Akhila Krishnan and Adwaithan (minor) represented by mother Akhila Krishnan v. Shiju V.P., Manoj B., Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.** **FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945** **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.12.2011 IN OP(MV) 671/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONERS:** 1 AKHILA KRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS W/O. VINEETH, VATTAMKANDATHAIL HOUSE, KARIMANNUR P.O., THODUPUZHA, PIN-685581. 2 ADWAITHAN, AGED 2 YEARS S/O. AKHILA KRISHNAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND AKHILA KRISHNAN, W/O. VINEETH, AGED 28, VATTAMKANDATHAIL HOUSE, KARIMANNUR P.O., THODUPUZHA,PIN-685581. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN SRI.E.N.HARI SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** 1 SHIJU V.P., AGED 27 YEARS S/O. PRABHAKARAN, VELLANJITHOPPIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN 682023 2 MANOJ B.,S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KUMARAKATH HOUSE, N.V.NAGAR, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688433 3 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. XL.3599, 4TH FLOOR, ELIZEBETH ALEXANDER, MEMORIAL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN 682011 BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.786/2012, 1017/2013 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 2** # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945 MACA NO. 786 OF 2012** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED IN 31.12.2011 IN OP(MV) 1645/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5:** 1 AKHILA KRISHNAN, AGED 28 YEARS W/O. VINEETH, VATTAMKANDATHAIL HOUSE, KARIMANNUR P.O., THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 581. 2 ADWAITHAN, AGED 2 YEARS S/O. AKHILA KRISHNAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND AKHILA KRISHNAN, W/O. VINEETH, AGED 28 VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARIMANNUR P.O., THODUPUZHA, PIN-685 581. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.P.CHELLAPPAN SRI.E.N.HARI SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:** 1 JAGADAS P.P., AGED 59 YEARS S/O. PADMANABHAN, KULAKKADAVIL (PUTHUMANA), MKK NAIR NAGAR, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN 682023 2 USHA JAGADAS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS W/O. JAGADAS, KULAKKADAVIL (PUTHUMANA), MKK NAIR NAGAR, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN 682023 3 SHIJU V.P., AGED 27 YEARS S/O. PRABHAKARAN, VELLANJITHOPPIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN 682023 (DRIVER) 4 MANOJ B. S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KUMARAKATH HOUSE, N.V.NAGAR, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688534 (OWNER) **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 3** 5 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. XL/3599, 4TH FLOOR, ELIZEBETH ALEXANDER, MEMMORIAL, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI. (1ST PETITIONER IN OP(MV) 1645/2009 DIED). BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.784/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 4** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945** **MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.12.2011 IN OP(MV) 671/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:** 1 AKHILA KRISHNAN S/O.LATE VINEETH, VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KRIMANOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, PIN 685584 2 ADWAITH (MINOR) S/O.AKHILA KRISHNAN, (DATE OF BIRTH 14/10/2008), REPRESENTED BY HIS NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER AKHILA KRISHNAN, W/O.LATE VINEETH, VATTAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KRIMANOOR P.O., THODUPUZHA, PIN 685584 3 SHIJU V.P. S/O.PRABHAKARAN, VELLANJITHOPPIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM, THRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682 301. **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 5** *4 MANOJ B.(DELETED) S/PO.BALAKRISHNAN, KUMARAKATH HOUSE, N.V.NAGAR, POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -688 001. *THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 11.1.18 IN IA NO.3907/17 IN MACA 1017/13. BY ADV SRI.K.C. CHARLES THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.784/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 6** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945** **MACA NO. 812 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 31.12.11 IN OP(MV) 1645/2009 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. KOCHI,REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SMT.K.S.SANTHI ## **RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS:** 1 JAGADAS P.P. S/O.PADMANABHAN,PUTHUMANA HOUSE, NEAR M.K.K.NAIR NAGAR,THRIPPUNITHURA.P.O., NADAMA VILLAGE,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682301 2 USHA JAGADAS W/O.JAGADAS P.P, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, NEAR M.K.K.NAIR NAGAR,THRIPPUNITHURA.P.O., NADAMA VILLAGE,KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 682 301. 3 SHYJU V.P S/O.PRABHAKARAN,VELLANJITHOPPIL HOUSE, THEKKUMBHAGAM,THRIPPUNITHURA, PIN 682301 **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 7** 4 MANOJ B S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,KUMARAKATH HOUSE, N.V.NAGAR,POOCHAKKAL,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA, PIN 688526 5 AKHILA VINEETH D/O.KRISHNAN,VALLAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR.P.O.,NEAR CONVENT, THODUPUZHA, PIN 685581 6 ADHWAITH VINEETH, S/O.LATE VINEETH (MINOR), REP. BY NEXT FRIEND AND MOTHER AKHILA VINEETH, D/O.KRISHNAN,VALLAMKANDATHIL HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR.P.O.,NEAR CONVENT,THODUPUZHA, PIN 685 581 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.02.2024, ALONG WITH MACA.784/2012 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 8** ## **JUDGMENT** **[MACA Nos.784/2012, 786/2012, 1017/2013, 812/2016]** All these appeals are arising from a common award passed in OP(MV) No.671/2009 and OP(MV) No.1645/2009 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Ernakulam. 2. Both the said claim petitions were submitted by the respective claimants seeking compensation for the death of one Vineeth due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 07.11.2008. Consequent to the injuries sustained, he died on 08.11.2008 while he was undergoing treatment. OP(MV) No.671/2009 was filed by the wife and the minor son of the deceased whereas OP(MV) No.1645/2009 was filed by the parents of the deceased. 3. The accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by the deceased was hit by a car driven by the 1[st] respondent. The said car was owned by the 2[nd] respondent and was insured with the **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 9** 3[rd] respondent. The deceased was working as a Business Development Officer in Info Media Pvt. Ltd, with a monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. He was aged 26 years at the time of the accident. The claim petitions were submitted in such circumstances. 4. The 3[rd] respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the coverage of policy for the car. However, they denied the negligence on the part of the 1[st] respondent in driving the car. The quantum of compensation claimed in the claim petitions was also disputed by them. Both the said claim petitions were tried together. The insurance company raised a contention that, the driver of the car was not having a valid badge authorising him to drive a taxi vehicle. As the vehicle involved was a taxi car, they contended that there was violation of policy conditions. 5. The evidence in these claim petitions consists of Exts.A1 to A19 from the side of the claimants and no evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. After the trial, the tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car, the 1[st] respondent in the claim petition, and being the insurer, the 3[rd] respondent was held liable to pay the compensation. **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 10** 7. The contentions raised by the insurance company as to the violation of policy condition were rejected and the liability was imposed upon them. The quantum of compensation was fixed as Rs.11,22,525/- and the said amount was directed to be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. M.A.C.A. Nos.784/2012 and 786/2012 were submitted by the wife and minor son of the deceased seeking enhancement of compensation whereas, M.A.C.A. No.812/2016 and 1017/2013 were filed by the 3[rd] respondent/Insurer challenging the finding of the tribunal imposing liability upon them. 9. Heard Sri. K.C. Charles, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in MACA Nos.784/2012 and 786/2012, Sri.George Cherian Thiruvalla, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in M.A.C.A. Nos.812/2016 and 1017/2013. 10. As the insurer raised a challenge with respect to the liability imposed upon them, I deem it appropriate to consider the said question first. The reason for such challenge is that, according to them, the car which was insured by them was a taxi and the 1[st] respondent was driving the car without any badge authorising him **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 11** to drive such a taxi car. However, it is to be noted in this regard that, the position of law in this regard is now settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in **Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.** [2017(4) KHC 648] wherein, it was held that, in respect of the vehicles with unladen weight less than 7500 kgs, the lack of any authorization to drive the transport vehicle cannot be treated as a violation of the statutory provisions. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the appellant insurer cannot be entertained. Accordingly, M.A.C.A. No.812/2016 and MACA No.1017/2013 are only to be dismissed. 11. The next aspect to be considered is the enhancement of compensation which is the subject matter in M.A.C.A. Nos.784/2012 and 786/2012. The specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, the tribunal fixed the monthly income as Rs.7,500/- despite the fact that the appellant was a person earning an amount of Rs.25,000/- from his employment as a Business Development Officer in a private firm. The learned counsel places reliance upon Exts.A9, A10 and A11 to substantiate the same. In addition to that, the appellants have placed on record an additional document as Annexure A2, by way **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 12** of I.A. No.1/2024, which is a statement of accounts of the deceased, for the period from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008. Besides the same, they also produced a salary certificate as Annexure A1. By placing reliance upon the said documents it was pointed out that, a higher monthly income ought to have been taken by the Tribunal. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, opposes the document produced along with the M.A.C.A. as according to the learned counsel, the same cannot be accepted, as the same was not properly proved. However, the appellants have produced the bank statement which is the original copy issued from the bank which contains seal and signature of the Chief Manager of the concerned Branch. Since this being an account statement, I do not find any reason to discard the same. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to mark the said document as Ext.A20. On going through the transactions reflected in Ext.A20, it can be seen that, there were several remittances therein towards the salary. The amounts vary from month to month and the explanation offered by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the variation in the salary is due to the difference in the sales incentive which the deceased used to receive, depending upon the sales which he was **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 13** able to generate. On carefully going through the said account statement which was for a period of seven months, it is seen that the average salary comes to Rs.19,116/-. However, the said amount cannot be accepted as such in view of the fact that the fluctuations in the salary from month to month are very huge. It is to be noted that, when the salary for the month of July 2008 is shown as Rs.31,482/-, the salary shown in the month of June 2008 was only Rs.17,046/-. The salary for the month of August 2008 is only Rs.12,979/-. Even though an explanation was offered to the effect that it was depending upon the sales incentive, the said explanation of the counsel cannot be accepted as such, in the absence of any competent person being examined and explaining the same. However, the entries in the certificate would indicate that, the deceased was getting a higher salary than what was assessed by the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal the appellants have produced Ext.A11 income tax return which would indicate that, the annual salary declared was Rs.1,54,561/- for the assessment year 2008-09. The learned counsel further points out that, the income declared in the said income tax return was pertaining to the year 2007-08 and during the financial year 2008-09, the deceased got a **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 14** promotion and there was increase in the salary. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel places reliance upon the Ext.A20 bank statement, which is pertaining to the period just before the date of the accident. Thus when all the aforesaid documents are taken into consideration, I am of the view that the monthly income of Rs.7,500/- taken by the Tribunal is inadequate which requires reconsideration. When the income tax returns as evidenced by Ext.A11 is taken into consideration the monthly income would come to Rs.12,880/-. However, the entries in Ext.A20 bank statement pertaining to the period from 01.04.2008 to 30.09.2008 would indicate that there was increase in the salary. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to fix the monthly income for the purpose of assessment of loss of dependency as Rs.15,000/-. Since it comes within the taxable income, tax should be deducted. As per the tax slab prevailing at the relevant time, the tax payable for the income higher than Rs.1,10,000/- and up to Rs.1,50,000/was 10% and the rate of tax payable for the income above Rs.1,50,000/- was 20%. Thus, when calculating the tax payable for the annual income of Rs.1,80,000/- which is calculated @ 15,000/per month, the tax payable would come to Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 15** income of the deceased after adjusting the tax would come to Rs.1,70,000/- per year. As the deceased was aged 26 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 40% has to be made. With regard to the deduction towards personal expenses, the Tribunal applied 1/3[rd] , with a finding that, the father was not a dependent. However, the question whether the father can be treated as a dependent for the purpose of deduction for the personal expenses was considered this Court in the decision reported in **New India Assurance Co.Ltd v. Shymi** [2023 (6) KLT 38]. In the light of the above, the father has to be treated as a dependent for the purpose of deduction towards personal expenses and in such circumstances the deduction to be made will come to 1/4[th] . Thus, while reassessing the compensation with above criteria the amount for compensation for loss of dependency would come to Rs.30,34,500/-. (1,70,000 + 40%) x 17 x 3/4]. The amount already awarded by the Tribunal under this head is Rs.10,20,000/- and thus, the additional compensation comes to Rs.20,14,500/-. 12. When moving on to the other heads, it can be seen that, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses and in the light of **National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi** **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 16** [(2017) 16 SCC 680] a further sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded. Similarly, the amount awarded towards loss of estate was Rs.5,000/- and in the light of **Pranay Sethi** (supra), a further sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded. 13. The next head that requires consideration is the loss of consortium. As the claimants are the wife, son and parents of the deceased, they are entitled to compensation for loss of consortium @ 40,000/- each in the light of **Magma General Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Churu Ram** [(2018) 18 SCC 130] and **United India Insurance Co Ltd V. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur and other** [ 2020 (3) KHC 760]. Thus, the total amount comes to Rs.1,60,000/-. However, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium and a further sum of Rs.30,000/- toward loss of love and affection. It was held in **Satinder Kaur** (supra) that when compensation for loss of consortium is awarded no separate compensation needs to be granted for loss of love and affection. Therefore, the amount of Rs.30,000/- can be adjusted against the amount fixed by this Court for loss of consortium. Accordingly, the additional compensation for the loss of consortium is determined as Rs.1,05,000/-. The learned **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 17** counsel for the insurer points out that, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering which is on the higher side, taking note of the fact that this is a case of death. I find some force in the said contention. However, considering the fact that, the deceased died on the next day of the accident, a reasonable compensation has to be granted under this head and I deem it appropriate to fix it as Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the total additional compensation is determined as Rs. 21,31,500/[(20,14,500 + 12,000 + 10,000 + 1,05,000) – 10,000]. In the result, M.A.C.A. Nos.812/2016 and 1017/2013 are dismissed. M.A.C.A. Nos.784/2012 and 786/2012 are allowed. The common award dated 31.12.2011 in O.P.(M.V.) Nos.671/2009 and 1645/2009 are hereby modified by granting an additional compensation of Rs. 21,31,500/- (Rupees twenty one lakh thirty one thousand and five hundred only) and the said amount shall be deposited by the 3[rd] respondent/insurer in the claim petition, with interest at the rate as ordered by the Tribunal and proportionate costs, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is further clarified that the claimants shall furnish the details of the PAN card, Aadhar Card and bank details **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 18** to enable the Insurance Company to make the deposit as ordered above, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case, they fail to furnish the said details, it shall be open for the insurance company to deposit the same amount before the Tribunal. **Sd/ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE** ncd/scs **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 19** ## **APPENDIX OF MACA 786/2012** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF LATE VINEETH Annexure A3 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 5/2/2023 ISSUED BY THE CENTER COORDINATOR,BHARATA MATA COLLEGE,THRIKKAKKARA **MACA NO. 784 OF 2012, MACA NO. 786 OF 2012 MACA NO. 1017 OF 2013 & MACA NO. 812 OF 2016 20** ## **APPENDIX OF MACA 784/2012** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE OF DECEASED HUSBAND OF THE 1ST APPELLANT DATED 24.03.2012 Annexure A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF LATE VINEETH,