
          in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative
          bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount
          of the said petitioner and entire amount of the
          petitioner   no.2   in    said   case   and   of   the
          petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015 with interest
          shall be released in their favour throughSCCH-14                           29        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15account      payee    cheques      with    proper
            identification.Claim petition in MVC No.1629/2015 as
            against the respondent no.3 and 4 is dismissed
            without cost.The original Judgment shall be kept in
            MVC No.1628/2015 and copy of the same in
            MVC.No.1629/2015.Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/-
            each.Draw award accordingly.(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and
pronounced in the open court, on this the 27th day of January 2017.)




                                         (Basavaraj Chengti)
                                          XVI ADDL.JUDGE.Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
                                              Bangalore.SCCH-14                       30          MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15ANNEXURE
   WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
           PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:PW.1         Raju
PW.2         Kiran
PW.3         Suresh
Respondents :
RW.1            Rajanna S.K
RW.2            Dr.Muralidhar. M
RW.3            Karthik M
Ex.P1           Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2           Copy of Mahazar
Ex.P3           Copy of IMV report
Ex.P4           Copy of sketch
Ex.P5           Copy of Inquest report with statement
Ex.P6           Copy of PM report
Ex.P7           Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P8           Copy of College ID's ( 2 in nos)
Ex.P9           Study certificate
Ex.P10          Copy of Driving license of deceased
Ex.P11          Copy of ration card
Ex.P12          Copy of Adhaar cards (3 in nos)
Ex.P13          Milk supply pass books (2 in nos)
Ex.P14          Copy of wound certificate
Ex.P15          Emergency case record of NIMHANS record
Ex.P16          OP book
Ex.P17          Copy of student ID
Ex.P18          MLC extract to Govt., Kanakapura
Ex.P19          MLC extract to Victoria Hospital
Ex.P20          Copy of Adhaar of PW.3
Respondent's
Ex.R1           Authorization letter
Ex.R2           Case file
Ex.R3           MLC extract of Kiran
Ex.R3(a)        Relevant page
Ex.R4           Authorization letter
                                               XVI ADDL.JUDGE.Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
                                                 Bangalore.SCCH-14                                31        MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15Dt.27.01.2017
P-NKG
R1,3 & 4- Exparte
R2-JNR
For Judgment

                                      Order pronounced in open court
                                       vide separate judgment.ORDER

            The petitions in MVC No.1628/2015 and MVC
      No.1629/2015 filed U/Sec. 166 ofM.V Actby the
      petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.The petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015 are
      entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,94,000/- with
      interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of
      payment.They are entitled to share the amount with
      proportionate interest as under:Petitioner no.1 : Rs.6,00,000/-
                    Petitioner no.2 : Rs.3,94,000/-The     petitioner   in        MVC   No.1629/2015     is
      entitled for a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with
      interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of
      payment

            The respondents are jointly and severally liable
      to   pay    compensation        of    Rs.9,94,000/-   to   the
      petitioners   in   MVC     No.1628/2015        and    to   paySCCH-14                            32         MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner in
      MVC No.1629/2015 with interest @ 9% from the date
      of petition till the date of payment. In view of policy,
      the respondent no.2 is liable to deposit the amount
      before the Court within one month from the date of
      award.After deposit of the amount Rs.3,00,000/- out of
      the    share   of   the    petitioner   no.1    in    MVC
      No.1628/2015 shall be deposited in her name in any
      nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a
      period of 3 years. Balance amount of the said
      petitioner and entire amount of the petitioner no.2 in
      said case and of the petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015
      with interest shall be released in their favour through
      account payee cheques with proper identification.Claim petition in MVC No.1629/2015 as against
      the respondent no.3 and 4 is dismissed without cost.The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC
      No.1628/2015        and    copy    of   the    same     in
      MVC.No.1629/2015.Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.
             Draw award accordingly.XVI ADDL.JUDGE
                                Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
                                          Bangalore.SCCH-14                         33      MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15AWARD
                                          SCCH NO.14
          BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
              METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY
                      MVC No.1628/2015

Petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015      1. SHASHIKALA
                                        W/o Raju
                                        Aged about 41 years2. RAJU
                                        S/o Srinivasagowda
                                        Aged about 48 years,
                                     R/at Garalapura village,
                                     Kodihalli Hobli,
                                     Kanakapura Taluk,
                                     Ramanagara District.(By pleader Sri NKG)
                          Vs.

Respondents                          1. SREENATH
                                         S/o Adi Shivashankar Reddy
                                         Aged about 38 years,
                                        The Managing Director of
                                         M/s SVG Exports Pvt., Ltd.,
                                         No.19/1, 24th cross,
                                         6th block, N.S Garden,
                                         Jayanagara,
                                         Bangalore -560 011.2. TATA AIG GENERAL
                                         INS.,CO.LTD.,
                                         5th floor, West entrance,
                                          Khanija Bhavana,
                                          Race Course road,
                                          Bangalore -560 001.(R1-Exparte
                                               R2-By pleader Sri JNR)SCCH-14                                34         MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15WHEREAS, this petition filed on                           by           the
petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for
the compensation of Rs.(Rupees                                                                ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of                        in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.



      WHEREAS,       this      claim        petition   coming    up      beforeSri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of
Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt.
      Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.
Advocate for respondent.ORDER

                The petition in MVC No.1628/2015 filed U/Sec.
          166 ofM.V Actby the petitioners are hereby partly
          allowed with cost.The petitioners in           MVC No.1628/2015 are
          entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,94,000/- with
          interest @ 9% from the date of petition till the date of
          payment.They are entitled to share the amount with
          proportionate interest as under:Petitioner no.1 : Rs.6,00,000/-
                            Petitioner no.2 : Rs.3,94,000/-SCCH-14                            35         MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15The respondents are jointly and severally liable
          to    pay   compensation      of   Rs.9,94,000/-   to   the
          petitioners in MVC No.1628/2015 with interest @ 9%
          from the date of petition till the date of payment. In
          view of policy, the respondent no.2 is liable to deposit
          the amount before the Court within one month from
          the date of award.After deposit of the amount Rs.3,00,000/- out of
          the share of the petitioner no.1 in MVC No.1628/2015
          shall be deposited in her name in any nationalized,
          scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years.
          Balance amount of the said petitioner and entire
          amount of the petitioner no.2 in said case with interest
          shall be released in their favour through account
          payee cheques with proper identification.The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC
          No.1628/2015       and     copy     of   the    same     in
          MVC.No.1629/2015.Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.Given under my hand and seal of the Court this                 day

of          2017.



                                      MEMBERMOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                            METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.SCCH-14                            36       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15By 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, M.A.C.T.
                                    METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE



Decree Clerk      SHERISTEDARSCCH-14                         37      MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15AWARD
                                          SCCH NO.14
          BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
              METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY
                      MVC No. 1629/2015

Petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015       KIRAN
                                     S/o late Manikya
                                     Aged about 21 years
                                     R/at Arallmaradadoddi village,
                                     Kodihalli Hobli,
                                     Kanakapura Taluk,
                                     Ramanagara District.(By pleader Sri NKG)
                          Vs.

Respondents                          1. SREENATH
                                         S/o Adi Shivashankar Reddy
                                         Aged about 38 years,
                                        The Managing Director of
                                         M/s SVG Exports Pvt., Ltd.,
                                         No.19/1, 24th cross,
                                         6th block, N.S Garden,
                                         Jayanagara,
                                         Bangalore -560 011.2. TATA AIG GENERAL
                                         INS.,CO.LTD.,
                                         5th floor, West entrance,
                                          Khanija Bhavana,
                                          Race Course road,
                                          Bangalore -560 001.3. SRI SOMASHEKAR
                                         S/o Chikke Gowda
                                         Major
                                         R/at Garalapura Village,
                                         Kodihalli H.O,
                                         Kanakapura Taluk,
                                         Ramanagara District.SCCH-14                            38         MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/154. THE UNITED INDIA
                                              INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
                                             Regional Office,
                                              No.18, 5th & 6th floors
                                              Krishibhavan
                                              Hudson circle,
                                              Bangalore-560 001.(R1, 3 & 4 -Exparte
                                                    R2-By pleader Sri JNR)

      WHEREAS, this petition filed on                       by           the
petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for
the compensation of Rs.(Rupees                                                            ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of                    in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.



      WHEREAS,      this   claim        petition   coming    up      beforeSri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of
Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt.
      Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.
Advocate for respondent.ORDER

            The petitions in MVC No.1629/2015 filed U/Sec.
      166 ofM.V Actby the petitioners are hereby partly
      allowed with cost.SCCH-14                           39          MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15The petitioner in MVC No.1629/2015 is entitled
      for a compensation of Rs.90,000/- with interest @ 9%
      from the date of petition till the date of payment

             The respondents are jointly and severally liable to
      pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the petitioner in
      MVC No.1629/2015 with interest @ 9% from the date of
      petition till the date of payment. In view of policy, the
      respondent no.2 is liable to deposit the amount before
      the Court within one month from the date of award.After deposit, entire amount of the petitioner in
      MVC No.1629/2015 with interest shall be released in
      his favour through account payee cheques with proper
      identification.Claim petition in MVC No.1629/2015 as against
      the respondent no.3 and 4 is dismissed without cost.The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC
      No.1628/2015       and     copy    of      the    same      in
      MVC.No.1629/2015.Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.Given under my hand and seal of the Court this                 day

of              2017.



                                      MEMBERMOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                            METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.SCCH-14                             40       MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15By 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, M.A.C.T.
                                     METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE



Decree Clerk       SHERISTEDARSCCH-14   41   MVC No.1628/15 & 1629/15