[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Shruthi N vs K.S.R.T.C on 25 July, 2025
SCCH-21 1 MVC No.5854/2024
KABC0B0016912024
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES & MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU (SCCH-21)
PRESENT: Vijaykumar S. Hiremath.,
L.LB.,
XVII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & Member,
M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated this the 25th Day of July - 2025
M.V.C. No.5854/2024
Petitioner/s: 1. Smt. Shruthi. N
W/o Late Manoj. T. V,
Aged about 28 years.
2. Master Purvik Gowda
S/o Late Manoj. T. V,
Aged about 04 months.
3. Smt. Vishalakshi
W/o Late Venkat Reddy,
Aged about 50 years.
All are Residing at :-
Thammanayakana Halli,
Chikkaballapura,
Chikkaballapur-562 101.
[Petitioner No.2 being a minor
represented by his mother and natural
guardian Smt. Shruthi. N
W/o Late Manoj T. V]
(By Sri. T. Manjunatha, Adv.,)
Vs.
SCCH-21 2 MVC No.5854/2024
Respondent/s: 1. The Managing Director,
K.S.R.T.C,
Motor Claims Hub,
No.27, Double Road,
Shanthinagar, Bangalore-560 027.
[K.S.R.T.C Bus No. KA-40-F-1434]
(By Sri. M. S. Basavaraju, Adv.,)
Date of institution of the : 07.08.2024
petition
Nature of the Petition : U/Sec.166 of M. V. Act
Date of commencement of : 27.03.2025
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 25.07.2025
was pronounced
Duration of the Petition Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 11 18
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act 1989, claiming compensation of
Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the respondents with regard to the death of
Manoj T.V S/o Late Venkat Reddy in the road traffic accident that
took place on 31.07.2024.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as follows:
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 31.07.2024 at about
10.15 p.m., the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.
KA-40-EH-9366 slowly, cautiously, observing the traffic rules,
when reached near Benniganahalli Bridge, at that time a KSRTC
SCCH-21 3 MVC No.5854/2024Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-40-F-1434 driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner, without following any traffic rules and
dashed to the deceased motorcycle from behind. Due to forced
impact, deceased fell down and bus wheel ran over the deceased
and sustained several grievous injuries on vital parts of the body.
Immediately, after the accident deceased was shifted to
Government Hospital, K. R. Puram, wherein the duty doctor were
examined and declared brought dead and after that body was
shifted to East Point Hospital for postmortem and thereafter the
petitioners shifted the dead body to their place and performed the
last rites and obsequies ceremony and they have spent more than
Rs.1,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequencies expenses. On
account of the sudden and sad demise of the deceased in the said
accident, the petitioners have undergoing deep mental shock and
mental agony and hardship.
Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and
was aged about 29 years and he was working as Indium Software
(India) Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs.60,000/- per month. The
petitioner No.1 is the wife of the deceased, petitioner No.2 is the
minor son of the deceased and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the
deceased, so the petitioners have lost their family member. The
petitioners were solely depending upon the income of the deceased.
The respondent is the owner cum internal insurer of the offending
SCCH-21 4 MVC No.5854/2024
vehicle is liable to pay Rs.2,00,00,000/- with cost and interest to
the petitioners. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
3. After the service of notice, respondent appeared through
his counsel and filed its written statement and denied the case of
the petitioners as false and contended that the petition itself is not
maintainable either on facts or law. Respondent submits that, on
the date and time of the alleged accident the bus in question was
on its schedule trip from Bengaluru to Kolar and the bus was being
driven by its driver on the left side of the road by observing all the
traffic rules and regulations and in order to enter the bus stand,
the driver slowed down the speed of the bus putting Indicator and
taking turn and proceeding on the bus path, which is exclusively
meant for movements of the bus and there was heavy raining and
when the things stood, the deceased come on motorcycle bearing
Reg. No. KA-40-EH-9366 from behind even without wearing head-
gear, tried to over take the bus from the left, on the bus path,
totally lost the control over the two-wheeler and right side handle of
the two-wheeler rubbed bus, the back wheels and deceased fell-
down on the road and as he was not wearing helmet, the head hit
the road and sustained injuries. Further, respondent denied the
age, occupation and income of the deceased. The petitioners
colluding with the police filed the false case. By these reasons, it is
prayed to dismiss the petition.
SCCH-21 5 MVC No.5854/2024
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my learned predecessor
has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that,
on 31.07.2024 at about 10.15 p.m.,
accident took place near Benniganahalli
Bridge, Old Madrass Road, Bengaluru,
due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No.
KA-40-F-1434 as a result deceased has
succumbed to the accidental injuries?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so, to what amount
and from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order order to prove the case of the petitioners, the
petitioner No.1 got examined as PW.1 and got marked the
documents at Ex.P.1 to 20 and one witness by name Alan Savio
Mitchell is examined as PW.2 and got marked the documents at
Ex.P.21 to 24 and closed their side. On the other hand, driver of
respondent KSRTC bus is examined as RW.1 and got marked the
documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8.
6. Heard the arguments on both the sides and perused the
material placed on record.
7. My findings on the above issues as under:-
Issue No.1 … Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.2 … Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No.3 … As per final order,
for the following:
SCCH-21 6 MVC No.5854/2024
:REASONS:
8. ISSUE No.1: The petitioners contended that on 31.07.2024
at about 10.15 p.m. deceased Manoj. T. V met with road traffic
accident and died due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of
KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-40-F-1434. The burden is upon
the petitioners to prove that, the accident occurred due to
negligent driving of the driver of the KSRTC Bus bearing Reg.
No. KA-40-F-1434.
9. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son
and petitioner No.3 is the mother of the deceased Manoj. T. V. The
claimants/petitioners, in order to prove that, the occurrence of
road traffic accident as contended by them in their claim petition
has occurred on the date, time and place and in the manner as
contended by them in their claim petition, got examined petitioner
No.1 – the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and reiterated the petition
averments and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 20. Ex.P.1
is the FIR, Ex.P.2 is the complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P.4 is the Sketch, Ex.P.5 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.6 is the
Inquest Report, Ex.P.7 is the Postmortem Report, Ex.P.8 is the
Charge-sheet, Ex.P.9 is the Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act, Ex.P.10 is
the Reply Notice, Ex.P.11 is the Appointment Letter of deceased,
Ex.P.12 is the Payslips, Ex.P.13 and 14 are the Form No.16,
SCCH-21 7 MVC No.5854/2024
Ex.P.15 is the Bank Statement, Ex.P.16 to 18 are the Notarized
copies of Aadhar Card of deceased and petitioner No.1 and 3,
Ex.P.19 is the Birth Certificate of petitioner No.2 and Ex.P.20 is the
Course completion certificate.
10. The certified copy of the First Information (First
information statement/s complaint in common para-lace)
lodged before the K. R. Puram Traffic Police has been marked
as Ex.P.2. On receiving the First Information, the Station
House Officer chose to register a case in Crime No.
202/2024. The said certified copy of First Information Report
(F.I.R.) is marked as Ex.P.1.
11. Ex.P.1 to 10 are the only documents, which are to
be scrutinized to arrive at conclusion- whether the accident
was owing to the negligent manner of driving by the KSRTC
Bus driver. After registering the First Information, held
investigation and filed the Ex.P.8, Charge-Sheet against the
driver of the KSRTC U/s. 281 and 106 of BNS. The Ex.P.5
i.e., certified copy of the IMV Report discloses that, the
accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of
the vehicle in question.
12. In order to rebut the claim of the petitioners,
respondent examined driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg.
SCCH-21 8 MVC No.5854/2024
No. KA-40-F-1434 as RW.1 and he produced the documents
at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8 and depose that, the deceased himself
was wholly and solely responsible for the alleged accident
and he was no way responsible for the same and falsely
implicated the driver of the offending bus by creating a false
crime records.
13. The learned counsel for claimant submits that, on
the basis of the first information, investigation has been
conducted and charge-sheet has been filed against the driver
of the KSRTC bus, which conclusively proved that, KSRTC
Bus driver committed an offence resulting in death of Manoj.
T. V. Further, he argued that, the accident in question
caused purely due to rash and negligent act of the driver of
the KSRTC bus. Due to sudden death of the Manoj. T. V their
family members i.e., petitioners are undergoing great mental
shock and mental agony and they are dependents upon the
deceased for their survival.
14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
filed detailed written argument and contended that, the
accident took place due to the negligence act of the deceased
as he was riding the vehicle in the bus bay and the driver of
the KSRTC is not at all responsible for the accident. Further
SCCH-21 9 MVC No.5854/2024
she also submits that, the deceased was fully under the
influence of alcohol and accident occurred near Tin-factory
bus stand and when the bus entering the bus stand and
proceeding on the bus path, which is exclusively meant for
movements of the bus. Further she argued that, under the
above circumstances the question of attributing any
negligence, that too when there was no collusion between the
bus and the motorcycle, on the part of the driver of the bus
does not arise.
15 (a). Learned counsel for respondent relied upon the
following decisions in support of his case,
1. (2005) 6 SCC 172 between National
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prembai Patel and
others. On going through the facts of the above
case, it goes to show that, the accident was caused
not due to the deceased but on account of breaking
of the arm bolt of the truck and the owner of the
vehicle had not taken adequate care in maintaining
the vehicle and keeping the same in road worthy
condition. As such, the said Judgment is not helpful
to the case of the respondent, since the facts of the
above case and present case in hand are different.
2. (2007) 5 SCC 428 between Oriental
Company Ltd., Vs. Meena Varyal and others,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that,
the victim of an accident or his dependents have an
SCCH-21 10 MVC No.5854/2024
option either to proceed U/s 166 of the Act or U/s
163-A of the Act. Once the approach the Tribunal
U/s 166 of the Act, they have necessarily to take
upon themselves the burden of establishing the
negligence of the driver or owner of the vehicle
concerned.
Facts of the above case and case in hand are
not similar. As such, the said Judgment is not
helpful to the respondent.
3. (2007) 13 SCC 476 between Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Premlatha Sukla and
others, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court observed
that, proof of rashness and negligence on the part
of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non
for maintaining an application U/s 166 of the Act.
4. (2014) 13 SCC 254 between Lachoo Ram
and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
observed at para No.10 that, simply the
involvement of the bus in the accident cannot make
the respondent make liable to pay the compensation
unless it can be held on the basis of material on
record that, the accident was caused by rash and
negligent act of the bus driver.
15 (b). Learned counsel for respondent argued
that, accident is taken place at bus bay and is
caused due to the negligence on the part of deceased
Manoj T. V. As such, respondent is not liable to pay
the compensation. In support of his case, counsel for
respondent relied upon the (i) MFA
SCCH-21 11 MVC No.5854/2024
No.2829/2009(MV) between Manju S/o
Mahadevappa and Mathue K. P and another,
wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
observed that, the Court will have to presume that,
the accident had occurred in the manner stated by
the claimant. The filing of charge-sheet U/s 173(5) of
Cr.P.C may give raise to a presumption. However,
that is not decisive on the issue. If the court finds
evidence adduced by parties and material placed by
parties are sufficient to hold that, the charge-sheet
filed by the police is fabricated document, the claim
petition cannot be sustained. The court should not be
swayed by the documents filed U/s 173(5) of Cr.P.C.
In the above decision, the Tribunal dismissed
the claim petition on the ground that, petitioner was
traveling on a bike which skidded, following which
petitioner sustained head injury to injury to right hip
and face. But the facts of the present case are
altogether different. As such, above Judgment is not
helpful to the case of the respondent.
(ii) MFA No.2921/2012 between Smt.
Vijayalakshmi K. N and KSRTC, wherein Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka upheld the dismissal of
claim petition by the Tribunal on the ground that,
Investigation officer has not applied his mind before
submitting the final report based upon the fact that,
petitioner himself rode his TVS XL in the middle of the
road and dashed against the bus in the right side.
But the facts of the present case are altogether
different. As such, above Judgment is not helpful to
the case of the respondent.
SCCH-21 12 MVC No.5854/2024
16. On going through the above arguments as well as
evidence placed by the respondent it reveals that, respondent
placed two grounds before this Court in support of their case,
i.e., (i) deceased himself drove his vehicle under the influence
of alcohol and (ii) accident has taken place on bus bay.
17. In this case, respondent examined its driver i.e.,
driver of the offending vehicle as RW.1. RW.1 has taken
contention that, accident is caused due to the rash and
negligent driving of deceased himself only. For that, he filed
complaint before the Police Commissioner as per Ex.R.1. This
Court perused the said document, it reveals that, driver of
the offending vehicle himself submitted complaint before the
Commissioner of police, Bangalore City on 04.09.2024.
Admittedly, the accident is caused on 31.07.2024. But
nowhere he has explained why he has filed his complaint
before the Police Commissioner after more than 01 month
later. There is no explanation from respondent in respect of
delay in filing the complaint. Further, on going through the
charge-sheet it goes to show that, I.O has submitted charge-
sheet against the deceased also for the offence punishable
U/s 185 of M. V. Act. In catena of Judgments of Hon’ble Apex
Court as well as High Court held that, mere filing of charge-
sheet for the offence punishable U/s 185 of M. V. Act itself
SCCH-21 13 MVC No.5854/2024
not amounts to victim or deceased contributed negligence for
the cause of accident. In addition to that respondent has not
produced any materials before this Court to show that,
because of consumption of alcohol deceased drove his vehicle
in rash and negligent manner thereby he also contributed his
negligence.
18. In addition to that, on perusal of spot panchanama,
hand sketch map and charge-sheet i.e., Ex.P.4, 5 and 8 it
reveals that, accident occurred near bus bay at
Bennianahalli bridge. The said fact is not disputed by the
other side. Infact during cross-examination of driver of
offending vehicle i.e., RW.1 himself admits that, the accident
is taken place at the entry of bus bay. As such, the place of
accident is admitted by both sides. Further, on going through
the Ex.P.5 i.e., IMV Report it reveals that, left right front
bumper corner of offending vehicle i.e., Bus is damaged and
as per charge-sheet driver of the bus drove his bus in a rash
and negligent manner in high speed dashed to the deceased
Manoj’s scooter from behind. As such, the observations made
by the RTO in IMV Report as well as on perusal of charge-
sheet and other documents it goes to show that, driver of the
offending vehicle hit the deceased motorcycle from behind.
SCCH-21 14 MVC No.5854/2024
19. As stated above, respondents have not produced
any evidence before this court to show that, the accident is
not caused due to the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence,
having regard to the above facts and circumstances, this
court opine that, accident is caused solely due to negligence
of driver of KSRTC Bus bearing Reg. No. KA-40-F-1434.
Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE No.2: This Issue is regarding dependency,
quantum of compensation to be awarded to petitioners and who is
liable to pay the same, which is answered under the following
heads:
21. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY: To ascertain the actual loss of
dependency, the age, income of deceased and the number of
dependents of the deceased are to be taken into consideration. It is
the contention of the petitioners that they are solely depending
upon the income of the deceased and due to death of Manoj. T. V,
they have lost love and affection of the deceased.
22. The petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioner No.2 is the son,
petitioner No.3 is the mother of deceased Manoj. T. V. The deceased
out of his income contributed to the income of family consisting of
himself and petitioners herein. Further, these petitioners being
legal representatives of the deceased can very well maintain
SCCH-21 15 MVC No.5854/2024
petition. Hence, it is clear that, all the petitioners are depending
upon the income of the deceased Manoj. T. V. Hence, 1/3 of the
income should be taken towards personal expenses of the
deceased.
23. Considering judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Special leave petitioner (Civil No.25590/2014
dated:31.10.2016(National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Others), in which it is observed that, “in case if
the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of
40% of the established income should be the warrant where the
deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where
the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be
regarded as the necessary method of computation”.
24. The petitioners contended that, at the time of accident,
the deceased was aged 29 years and was working as Senior IT
Executive at Indium Software and he was earning Rs.60,000/- per
month. The petitioners have produced the post mortem report of
deceased which is marked at Ex.P.7. From perusal of the Ex.P.7
age of the deceased is mentioned as 29 Years as on the date of
accident. Hence, the age of the deceased is considered as 29 years
as on the date of accident. The accident took place in the year
SCCH-21 16 MVC No.5854/2024
2024. In order to prove the income of the deceased petitioners have
produced documents marked at Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.15 and also
examined Lead HRBP at M/s. Indium Software (India) Pvt. Ltd., as
PW.2 and he produced documents marked at Ex.P.21 to Ex.P.24
and depose that, deceased Manoj was working as a Senior
Executive at his Company and his last month gross salary was
Rs.45,833/-. On perusal of documents produced by petitioners as
well as PW.2, this court opine that, the deceased was drawing an
average salary of Rs.41,225/- per month. Hence, income of the
deceased is considered as Rs.41,225/- per month.
25. As per decision stated above, it is clear that, the Tribunal
has to consider the future prospects on actual salary less tax and
even for self employed or were engaged on fixed wages. Admittedly,
the age of the deceased is 29 years. So 40% of future prospects is
taken into consideration. Taking into consideration of the same, if
40% is added to the income of the deceased it would be
Rs.41,225/- + 40% of Rs.41,225/- is Rs.16,490/- = Rs.57,715/-
per month. There are three dependents. Hence, 1/3 has to be
deducted towards personal expenses. So, 1/3 of Rs.57,715/-
would be Rs.19,238/-. Income for consideration (Rs.57,715 –
19,238) is Rs.38,477/- per month. Therefore the annual income
(Rs.38,477 x 12) is Rs.4,61,724/-. As such correct multiplier as
per guidelines of Sarala Varma case would be “17”. Thus the loss
SCCH-21 17 MVC No.5854/2024
of dependency works out to (Rs.4,61,724/- x 17) is
Rs.78,49,308/-.
26. TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY,
FUNERAL EXPENSES AND LOSS OF ESTATE: The petitioners
have spent the amount towards shifting the dead body and
performing funeral and obsequies ceremony. In this regard, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment passed in Special Leave
petitioner (Civil) No.25590/2014 dated:31-10-2017 (National
Insurance Co., Ltd Vs. Pranaya Sethi and Others), wherein it is
held that as far as conventional heads are concerned, the
petitioners are entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- and
under the head of loss of estate at Rs.15,000/-.
27. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: The petitioner No.1 is the wife
of deceased, petitioner No.2 is the son and petitioner No.3 is the
wife of deceased, so they are entitled for consortium for loss of
“protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”.
Therefore, Rs.40,000/- each is awarded to the petitioners under
the head of loss of consortium.
28. ESCALATION OF 10% ON AMOUNT AWARDED
UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court at para No.59.8 of Judgment
passed in Pranaya Sethi and others has directed to enhance the
SCCH-21 18 MVC No.5854/2024amount to be awarded under conventional heads to an extent of
10% on every 03 years. Further more, Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in a decision delivered on 07.07.2021 in MFA
No.101723/2017 clubbed with MFA No.104014/2016 between
Smt. Viday @ Vidyashree W/o Bandu @ Dattu Koli and others Vs.
Sanju S/o Veerappa Koli and another at paragraph No.16 has
awarded 10% of enhanced amount on total amount awarded under
conventional heads. The Judgment in Pranya Sethi (referred supra)
delivered on 31.10.2017, as such 06 years have lapsed. Thus the
petitioners are entitled for 20% enhanced amount under the above
conventional heads. While discussing above, this tribunal has
awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under conventional heads
and 20% of the same comes to Rs.30,000/-. Thus, petitioners are
entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
Considering the above facts and for the above reasons, the
petitioners are entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1 Loss of dependency Rs.78,49,308/-
2 Loss of consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
3 Towards transportation of dead Rs. 15,000/-
body and funeral expenses
4 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
5 Escalation of 20% on Rs. 30,000/-
conventional heads
Total Rs.80,29,308/-
SCCH-21 19 MVC No.5854/2024
Hence, this Tribunal feels to award just and proper
compensation of Rs.80,29,308/- to the petitioners.
29. LIABILITY: As discussed in issue No.1, the accident
was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-40-EH-9366 and the police have
conducted due enquiry and filed charge sheet against the said
driver of the KSRTC bus bearing Reg. No. KA-40-EH-9366.
However, the respondent being the owner cum internal insurer of
the offending KSRTC bus is liable to pay compensation to the
petitioner.
30. INTEREST: As far as awarding of interest on the
compensation amount is concerned, I have relied In a decision in
M.F.A. No.100090 of 2014 in between Vijay Ishwar Jadhav and
others V/s The divisional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co.Ltd 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., & Others), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka has awarded interest at the rate of 6%. Accordingly,
ISSUE No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative.
31. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings,
I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-21 20 MVC No.5854/2024
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners under Sec.166
of I. M. V Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioners are awarded with compensation of
Rs.80,29,308/- with interest @ 6% p.a., from the
date of petition till its realization.
The respondent being owner cum internal insurer
of the vehicle involved in an accident is liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioner. The respondent is
directed to deposit the above compensation amount
with interest thereon before Tribunal within two months
from the date of this award.
After deposit of compensation amount, petitioners
are entitled for apportionment in the ratio of 50:30:20
respectively.
After deposit of compensation amount awarded to
petitioner No.1 and 3 50% of the amount shall be
released in the name of petitioner No.1 and 3 and
remaining 50% shall be deposited in the name of
petitioner No.1 and 3 in any Nationalised or Schedule
Bank for a period of 03 years on proper identification.
Out of the amount apportioned to petitioner No.2
entire amount shall be deposited in his name in any
Nationalised or Schedule Bank till they attain the age of
majority on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount with interest
thereon, disburse amount as mentioned above as per
guidelines laid down by Hon’ble High Court in MFA
No.2509/2019 (ECA) and as per General Circular No.
2/2019 dated 19.8.2019.
SCCH-21 21 MVC No.5854/2024
The petitioners are hereby directed to produce
particulars of their Bank Account, with name of Bank,
IFSC Code, Account Number with copy of First Page of
Bank Pass Book which contains compulsorily
photograph of petitioners, which is duly attested by
concerned Bank. Further petitioners shall produce PAN
Card/Aadhaar Card.
Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and then corrected by me and
pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of July, 2025)(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Shruthi. N P.W.2 : Alan Savio Mitchell
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 Complaint Ex.P.3 Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 Sketch Ex.P.5 IMV Report Ex.P.6 Inquest Report Ex.P.7 Postmortem Report Ex.P.8 Charge-sheet Ex.P.9 Notice U/s 133 of M. V. Act Ex.P.10 Reply Notice SCCH-21 22 MVC No.5854/2024 Ex.P.11 Appointment Letter Ex.P.12 Payslips Ex.P.13-14 Two Form No.16 Ex.P.15 Bank Statement Ex.P.16-18 Notarized copies of Aadhr Cards of deceased and petitioner No.1 and 3 Ex.P.19 Notarized copy of Birth certificate of petitioner No.2 Ex.P.20 Course Completion Certificate Ex.P.21 Authorization Letter Ex.P.22 Appointment Letter Ex.P.23 Payslips Ex.P.24 Form No.16
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
RW.1 : Mohan. S
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of Complaint
Ex.R.2 : Endorsement
Ex.R.3-7 : Photos
Ex.R.8 : CD
(VIJAYKUMAR S. HIREMATH)
XVII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes &
Member MACT, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link