Bangalore District Court
In Smt.Syed Hajirabi Mehboob vs Mr.Venkatesh R on 31 December, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THIS THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER 2016.
PRESENT :
SMT.PANCHAKSHARI M., M.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.Nos. of 2579, 2574 to 2578 /2012.
PETITIONER IN Smt.Syed Hajirabi Mehboob,
MVC.2579/12: W/o Syed Mahboob Diwan Basha,
aged about 65 years,
R/at No.333, 6th Cross.
Chikkamaranahalli,
Bengaluru-560 054.
PETITIONER IN Sri.Syed Babu @ Babu,
MVC.2574/12/: S/o Abdulla,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.204, Vijanapura,
Dasthagiri Road,
Bengaluru-560 016.
PETITIONER IN Sri.Imran Khan Babu @ Imran,
MVC.2575/12: S/o Syed Babu,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.1897, Vijinapura,
Kothnur, Dooravaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
PETITIONER IN Smt.Syed Omaira @ Omaira,
MVC.2576/12: W/o Imran,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at Old No.22, New No.222,
SCCH.13 2 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Behind Lakshmi Tent,
Chikkamachanahalli,
Bengaluru.
PETITIONER IN Baby Ayesha Siddique, 4 years,
MVC.2577/12: D/o Adil Basha,
Since minor, represented by her
father/natural guardian-
Sri.Adil Basha,
S/o Abdul Saban K.,
Aged about 27 years,
Both are R/at No.413,
B.N.Pura, D.V.Nagar,
Next to I.T.I. Layout,
Bengaluru-560 016.
Smt.Shanaz Begum, 45 years
PETITIONER IN W/o Syed Babu,
MVC.2578/12: R/at No.204, Vijanapura,
Dasthagiri Road,
Bengaluru.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.)
vs.
RESPONDENTS 1. Mr.Venkatesh R.
IN ALL THE S/o Ramappa,
PETITIONS: No.3345, Vapasandra,
Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis
bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401)
Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha,
W/o Venkatesh R.,
No.3345, Vapasandra,
Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
SCCH.13 3 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
2. The Branch Manager,
Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
Environ Towers 60/4,
Hosur Main Road,
Electronic City,
Bengaluru-560 100.
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid
from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012)
(By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth,
Advocate)
-o0o-
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions under
Sec.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account
of their sustaining injuries in the motor vehicle
accident. Since, these petitions are arising out of the
same accident, they are clubbed together for common
consideration.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case are that:-
On 07.12.2011 at about 1.00 a.m., when they
were traveling in Toyota Qualis bearing REg.No.KA-08-
M-401 from Nellore to Bengalure on NH-4 Road i.e. on
Kolar-Bangalore road and when they came near
Boodigere cross Bridge, at that time the driver of said
SCCH.13 4 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
vehicle drove it with high speed, in rash and negligent
manner, endangering human life without observing
traffic rules and dashed against the front going lorry
bearing Reg.No.AP-16-X-1566 from back side . Due to
which, they sustained severe injuries. Immediately, they
were shifted to Axon Specialty hospital, Bengalure
wherein they took treatment and spent considerable
amount towards their treatment and nourishment.
The Avalahalli police have registered a case
against the driver of the said Toyota quails in Crime
NO.399/2011 under Sec.279, 338 and 304A of IPC.
It is contended that prior to the accident,
petitioner in MVC.2574/12 was hale and healthy and
working as Class-IV employee at K.S.F.C.S.C.,
Kadirenanahalli, Bengalure and drawing salary of
Rs.12,600/- p.m. The petitioner in MVC.No.2575/12
was working as process Associates at M/s.Manthan
software services, Bengaluru and drawing salary of
Rs.32,000/-. So also the petitioner in MVC.No.2578/12
was a Tailor and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. The
SCCH.13 5 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
petitioners in MVC.No.2576 and 2578/12 were house
wives. Due to the accidental injuries, they were
suffering loss of earnings. The petitioner in
MVC.No.2577/12 was a student studying in LKG at
Bethal Public School, Vijanapura, Bengaluru and
because of the accident, she could not attended the
school for a period for two months. Therefore,
petitioners have filed these petitions for claiming
compensation together with costs and interest.
3. In response to the notices, respondent No.1 in
the cases remained absent and he placed exparte. 2nd
Respondent in all the case placed its appearance
through its counsel and filed written statement with the
following contentions:-
2nd Respondent/Insurance company inter alia
contending that the claim petitions are false and are not
maintainable either in law or on facts and they are
liable to be dismissed in limini with cost against this
respondent. It had disputing the cause of the accident
and also involvement of the insured vehicle and
contended that there was no negligence on the part of
SCCH.13 6 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
the driver of the insured vehicle and the accident was
occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving
of the lorry bearing Reg.NO.AP-16-X-1566. However, it
had admitted that it has issued policy in favour of 1st
respondent in respect of the vehicle- bearing No.KA-08-
M-401 and its liability if any is subject to terms and
conditions of the policy. The driver of the vehicle had
no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle
at the time of accident. Besides, it had no permit and
fitness certificate and contended that the vehicle
bearing No.KA-08-M-401 which was involved in the
accident is a passenger carrying vehicle and hence, it is
coming under the category of transport vehicle and to
drive the transport vehicle, the driver should possess
the specific licence. The owner knowingly entrusted the
vehicle as on the date of accident who has no licence to
drive the transport vehicle. As such, there is violation
of policy condition and also against the provisions of
MV Act. It has also disputed the age, income of the
petitioners, reduction of their working capacity, their
spending of the amount towards medical treatment. It
has also contended that the compensation claimed in
SCCH.13 7 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
the petitions are highly excessive, arbitrary and
disproportionate, therefore, the instant petitions may be
dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above rival contentions of
the parties, the following issues which are common in
all the petitions have been framed:-
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident
dated: 07.12.2011 at about 1.00 A.M. near
Boodigere Cross Bridge on Kolar-Bengaluru NH-4
Road, was due to the rash and negligent driving of
the of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg. No. KA-08-
M-401 and that they have sustained the injuries
due to the said accident?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so how much from whom?
3. What order?
5. The petitioners in MVC.No.2574/12 to
2576/12, 2578/12 and 2579/12 and Dr.Kiran were
examined as PWs.1to 3 and 5 to 7 and the natural
guardian and father of the minor petitioner in
MVC.No.2577/12 is examined as PW4 and got marked
the documents Ex.P.1 to P.44.
6. During the pendency of these cases, the
respondent No.1 reported as dead and his legal heir i.e.
SCCH.13 8 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
his wife-Smt.Anuradha was brought on record as
Respondent No.1(a) who had appeared through her
counsel and got examined as RW1. The 2nd respondent
examined two witnesses as RWs.2 and 3 and got
marked documents Exs.R1 and R2.
7. Heard arguments.
8. Taking into consideration, the oral and
documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my
findings to the above common issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in all the cases:-
All these petitions arising out of same accident, as
such, Memo was filed for clubbing all the cases in
MVC,No.2579/12, so as per the Order dated
02.08.2013, all these cases were ordered to be clubbed
in MVC.No.2579/12 and this case is considered as
main case for recording evidence and for disposal. The
SCCH.13 9 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
petitioner in MVC.No.2579/12 had been examined as
PW1, as such, the discussion with regard to issue No.1
in connection to all the remaining five cases shall be
taken up together.
10. The petitioners in MVC.Nos.2574/2012 to
2579/12 were the inmates of Toyota Qualis bearing
Reg.No.KA-08-M-401 who are the members of one
family. It is the contention of all the petitioners that on
07.12.2011 at about 1.00 a.m., when they were
traveling in Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401
from Nellore to Bengalure on NH-4 Road i.e. on Kolar-
Bangalore road and when they came near Boodigere
cross Bridge, at that time the driver of said vehicle
drove it with high speed, in rash and negligent manner,
endangering human life without observing traffic rules
and dashed against the front going lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-16-X-1566 from back side . Due to the
impact, the petitioners in all the cases were sustained
severe injuries and took treatment for the injuries
sustained. So, as per the contention of the petitioners
in all these cases that the alleged accident is due to
SCCH.13 10 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Toyota
Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401.
11. The petitioner in MVC.No.2579/12 got
examined himself as PW1, petitioner in
MVC.No.2576/12 got examined herself as PW2,
petitioner in MVC.No.2578/12 got examined herself as
PW3, petitioner in MVC.No.2577/12 got examined
herself as PW4, petitioner in MVC.No.2574/12 got
examined herself as PW5 and petitioner in
MVC.No.2575/12 got examined herself as PW6. The
doctor of Axon Specialty Hospital where the petitioners
have taken treatment was also summoned to produce
relevant medical document and had been examined as
PW7. The petitioners in all respective cases have
reiterated the petition averments in their affidavit
evidenced filed for examination in chief. All the
petitioners have stated that the alleged accident is due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Toyota
Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401.
SCCH.13 11 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
12. PW1 in order to prove his contention that he
had sustained injury in RTA, as per the petition
averments, he had produced Ex.P4-Discharge
summery, Ex.P5-23 Medical bills which makes out that
he had sustained injury in RTA and was admitted to the
hospital on 07.12.2011 and got discharged on
12.12.2011. PW2 to prove her contention that she had
sustained injury in the alleged accident, she had
produced wound certificate, three discharge summaries
which are marked as Exs.P6 and P7. PW3 had also
produced Ex.P11- Discharge summary, Ex.P14- 21
Prescriptions and Ex.P15, 8 medical bills to
substantiate her contention that she had taken
treatment for the injuries sustained injury in RTA. In
the same way, PW4 had produced Exs.P17 to P20-
Wound certificate, Discharge summary, 3 Prescriptions
and 3 medical bills. PW5 had produced wound
certificate, 3 Discharge summaries, medical bills, 33
prescriptions, 38 medical bills which are marked as
Exs.P21, P22, P25, P27 and P28. PW6 in order to prove
his contention, had got marked Exs.P34 to P36-
Discharge summary, 12 Prescriptions and 14 medical
SCCH.13 12 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
bills and he got marked two IP records through PW7 as
Ex.P39.
13. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the
vehicle, whereby, at the time of filing the petitions, the
petitioners have made Mr.Venkatesh who is the RC
owner of the said Toyota quails vehicle as respondent
No.1. At the initial stage, he was placed exparte and
thereafter, when respondent No.2 had summoned his
wife as a witness, it is made out that the respondent
No.1-Venkatesh had died. Later RW1 who is the wife of
the deceased-Venkatesh impleaded as legal
representatives of the deceased-Venkatesh. The notice
through paper publication was taken to the legal
representatives of the respondent No.1 whereby, she
had failed to appear before the court as a party to the
proceedings. The respondent No.2 is the Insurer who
had appeared through its advocate, had filed written
statement, wherein it had denied the petition averments
. As per the contention in the written statement, rash
and negligent driving by the driver of Toyota Qualis
bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401 is totally denied. It had
admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the said
SCCH.13 13 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
vehicle, but it had taken contention that the driver of
the said vehicle had no valid and effective driving
licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and
the said vehicle is a passenger carrying vehicle, hence,
it is coming under the category of transport vehicle and
to drive the transport vehicle, the driver should possess
the specific licence. On the contrary, it had taken
contention that the alleged accident is due to rash and
negligent driving by driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.AP-16-X-1566 and there is no specific
contention denying the fact of petitioners in all the
cases having sustained injuries in RTA. In the cross
examination of PWs.1 to PW6, on behalf of the
respondent No.2, nothing is made out so as to deny the
fact that they sustained injury in RTA. So, by means of
oral and documentary evidence, the petitioners
substantially proved that they sustained injury in road
traffic accident.
14. Now coming to the fact of rash and negligent
driving whereby, the petitioners have relied on the
police papers so as to prove their contention that the
SCCH.13 14 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
alleged accident is due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of it is coming under the category of transport
vehicle and to drive the transport vehicle, the driver
should possess the specific licence. Ex.P1 is the FIR,
Ex.P2 is the Spot Mahazar and Ex.P3 is the IMV report.
The charge sheet was filed through EW2 who is the
Investigating Officer and the said charge sheet with
other investigation documents are collectively marked
as Ex.R1. As per Ex.R1-charge sheet, the driver of
Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401 is charge
sheeted for the offences punishable under Sec.279,
337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. The police documents
which are produced through RW3 which also includes
Mahazar, and Spot Sketch makes out that the road
where the accident took place proceed from Kolar
towards Bengaluru. The spot, where the accident took
place, the road is facing upward in spite of that, the
driver of the Toyota vehicle had hit against the lorry on
its back. The owner of the Toyota Qualis who was also
traveling in the said vehicle sitting by the side of the
driver had died on account of accidental injuries at the
spot and all the inmates are sustained injuries in the
SCCH.13 15 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
alleged accident and even, the driver had also sustained
injury. This it self makes out the impact of speed of the
vehicle. In a road which is facing upward, the accident
having taken place, it can be clearly made out that the
accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Toyota Qualis vehicle. So, the police on
proper investigation have filed charge sheet against the
driver of the said vehicle. From the cross examination
of PWs.1 to 6 adduced on behalf of the respondent
No.2, nothing is made out so as to contradict and dis
prove the fact that the accident not being due to
negligence on the part of the driver of the Toyota quails
vehicle. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 had
opted to examine the owner of the said Toyota Qualis
and Investigating Officer and the official of Insurance
company as RWs.1 to RW3. Even from the evidence of
RW3, nothing is made out to prove that the accident is
due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the
driver of the lorry.
15. The counsel o behalf of the respondent No.2
had produced certified copy of Judgment passed in
SCCH.13 16 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
MVC.No.1603/12 and 1604/12 which are the cases
filed in connection to the very same accident and the
said petitions came to be dismissed. On perusal of the
said judgment, it makes out that the Tribunal had not
discussed anything with regard to the fact of rash and
negligent driving and the liability of the respondents. It
had given conclusion that as the respondent No.2 who
is the owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-
08-M-401 having dead and his legal heirs have not
brought on record, the petition against dead person is
not maintainable and the respondent No.1 being the
insurer , it is liable to indemnify the owner only when
the liability is fasten on the RC owner of the offending
vehicle. So, on the basis of above consideration, the
petitions came to be dismissed. Hence, this judgment
though it is in connection to the very same accident, it
cannot be taken into consideration as the fact of rash
and negligent driving has not at all considered in the
said judgment. So, from the evidence of PWs.1 to
6, it is clearly made out that the alleged accident
is due to rash and negligent driving on the part
of the driver of Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-
SCCH.13 17 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
08-M-401. In the circumstances, I hold the above issue
in all these cases in the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2 in all the cases:-
The respondent NO.2 being insured had taken the
contention in its written statement that the driver of
Toyota quails vehicle was not holding valid driving
licence as on the date of accident and the vehicle
involved in the accident is a passenger carrying vehicle
and hence, it is coming under the category of transport
vehicle and to drive the transport vehicle, the driver
should possess the specific licence. So, the driver of
the insured vehicle at the time of accident was not
having licence to drive the vehicle in question, as such,
the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.
Further, it had taken contention that the said vehicle
was used without having permit and fitness certificate.
No where in the written statement, it had taken
contention that the insured vehicle was hired by the
petitioners and it being a private vehicle, the policy
issued is a private car policy and insured vehicle is
used for hire or reward at the time of accident. Though,
the respondent no.2 had not taken this contention in
SCCH.13 18 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
its written statement, but the official of respondent No.2
who had been examined as RW3 had pleaded this fact
in his affidavit evidence. The policy copy is produced
and marked as Ex.R1. It is very much made out from
the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 that the vehicle in which
they were traveling is a private vehicle which belongs to
respondent No.1-Mr.Venkatesh. RW3 in his cross
examination has stated that his evidence with regard to
the use of the vehicle is only on the basis of the police
documents, he had no personal knowledge about this
fact. Further, in his cross examination, he had stated
that he did not know whether inmates of the Car had
given evidence before the court that the vehicle taken
for hire. At this juncture, it is very much important to
take into consideration the evidence of RW1 who is the
present owner of the Toyota Qualis vehicle, who had
stated in her evidence that her deceased husband-
Venkatesh was doing business of fire wood, he had only
one vehicle and it was used for his business purpose. It
is also made out in her evidence that her deceased
husband-Venkatesh had taken the vehicle along with
driver-Shivakumar for purchase of fire wood on the date
SCCH.13 19 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
of accident. RW2 who is the Investigating officer filed
charge sheet, along with copy of driving licence of Shiva
kumar, which makes out that he had driving licence to
drive the said vehicle on the date of accident. It also
disproves the contention of the respondent No.2 with
regard to the fact that the driver of the Toyota Qualis
was driving the vehicle without valid driving licence.
Further, RW2 had clearly stated in his evidence that the
accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the Toyota Qualis vehicle. Further, he has
stated that during investigation, it is found that the
vehicle was taken on hire by injured as per the
statements of PW3 & PW6. RW2 being I.O., who had
given evidence had not subjected himself for cross
examination, as such, as per order dated 14.10.2015,
the evidence of RW2 is expunged and the matter stood
posted for arguments. Thereafter, on hearing the
arguments, all these cases were posed for judgment on
11.01.2016.Thereafter,death of respondent NO.1 having
reported before the Tribunal and the steps were taken
to implead legal representatives of the deceased
respondent NO.1 and this matter was further
SCCH.13 20 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
proceeded. Again, after addressing the matter before
this Tribunal, the counsel on behalf of the respondent
No.2 had taken steps to summon RW2 for tendering
him for cross examination. In spite of service of
summons and warrants, RW2 had not tendered himself
for cross examination, hence, this Tribunal by its order
dated 25.11.2016, had forfeited the bond of RW2 who is
the Investigating Officer as witness had not turned up
for cross examination, the evidence was closed as chief
examination of RW2 was already expunged, so, no
weight can be attached to the evidence of RW2. On
perusal of the cross examination of PWs.1 to 6, they
have totally denied the fact that the Toyota Qualis
vehicle having hired by them and they having traveled
in the hired vehicle which had met with an accident.
There is no cogent evidence to make out that the Toyota
Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401 was hired by the
petitioners and they were traveling as passengers.
Merely because, it is recorded in the statements of
witnesses under Sec.161 of CR.P.C., it cannot be
considered unless and until it is proved beyond all
reasonable doubt. Apart from that, the important fact
SCCH.13 21 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
has to be taken into consideration is that if at all the
vehicle is hired than what was the reason for the owner
of the vehicle traveling with the passengers. The owner
of the vehicle by name-Venkatesh had died on account
of accidental injury while traveling along with the
petitioners and it was only Shiva Kumar who was
driving the vehicle and copy of his driving licence is also
produced through RW2. On the other hand, PW5 in his
cross examination, had stated that the owner of the
Toyota Qualis by name -Venkatesh is friend of his son.
Further, he had stated that they have not hired the
vehicle for rent. Even, he had stated that they have not
paid bata charges to Mr.Venkatesh nor they have paid
any cash. Further, he had admitted that Mr.Venkatesh
is a friend of Railway Master Abdul Suban, he is also
their relative. S0, this makes out that the owner of the
vehicle is known o PW5 and his family members and as
such, they have proceeded in his vehicle to a Darga at
Nellore. So, by the evidence of PW5 and other
witnesses, it is clearly made out that the petitioners
were traveling in Toyota quails as persons who knows
the family of the owner of the vehicle. So, in the
SCCH.13 22 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
circumstances, the respondent NO.2 had failed to prove
its contention that it is not liable to pay compensation
on the ground that the vehicle having hired for rent.
The petitioners having proved Issue No.1, they are
entitled for compensation from the respondents No.1
and 2 . As there is valid policy as per Ex.R3, it is the
respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners in all the cases to the quantum arrived
as below:
: QUANTUM IN MVC.NO.2579/12:
(i) Pain and Sufferings:
Petitioner in the present case by name-Smt.Syeda
Hajirabi Mahaboob, having adduced oral evidence, had
produced document i.e. Ex.P4-Discharge summary and
Ex.P5-23 medical bills, which makes out that she had
sustained injury to left periorbital and maxillary region,
restricted movement of left lower limb, soft tissue injury
to left side of face, laceration over left lower eye lid. She
was treated with IVF, debridement and dressing of
laceration wound and traction was applied. Ex.P44 is
the IP record of Axon Hospital pertaining to PW1 which
makes out that she had sustained fracture of left
SCCH.13 23 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
acetabulum, which is grievous in nature. She was
treated conservatively for five days and discharged. So,
taking into consideration, the nature of the injuries
sustained by the petitioner and her age, it is reasonable
to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
(ii) Medical Expenses:
The petitioner has produced IP bill along with
medical bills, marked at Ex.P5. A careful scrutiny of
these bills, the bills produced at Sl.No.8, 9 , 19 and 21
of Ex.P5 are pertaining to prior to the date of accident
and the petitioner is not entitled for same and the rest
of the bills are pertaining to purchase of pharmacy,
consultation fee etc. and the IP bill of Axon Specialty
Hospital is to the tune of Rs.73,980/- which was paid
through credit card and cash. So, looking to the nature
of the injuries and duration of the treatment taken by
the petitioner, the petitioner would have incurred
expenses towards medical treatment, the petitioner is
entitled for the said amount after deducting a sum of
Rs.1,559/- as claimed at Sl.No.8, 9 , 19 and 21 of
SCCH.13 24 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Ex.P5. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for a
sum of Rs.83,505/- towards medical expenses.
(iii) Conveyance, Nourishment, food and
attending charges :-
Petitioner has undergone treatment as inpatient
at Axon hospital from 07.12.2011 to 12.12.2011 for
five days and she has taken regular follow-up treatment
at least for two months. Though there is no definite
evidence on the record regarding the amount spent
towards the nourishment, conveyance, food and
attending charges, having regard to the duration of the
treatment, this tribunal feel to provide Rs.3,000/-
(Rs.600 per day x 5 days) which is the just and fair
compensation.
(iv) Loss of income during laid down period:
Injured petitioner-PW1 in her evidence had stated
that during the course of her treatment, her two
daughters and son were looking after her and her
daughters were working as Tailor, drawing salary of
Rs.5,000/- p.m. Her son was working in IBM drawing
salary of Rs.60,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental
SCCH.13 25 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
injuries sustained by her, her son could not attend the
work for a period of 3 months and suffer loss of
earning. Prior to the accident, she was hale and
healthy and she was house wife and during the period
of her treatment she had appointed a maid servant-
Usha by paying the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. As
the accident had taken place in the year 2011, but with
this accidental injury, the petitioner was supposed to
employed an made servant for the routine work which
she was attending the work earlier at home as a house
wife. So, taking into consideration, the nature of
injuries sustained by the petitioner, at least she
required period of two months for full recover. Hence,
at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month for a period of two
months, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income during laid down
period.
Hence, the following calculation:-
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 30,000/-
2. Medical Expenses: 83,505/-
3. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 3,000/-
and attending charges:
4. Loss of income during laid down 6,000/-
period:
Total Rs.1,22,505/-
SCCH.13 26 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Hence, this tribunal feels that it is just and
proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,22,505/-
which is the just and fair compensation.
: QUANTUM IN MVC.NO.2576/12:
Pain and Sufferings, medical expenses,
conveyance, nourishment, food and attending
charges:
The petitioner-Smt.Syeda Omaira @ Omaira is
examined as PW2 who had stated in her evidence that
she had sustained injuries on account of accident and
had taken treatment as inpatient at Axon Hospital. In
support of her oral evidence she had produced Wound
certificate,3 discharge summaries, prescriptions and 15
medical bills for Rs.17,300/- marked as Exs.P6, P7 P9
and P10. Her In patient Record is marked as Ex.P40.
This document clearly makes out that she had
sustained simple injury i.e. contusion over right iliac
region. Ex.P7-Discharge summery makes out that she
had been treated as conservatively as in patient for two
days i.e. from 07.12.2011 to 09.12.2011. To show that
she had incurred medical expenses, the petitioner has
SCCH.13 27 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
produced Prescriptions and 15 medical bills for
Rs.17,300/- which are marked as Exs.P9 and P10.
Taking into consideration, the medical expenses
incurred by the petitioner and also nature of injury and
number of days stayed in the hospital, the petitioner,
the petitioner is entitled for global compensation of
Rs.40,000/- which includes medical expenses.
: QUANTUM IN MVC.NO.2578/12:
(i) Pain and Sufferings,
The petitioner in the present case-Smt.Shanaz
Begum has been examined as PW3, who had produced
Discharge summary marked at Ex.P11 and her IP
Record is marked as Ex.P42. This document contents
wound certificate which makes out that she had
sustained contusion of lungs, fracture of 2nd 3rd ribs on
left side, fracture of lower end of left radius and
laceration over right eye brow with fracture of orbit
bones and these injuries are grievous in nature.
Ex.P11-Discharge summary makes out that she was
admitted on 07.12.2011 and during hospitalization, she
had undergone CR and B/L cast application and
SCCH.13 28 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
debridement and suturing of lacerated wound and
discharged on 12.12.2011. So, taking into consideration
the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner here
i.e. fracture of 2nd and 3rd ribs of left side and fracture
of lower end of left radius and laceration over right eye
brow with fracture of orbit bones with lacerated wound
over right eye brow, she having treated as in patient for
five days, it is reasonable to hold that she is entitled for
a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards pain and
sufferings.
(ii) Medical Expenses:
The petitioner has produced 8 medical bills to the
tune of Rs.1,12,095/- along with 21 prescriptions
which are marked as Exs.P15 and Ex.P14. The payment
of IP bill is supported with receipt. As the petitioner
had taken treatment as an inpatient for five days as
inpatient and she had under gone Closed reduction and
B/L cost application on 07.12.2011 and due to
diminision of vision in right eye, she undergone
treatment, she might have incurred medical expenses
for pharmacy and other requirement. As such, the
SCCH.13 29 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
petitioner is entitled for the said amount. Hence, I hold
that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,12,095/- towards medical expenses.
(iii) Conveyance, Nourishment, food and
attending charges :-
Petitioner has undergone treatment as inpatient
at Axon hospital from 07.12.2011 to 12.12.2011 for
five days and she has taken regular follow-up treatment
at least for two months. Though there is no definite
evidence on the record regarding the amount spent
towards the nourishment, conveyance, food and
attending charges, having regard to the duration of the
treatment, this tribunal feel to provide Rs.3,000/-
(Rs.600 per day x 5 days) which is the just and fair
compensation.
(iv) Loss of income during laid down period:
PW3 has stated in her chief examination that
during the course of treatment, her daughter Asma
Sulthana, who was running a Syber café and earning
Rs.12,000/-p.m. was looking after her and for about
SCCH.13 30 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
five months, she could not do the work and suffer loss
of earning. Further, she had stated that prior to the
accident, she was hale and healthy and was doing
tailoring work and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. and due to
the accidental injury, she cannot do any work and
suffer loss of earning. The petitioner herein is a 45
years old as per the medical documents. So, taking
into consideration the age of the petitioner as she has
stated that she was doing Tailoring work and the
accident having taken place in the year 2011, her
notional income can be reasonably held as Rs.5,000/-
p.m. Looking to the nature of injuries i.e. contusion of
lungs, fracture of 2nd 3rd ribs on left side, fracture of
lower end of left radius and laceration over right eye
brow with fracture of orbit bones, she requires complete
rest at least for a period of four months. So, during this
period, the petitioner will be have no income. Hence, at
the rate of Rs.5,000/- for a period of four months, the
petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards
loss of income during laid down period.
Hence, the following calculation:-
SCCH.13 31 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 60,000/-
2. Medical Expenses: 1,12,095/-
3. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 3,000/-
and attending charges:
4. Loss of income during laid down 20,000/-
period:
Total Rs.1,95,095/-
Hence, this tribunal feels that it is just and
proper to award the compensation of Rs.1,95,095/-
which is the just and fair compensation.
: QUANTUM IN MVC.NO.2577/12:
Pain and Sufferings, medical expenses,
conveyance, nourishment, food and attending
charges:
The father and natural guardian of the minor
petitioner-Mr.Adil Basha had been examined as PW4.
By adducing oral evidence, he had produced Wound
certificate which is marked as Ex.P17, Discharge
summary as Ex.P18, 3 Prescriptions and 3 medical bills
as Exs.P19 and P20. As per wound certificate, the
petitioner who is a minor aged about 4 years, had
sustained cut injury over left side of upper lip which is
a simple injury. Her IP record marked as Ex.P41 and
SCCH.13 32 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Discharge summary makes out that she was treated as
inpatient for one day i.e. having admitted on
07.12.2011 and discharged on 08.11.2012 and she had
undergone wound debridement and suturing of
lacerated wound. There was swelling over left lower eye
lid. Ex.P19 and P20 are the prescriptions and medical
bills to show that she had incurred medical expenses of
Rs.27,265/-. Hence, taking into consideration, the
nature of injuries, number of days having treated as
inpatient and medical expenses incurred for her
treatment, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is
entitled for global compensation of Rs.40,000/- under
the heads of pain and sufferings, medical expenses and
conveyance charges etc.
: QUANTUM IN MVC.NO.2574/12:
(i) Pain and Sufferings,
The petitioner-Syed Babu @ Babu in the present
case had been examined as PW5. In order to prove his
contention, he has produced Wound certificate, 3
Discharge summaries, medical bills , 16 Lab test
reports, 33 prescriptions and 38 medical bills which are
marked as Exs.P.21, P22, P25 to P28. As per Ex.P21-
SCCH.13 33 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Wound certificate, the injured petitioner aged about 50
years had sustained cord contusion at C5-6 level,
bilateral maxillary fracture, multiple laceration over
forehead, face and back, CT scan shows contusion of
frontal lobes subarachnoid hemorrhage with fracture of
temporal bone, left orbit, ethmoid bone and these
injuries are grievous in nature. Amongst these
discharge summaries, one is at Ex.P22 i.e. Discharge
summary of Axon Specialty Hospital for having
admitted on 05.11.2012 cannot be taken into
consideration as it is for the treatment taken prior to
the accident which is not in connection to the
accidental injuries which is said to have been taken
place on 07.12.2013 and it was for the treatment of
urinary tract infection. The Discharge summary of
Poornima Hospital, for having admitted on 24.01.2012
and discharged on 30.01.12, which makes out that the
alleged history of RTA on 07.12.2011 was referred in
the said document, where multiple lacerated injury over
fore head, face, pelvic had been noted. He underwent
ORIF, debridement and dressing was also done. The
Discharge summary of National Institute of Unani
SCCH.13 34 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
medicine Hospital, makes out that he was treated from
16.05.12 to 19.05.12. Ex.P25 are the medical
certificate which makes out that the petitioner is
suffering from Falije Atraf (Paralysis) The certificate
issued by the Anesthesiologist makes out that the
petitioner had met with road traffic accident and
sustained multiple grievous injuries . He had head
injury with sub arachnid hemorrhage , multiple maxilla
facial fracture with cervical injury. His IP record is
marked as Ex.P38 which makes out that he was
admitted to Axon Hospital on 07.012.2011 and he was
treated till 13.01.2012. On perusal of the medical
records, it makes out that the injuries sustained are
grievous in nature and he had undergone ACDF
(Anterior cervical Discectomy C5-6 with fusion with iliac
crest grafting with places and screw fixation. The doctor
had also noted the complication anticipated, high risk
consent was also taken from the patient. Hence, taking
into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by
the petitioner, it is reasonable to hold that she is
entitled for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards
pain and sufferings.
SCCH.13 35 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
(ii) Medical Expenses:
The petitioner in the present case had produced 3
discharge summaries which are marked as Ex.P22,
which makes out that he had taken treatment in three
different hospital, two medical bills, 16 Lab reports, 33
prescriptions and 38 medical bills to the tune of
Rs.2,90,835/- which are marked as Exs.P25 to P28. IN
his chief examination, he had stated that he had lost
some of the medical bills and prescriptions and he got
reimbursement of Rs.2,49,461/- from ESI out of the
medical bills produced amounting to Rs.5,04,606/-.
Now, he is producing the documents in connection to
the non claimed amount which totally comes to
Rs.2,90,835/- towards medical bills which are
produced as per Ex.p28. In the cross examination of
PW1, it is suggested that as he had received entire
medical reimbursement, he had not produced the copy
of those documents which totally comes to
Rs.5,04,606/-, but this fact is denied by PW5. The
Letter at sl.No.37 of Ex.P28 issued by the ESI medical
service board which makes out that under IP
No.5340807535, bill No.31/12, the petitioner-Babu had
SCCH.13 36 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
claimed the amount of Rs.5,04,606/-, the concern ESI
authority have held that he is entitled for Rs.2,49,461/-
Now, the medical bills which are produced before the
Tribunal are marked as Ex.P28 are the original bills of
Axon Pharma, and consultancy fee receipt of Axon
Specialty hospital, and national Institute of Unani
Medicine and other bills towards ward charges and
pharmacy which the petitioner had purchased the
medicine. The In patient bill of Axon hospital at
sl.No.36 of Ex.p28, is for Rs.22,170/- and the hospital
authority have given discount of Rs.2,170/- and as per
receipt at Sl.No.36, the petitioner has paid a sum of
Rs.20,000/- after deduction the discounted amount.
So, the petitioner is entitled for medical bills with
regard to the available receipts which are placed before
the Tribunal. As per Ex.P28 of sl.No.37, though only
Rs.2,49,461/- is paid from ESI corporation, the
petitioner cannot claim the different amount of
Rs.2,55,135/-, as no supporting document is produced
to make out that he had incurred medical expenses
towards his treatment which has been rejected by the
ESI authority. Not even a copy or any documents
SCCH.13 37 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
produced before the Tribunal to make out that the
petitioner has produced medical documents towards
the said amount and as per the provisions of ESI, the
disallowed amount is Rs.2,55,133/-. Hence, the
petitioner is entitled for only a sum of Rs.35,702/-
towards medical expenses.
(iii) Conveyance, Nourishment, food and
attending charges :-
Petitioner has undergone treatment as inpatient
at Axon hospital from 07.12.2011 to 13.01.2012 for 24
days, in Poornima Hospital for six days and in National
Institute of Unani Medicine Hospital for three days, in
all, 45 days and he has taken regular follow-up
treatment at least for two months. Though there is no
definite evidence on the record regarding the amount
spent towards the nourishment, conveyance, food and
attending charges, having regard to the duration of the
treatment, this tribunal feel to provide Rs.27,000/-
(Rs.600 per day x 45 days) which is the just and fair
compensation.
SCCH.13 38 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
(iv) Loss of Earned Leave benefit during laid
down period:
The petitioner who had been examined as PW5
had stated that he was treated as inpatient at ICU and
emergency operation was done to his head, face, fore
head, back of the body wherein open reduction was
done and steel implants were inserted and conservative
treatment was given to the other injuries. Thereafter,
he was shifted to Poornima hospital on 24.01.2012
where he was treated continuously for bed sore and
they he was admitted to National Institute of Unani
Medicine Hospital, Bengaluru, on 14.06.2012 wherein
treatment and physiotherapy was given and discharged
on 09.07.2013 with an advise for regular follow up
treatment, bed rest and nutritious food. Again, he was
admitted to Axon Hospital on 05.011.2013 wherein
necessary treatment was given by undergoing
operations and discharged on 12.11.2012. It is
deposed by him that prior to the accident, he was hale
and healthy, working as Class 4 employee at KFCSC
Ltd. , drawing a salary of Rs.22,000/- p.m. and due to
the accidental injuries, he could not attend the work for
SCCH.13 39 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
a period of 13 months and suffered loss of earning.
Ex.P23 is the Order issued from District Manager
(South), KSFTC Ltd., Kadiranahalli, Bengaluru, which
makes out that the petitioner herein was class 4
employee in their department and he had been granted
earned leave (EL) on medical ground from 07.02.2012
to 12.06.2012 for 127 days. The other medical records
makes out that the accident had been taken place on
07.12.2011, he was admitted to Axon Hospital on the
very same day and got discharged on 13.01.2012,
thereafter, he was admitted to Poornima Hospital on
24.01.2012 and discharged on 30.01.2012 and then
admitted to National Institute of Unani Medicine
Hospital on 16.05.2012 and discharged on 19.5.2012.
So, this makes out that he was on continuous
treatment and till the availment of earned leave from
07.02.2012 from the date of accident, it had to be
considered as leave period. So, for a period of 127
days, as per Ex.P23 and also for the entire month of
January 2012 and 24 days in the month of December
2011 and 6 days in the month of Feb.2012, totally, for a
period of 188 days and this period should be considered
SCCH.13 40 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
as leave period which the petitioner had availed as he
could not attend to his duty on account of accidental
injury sustained. If at all the petitioner had retain the
earned leave on his credit, he could have surrendered
the same and avail EL benefit, but he had used the said
EL on medical ground as he was unable to attend to his
duties. Hence, this has to be considered as leave which
the petitioner has suffered from the benefit of availing
EL benefit.
The petitioner had stated in his evidence that he
is drawing salary of Rs.22,000/- p.m., but as per
Ex.P30-Salary certificate of the petitioner for the month
of December 2013 makes out that his monthly gross
salary is Rs.17,70/-. Ex.P23 makes out that he was
working as class-4 employee in KFCSC. Ltd. So, as per
Ex.P30, his monthly income can be taken as
Rs.17,750/-. So, for a period of 188 days, i.e. six
months and 8 days. So, it is reasonable to hold that for
a period of six months, the petitioner had suffered loss
of his earned leave benefit. By considering the monthly
salary of the petitioner as Rs.17,750/- for a period of
SCCH.13 41 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
six months, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.1,06,500/- towards loss of income during laid down
period.
(v) Loss of future income:
The petitioner in the present case, had sustained
grievous injury by availing six months leave, on account
of accidental injuries, having taken treatment as in
patient for a total period of 45 days, he had not opted to
examine the doctor who had treated him nor assessed
the disability. As the petitioner is a Govt. employee, any
amount of disability will not come in the way of his
employment. So, the petitioner is not entitled for any
amount of compensation towards loss of future income
due to disability.
(vi) Loss of Amenities in life:
The petitioner herein had sustained multiple
fracture i.e. bilateral maxillary fracture, multiple
laceration over forehead, face and back, having
undergone surgery on back and he being at the age of
50 years at the time of accident, on account of grievous
injuries, which the petitioner had sustained, whereby
the result of injury had led to Paralysis for some period
SCCH.13 42 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
as he has sustained cervical injury and also bed sore.
So, taking into consideration of this fact, the petitioner
has lost his normal life and also unhappiness, which he
faces through out his life on account of injuries
sustained, the petitioner is entitled for loss of
amenities. By considering the nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioner and difficulties he is facing
after undergoing surgeries on account of injuries, it is
reasonable to hold that the petitioner is entitled for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities.
Hence, the following calculation:-
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 75,000/-
2. Medical Expenses: 35,702/-
3. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 27,000/-
and attending charges:
4. Loss of Earned Leave benefit 1,06,500/-
during laid down period:
5. Loss of amenities in life: 50,000/-
Total Rs.2,94,202/-
Hence, this tribunal feels that it is just and
proper to award the compensation of Rs.2,94,202/-
which is the just and fair compensation.
SCCH.13 43 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
: QUANTUM IN MVC.NO.2575/12:
(i) Pain and Sufferings,
In the present case, the petitioner by name- Imran
Khan Babu @ Imran had been examined as PW6, who
has produced his Discharge summary, medical bills
and Prescriptions which are marked as Exs.P34 to P36.
His two IP records are together marked as Ex.P39. as
per IP record, he was admitted on 07.12.2011 and
discharged on 13.12.2011 and he was again admitted
on 25.01.2013 for implant removal. As per Ex.P34, he
had deep lacerated wound over left side of face and
fracture of left zygomatic arch and he had hairline
fracture of left frontal bone involving anterior and
posterior cortex of left frontal sinus, anterior ethomoid
sinus and roof of the left orbit/orbital ridge,
communited fracture of lateral wall of left orbit, hairline
fracture of left nasal bone involving naso-maxillary
suture, communited fracture of anterior wall, postero-
lateral wall of left maxillary sinus, body of zygoma and
left zygomatic arch, fracture of medial wall (Lamina
Paparacea) of bilateral orbit, hairline fracture of anterior
wall and lateral wall of right maxillary sinus,
SCCH.13 44 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
communited fracture of greater and lesser wing of
sphenoid bone on left side involving the left optic canal,
superior and inferior orbital fissure and minimally
displaced fracture of left squamous and petrous
temporal bone. He was admitted on 25.01.2013 and got
discharged on 26.01.13 for removal of implants and
reconstruction of left ala of nose. So, taking into
consideration, the multiple fractures sustained by the
petitioner and number of days of treatment taken, it is
reasonable to hold that she is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
sufferings.
(ii) Medical Expenses:
The petitioner has produced 14 medical bills to
the tune of Rs.66,436/- along with 12 prescriptions
which are marked as Exs.P36 and Ex.P35. As the
petitioner had taken treatment as an inpatient for
twice and he had under gone ORIF for maxilla left side
orbit and zygoma, he might have incurred medical
expenses for pharmacy and other requirement. As
such, the petitioner is entitled for the said amount.
SCCH.13 45 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.66,436/- towards medical expenses.
(iii) Conveyance, Nourishment, food and
attending charges :-
Petitioner has undergone treatment as inpatient
at Axon hospital from 07.12.2011 to 13.12.2011 and
one day on 25.01.2013 for removal of implant, in all
totally for seven days and he has taken regular follow-
up treatment at least for two months. Though there is
no definite evidence on the record regarding the amount
spent towards the nourishment, conveyance, food and
attending charges, having regard to the duration of the
treatment, this tribunal feel to provide Rs.4,200/-
(Rs.600 per day x 7 days) which is the just and fair
compensation.
(iv) Loss of income during laid down period:
Petitioner in the present case had stated that he is
working as Process Associates at M/s.Manthan
Software Services, Bangalore, drawing a salary of
Rs.32,000/- p.m. and due to the accidental injury, he
SCCH.13 46 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
could not go to work for a period of six months and
suffered loss of earning. In order to prove with regard
to his salary, employment and leave period entitlement
etc., he had not produce any documents and even this
fact is admitted in his cross examination. So, as the
petitioner had not produced any documents with regard
to his salary, period of leave availed during the period of
treatment, this Tribunal is unable to assess the amount
for loss of earned leave or loss of salary. But as the
petitioner sustained multiple fracture as noted in the
Discharge summary which is marked as Ex.P34,
whereby, he being aged about 30 years, will normally
lead difficulty in leading normal life on account of
injuries, he will also loose his happiness with the
surgery wound which he had all over his body. Apart
from that he was just aged about 30 years, when he
met with an accident. So, taking into consideration of
this fact, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner is
entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards loss of
amenities.
Hence, the following calculation:-
SCCH.13 47 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Medical Expenses: 66,436/-
3. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 4,200/-
and attending charges:
4. Loss of amenities: 75,000/-
Total Rs.2,45,636/-
Hence, this tribunal feels that it is just and
proper to award the compensation of Rs.2,45,636/-
which is the just and fair compensation.
17. As per Sec.171 of the Motor Vehicle's Act,
where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for
compensation, it can direct that in addition to the
amount of compensation, simple interest shall be paid
at such rate and from such date nor earlier than the
date of making the claim. As per ruling reported in ILR
2000 Karnataka 1098, the case of Puttanna and
another -vs- Lakshmana and others, it is held that
unless there are special circumstances, interest that
has to be awarded on the compensation amount is 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Therefore, I hold that the petitioners in all the cases are
entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
SCCH.13 48 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
18. So far as liability is concerned, it is not in
dispute that on the date of accident the vehicle was
duly insured with 2nd respondent and 1st respondent is
the owner of the offending vehicle which caused the
accident. Possession of valid DL by the driver of
offending vehicle is also not in dispute. Therefore,
respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the
offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation. However, in view of subsistence of
insurance policy, 2nd respondent-insurance company
shall deposit compensation amount in the court with
interest at 6% p.a. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in all the
cases accordingly.
19. Issue No.3 in all the cases:- In view of my
findings on issue No.1 and 2 of all the cases, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Claim Petitions in MVC.Nos.2579/12, 2574/12 to 2578/12 filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act are allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
SCCH.13 49 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in the following MVC cases, with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
MVC.2579/12 Rs.1,22,505/- MVC.2576/12 Rs.40,000/- MVC.2578/12 Rs.1,95,095/- MVC.2577/12 Rs.40,000/- MVC.2574/12 Rs.2,94,202/- MVC.2575/12 Rs.2,45,636/-
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in all the cases within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.No.2579/12 and 2576/12, same shall be disbursed to the respective petitioners on proper identification, as it is a meager amount.
Entire compensation amount awarded in MVC.No.2577/12 shall be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner till she attains age of SCCH.13 50 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 majority and Rs.50,000/- each in the name of the petitioners in MVC.No.2574/12 and 2578/12 and Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of petitioner in MVC.No.2575/12 shall be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of their choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the respective petitioners MVC.No.2574/12, 2575/12, and 2578/12 through the cheque under proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.2579/12 and the copy thereof in other cases.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December 2016.) (PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru SCCH.13 51 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners in all the cases PW.1 : Smt.Syed Haajirabi Mehaboob PW.2 : Smt.Syed Omaria @ Omaira PW.3 : Smt.Shanaz Begum PW.4 : Sri.Adil Basha PW.5 : Sri.Syed Babu @ Babu PW.6 : Sri.Imran Khan Babu @ Imran PW.7 : Dr.Kiran List of documents marked for petitioners :
Ex.P-1 : FIR
Ex.P-2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-3 : IMV report
Ex.P-4 : Discharge summary
Ex.P-5 : Medical bills No.23
Ex.P-6 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P-7 : 33 CC of Discharge summaries
Ex.P-8 : 4 Lab reports
Ex.P-9 : Prescriptions
Ex.P-10 : 15 Medical bills for Rs.17,300/-
Ex.P-11 : Discharge summary
Ex.P-12 : 4 OP Slips
Ex.P-13 : 2 Lab Reports
Ex.P-14 : 21 Prescriptions
Ex.P-15 : 8 Medical bills for Rs.1,12,095/-
Ex.P-16 : 5 X-rays
Ex.P-17 : CC of wound certificate
Ex.P-18 : Discharge summary
Ex.P-19 : 3 Prescriptions
Ex.P-20 : 3 Medical bills for Rs.27,265/-
Ex.P-21 : Wound certificate3
Ex.P-22 : 3 Discharge summaries
Ex.P-23 : Leave certificate
Ex.P-24 : Xerox copy of ESI Temporary Identity
certificate
Ex.P-25 : 2 Medical bills
Ex.P-26 : 16 Lab reports
SCCH.13 52 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Ex.P-27 : 33 prescriptions
Ex.P-28 : 38 medical bills for Rs.2,90,835/-
Ex.P-29 : 2 CDs.
Ex.P-30 : Salary slips
Ex.P-31 : B Lab reports
Ex.P-32 : 36 prescriptions
Ex.P-33 : 42 Medical bills for Rs.21,685/-
Ex.P-34 : Discharge summary
Ex.P-35 : 12 Prescriptions
Ex.P-36 : 14 medical bills for Rs.66,436/-
Ex.P-37 : Photo with CD
Ex.P-38 : IP record with one X-ray pertains to
MVC.No.2574/12
Ex.P-39 : Two IP records pertains to
MVC.No.2575/12
Ex.P-40 : IP record pertains to MVC.No.2576/12
Ex.P-41 : IP record pertains to MVC.No.2577/12
Exs.P-42 & : IP record with Four X-rays pertains to
P43 MVC.No.2578/12
Ex.P-44 : IP record pertains to MVC.No.2579/12
Witnesses & documents for respondents in these cases:
RW1 : Smt.Anuradha
RW2 : Mr.M.Mallesh
RW3 : Mr.H.B.Guruprasad
Ex.R1 : Charge sheet with other documents
Ex.R2 : Xerox copy of DL.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.)
II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru ** SCCH.13 53 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.2574/12 PETITIONER: Sri.Syed Babu @ Babu, S/o Abdulla, Aged about 50 years, R/at No.204, Vijanapura, Dasthagiri Road, Bengaluru-560 016.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS : 1. Mr.Venkatesh R. S/o Ramappa, No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401) Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha, W/o Venkatesh R., No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Environ Towers 60/4, Hosur Main Road, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.
SCCH.13 54 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012) (By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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 before Smt. M.Panchakshari, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petitions filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:SCCH.13 55 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,94,202/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount Rs.50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner for a period of 3 years in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of their choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to him through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH.13 56 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.SCCH.13 57 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No. 2575/12.
PETITIONER: Sri.Imran Khan Babu @ Imran,
: S/o Syed Babu,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.1897, Vijinapura, Kothnur, Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru-560 016.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS : 1. Mr.Venkatesh R. S/o Ramappa, No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401) Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha, W/o Venkatesh R., No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Environ Towers 60/4, Hosur Main Road, SCCH.13 58 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012) (By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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 before Smt. M.Panchakshari, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:SCCH.13 59 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.2,45,636/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of petitioner shall be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of his choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to him through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- . Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH.13 60 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.SCCH.13 61 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No. 2576/12.
PETITIONER: Smt.Syed Omaira @ Omaira, W/o Imran, Aged about 27 years, R/at Old No.22, New No.222, Behind Lakshmi Tent, Chikkamachanahalli, Bengaluru.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Mr.Venkatesh R. S/o Ramappa, No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401) Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha, W/o Venkatesh R., No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Environ Towers 60/4, Hosur Main Road, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.SCCH.13 62 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012) (By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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 before Smt. M.Panchakshari, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:SCCH.13 63 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount Rs.40,000/-to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount same shall be disbursed to the petitioner on proper identification, as it is a meager amount.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- .
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH.13 64 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.SCCH.13 65 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.2577/12 PETITIONER: Baby Ayesha Siddique, 4 years, D/o Adil Basha, Since minor, represented by her father/natural guardian- Sri.Adil Basha, S/o Abdul Saban K., Aged about 27 years, Both are R/at No.413, B.N.Pura, D.V.Nagar, Next to I.T.I. Layout, Bengaluru-560 016.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Mr.Venkatesh R. S/o Ramappa, No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401) Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha, W/o Venkatesh R., No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager, SCCH.13 66 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Environ Towers 60/4, Hosur Main Road, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012) (By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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 before Smt. M.Panchakshari, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :- SCCH.13 67 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded within two months from today.
Entire compensation amount awarded shall be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner till she attains age of majority in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of their choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH.13 68 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.SCCH.13 69 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.2578/12 PETITIONER: Smt.Shanaz Begum, 45 years W/o Syed Babu, R/at No.204, Vijanapura, Dasthagiri Road, Bengaluru.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Mr.Venkatesh R. S/o Ramappa, No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401) Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha, W/o Venkatesh R., No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Environ Towers 60/4, Hosur Main Road, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012) SCCH.13 70 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 (By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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 before Smt. M.Panchakshari, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:SCCH.13 71 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,95,095/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount Rs.50,000/- in the name of the petitioner shall be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of their choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- .
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH.13 72 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.SCCH.13 73 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.2579/12 PETITIONER: Smt.Syed Hajirabi Mehboob, W/o Syed Mahboob Diwan Basha, aged about 65 years, R/at No.333, 6th Cross. Chikkamaranahalli, Bengaluru-560 054.
( By Sri.K.N.Harish Babu, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Mr.Venkatesh R. S/o Ramappa, No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(RC Owner of the Toyota Qualis bearing Reg.No.KA-08-M-401) Since dead by his LRs.
Smt.Anuradha, W/o Venkatesh R., No.3345, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapura -562 101.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., Environ Towers 60/4, Hosur Main Road, Electronic City, Bengaluru-560 100.
(I.P.No.1409712311005422 valid SCCH.13 74 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012 from 05.12.2011 to 04.12.2012) (By Sri.H.N.Keshav Prashanth, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/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 before Smt. M.Panchakshari, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:SCCH.13 75 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,22,505/- to the petitioner in the following MVC cases, with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount same shall be disbursed to the petitioner on proper identification, as it is a meager amount.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.SCCH.13 76 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU.SCCH.13 77 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Common Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate order.
ORDER
The Claim Petitions in
MVC.Nos.2579/12, 2574/12 to 2578/12 filed under Sec.166 of M.V. Act are allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in the following MVC cases, with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petitions till the date of deposit in court.
MVC.2579/12 Rs.1,22,505/- MVC.2576/12 Rs.40,000/- MVC.2578/12 Rs.1,95,095/- MVC.2577/12 Rs.40,000/-SCCH.13 78 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
MVC.2574/12 Rs.2,94,202/- MVC.2575/12 Rs.2,45,636/-
The Respondent No.2/Insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount awarded in all the cases within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount in MVC.No.2579/12 and 2576/12, same shall be disbursed to the respective petitioners on proper identification, as it is a meager amount.
Entire compensation amount awarded in MVC.No.2577/12 shall be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner till she attains age of majority and Rs.50,000/- each in the name of the petitioners in MVC.No.2574/12 and 2578/12 and Rs.1,50,000/- in the name of petitioner in MVC.No.2575/12 shall be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in any of the nationalized bank or scheduled bank of their choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the respective petitioners MVC.No.2574/12, 2575/12, and 2578/12 through the cheque under proper identification.SCCH.13 79 MVC.2579, 2574 to 2578/2012
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1000/- in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.2579/12 and the copy thereof in other cases.
Draw award accordingly.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru