Bangalore District Court
Neethakumar vs Magma Hdi General Insurance Co Ltd on 16 January, 2025
KABC020119932019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-17
Present: Sri. KANCHI MAYANNA GOUTAM B.A.L, LL.M.,
Member, MACT
XIX ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 16th day of January - 2025
MVC No.4246/2019 C/w 4245/2019 & 2749/2019
Parties in MVC No.4246/2019
Petitioner : Miss. Neetha Kumar
D/o Bhanukumar Krishnan,
Aged about 28 years,
R/at: Thripunithura S O
Ernakula, Kerala State 682301.
(By Sri. R H Deshpande, Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondents : 1. Magma HDI General Ins. Co.
No.36, 2nd floor, Minerva Circle,
J C Road, Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. S Krishna Kishore, Adv.,)
SCCH-17 2 MVC No. 2749/19
2. Sinivas H
(Since is died represent by his Lrs)
2(a) Sri Hanumanthappa
R/at House No.3, 4th cross,
Parvathi nagar, Laggere,
Bangalore 560058.
2(b) Smt Gowramma
W/o Hanumanthappa,
R/at House No.3, 4th cross,
Parvathi nagar, Laggere,
Bangalore 560058.
(By Sri. Rakesh H D, Adv.,)
Parties in MVC No.4245/2019
Petitioner : Anil Kumar K @ Anil K Nair
S/o Krishnan Nair,
Aged about 37 years,
No.649, Vishwarinilaya,
1st Indiragandhi street,
Near Madonna School,
Udayanagara, Dooravani nagara,
Bangalore 560016.
(By Sri. R H Deshpande, Adv.,)
Vs.
Respondents : 1. Magma HDI General Ins. Co.
No.36, 2nd floor, Minerva Circle,
J C Road, Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. S Krishna Kishore, Adv.,)
SCCH-17 3 MVC No. 2749/19
2. Sinivas H
(Since is died represent by his Lrs)
2(a) Sri Hanumanthappa
R/at House No.3, 4th cross,
Parvathi nagar, Laggere,
Bangalore 560058.
2(b) Smt Gowramma
W/o Hanumanthappa,
R/at House No.3, 4th cross,
Parvathi nagar, Laggere,
Bangalore 560058.
(Party in person)
Parties in MVC No.2749/2019
MVC 2749/2019 : Vinciraj N C
S/o Chellam N A,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at: No.311,
Fern Saroj Apartment,
7th cross, L B Shashthri nagara,
Vimanapura, Bangalore 560017.
(By Sri. R H Deshpande, Adv.,)
V/s
Respondents : 1. Magma HDI General Ins. Co.
No.36, 2nd floor, Minerva Circle,
J C Road, Bangalore 560027.
(By Sri. S Krishna Kishore, Adv.,)
SCCH-17 4 MVC No. 2749/19
2. Sinivas H
(Since is died represent by his Lrs)
2(a) Sri Hanumanthappa
R/at House No.3, 4th cross,
Parvathi nagar, Laggere,
Bangalore 560058.
2(b) Smt Gowramma
W/o Hanumanthappa,
R/at House No.3, 4th cross,
Parvathi nagar, Laggere,
Bangalore 560058.
(By Sri. Rakesh H D, Adv.,)
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners filed these petitions U/Sec.166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries
sustained by them in a road traffic accident that occurred
on 30-04-2015.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 30-04-2015 at about 4.30 a.m., the petitioners
were occupants of the Innova Car bearing No.
KA.41.A.2699 and were proceeding from Bangalore
towards Manipal on NH-75 K G circle, S C road and when
SCCH-17 5 MVC No. 2749/19
they reached near Dandiganahalli village,
Channarayapattana taluk, the driver of the said Car
driven the same at high speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, lost control over the vehicle, same is turtle to the
left side of the road and hence accident is caused. Due to
the impact the petitioners in all the cases fell down and
sustained head and other grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner in
MVC 4246/2019 was shifted to SSM hospital, Hassan
wherein first aid treatment was given and shifted to Fortis
hospital, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner was admitted
as inpatient and underwent surgery for which the
petitioner has spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards
medical and other allowances.
At the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and
healthy, working as a copy supervisor at Ogilvy and
Mather India Pvt Ltd., and earning Rs.1,00,000/- per
month. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner is
SCCH-17 6 MVC No. 2749/19
not able to continue with the work and lost earning
capacity.
After the accident, the petitioner in MVC 4245/2019
was shifted to SSM hospital, Hassan wherein first aid
treatment was given and shifted to Manipal hospital,
Bangalore, wherein he was admitted as inpatient for
which he has spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards
medical and other allowances.
At the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and
healthy, working as a Director at Ogilvy and Mather India
Pvt Ltd., and earning Rs.1,20,000/- per month. Due to
the accidental injuries, the petitioner took the bed rest for
the period of 4 months and lost his earnings during this
period.
After the accident, the petitioner in MVC 2749/2019
was shifted to SSM hospital, Hassan wherein first aid
treatment was given and shifted to Fortis hospital,
Bangalore, wherein he was admitted as inpatient for
SCCH-17 7 MVC No. 2749/19
which he has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards
medical and other allowances.
At the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and
healthy, he was a director at Ogilvy and Mather India Pvt
Ltd., and earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month. Due to the
accidental injuries, the petitioner was at bed rest for the
period of 4 months and now also he is taking treatment
as an out patient and lost his earnings.
The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent
No.2 being the insured of the Innova Car bearing No.
KA.41.A.2699 are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioners.
3. After service of notices the respondent No.1, 2(a)
and 2(b) have appeared through their respective counsels
and filed their respective written statements.
The respondent No.1 insurance company has filed
its written statement by admitting the issuance of policy
to the Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699. It is
SCCH-17 8 MVC No. 2749/19
contended that there is no compliance of Sec.134(c) and
158(6) of MA Act. Further it has denied the cause and
manner of accident by contending that the accident was
not caused due to the fault of the driver of the Innova
Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699, but when he tried to avoid
the accident with a vehicle coming in the opposite
direction, he took left turn of the vehicle and in that
process the vehicle fell on the left side of the road and
caused the accident. Further has denied the income and
avocation of the petitioners. It is contended that the
driver of the Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699 was
not having valid and effective DL at the time of the
accident and also the said car was not holding valid
permit and FC at the time of accident. The compensation
as claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.
Accordingly, respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the
petition against it.
SCCH-17 9 MVC No. 2749/19
The respondent No.2 was the owner of the alleged
offending Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699 and in
lieu of the death of respondent No.2 as per order dated
17-04-2023 the LR's of respondent No.2 were brought on
record.
In MVC 4246/2019 the respondent No.2(a) and 2(b)
were appeared and filed objections to the main petition by
contending that the petition filed by the petitioner is not
maintainable and also denied the entire contents of
petition filed by the petitioner. The respondent No.2(a)
and 2(b) also contended that they have lost the
respondent No.2 who is their son and in their old age they
are struggling for their livelihood. The respondent No.2
who is their son has the full knowledge about the
accident and the Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699.
Hence prays for dismissal of the petition.
SCCH-17 10 MVC No. 2749/19
In MVC No.2749/2019 and in MVC No.4245/2019
no objections were filed by the respondent No.2(a) and
2(b).
4. On the basis of rival contention, the following
issues have been framed :
ISSUES IN MVC No.4246, 4245 and 2749/2019
1. Whether the petitioners proves that,
they have sustained grievous injuries
due to the actionable negligent
driving of Car bearing Reg No.
KA.41.A.2699 by its driver, in RTA
took place on 30-04-2015 at about
4.30 a.m on NH-75 road, Dandigana-
halli, C R Patna Taluk?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled
for compensation? If so at what rate?
From whom?
3. What order or award?
5. As per order dated 27-09-2024 by considering
the same cause of action, MVC No.4245/2016 and
2749/2019 were clubbed with MVC 4246/2019 for
common trial from the stage of respondent evidence.
SCCH-17 11 MVC No. 2749/19
6. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner
in MVC No. 4246/2019 is examined as PW.1 and got
marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 8. On the other hand
the assistant secretary of KSTA is examined as RW.1 and
got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R9 and the official
of 1st respondent insurance company is examined as
RW.2 and got marked the documents at Ex.R10 & R11.
The petitioner in MVC No. 4245/2019 is examined
as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 13
and also examined DR. S A Somashekar as PW.2 through
them Ex.P14 & P15 were got marked.
The petitioner in MVC No. 2749/2019 is examined
as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to 21.
Two witnesses were examined as PW.2 & 3 and got
marked Ex.P22 to 28.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the material
evidence that are available on record.
SCCH-17 12 MVC No. 2749/19
8. My findings on the above issues are as under.
ISSUES IN MVC. 4246, 4245 and 2749/2019
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per the final orders
for the following:-
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE PETITIONS:
9. The petitioners to prove their claim have
produced certified copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahazar
along with sketch, IMV report, wound certificate and
charge sheet which are marked at Ex.P1 to 6.
10. On perusal of Ex.P1- FIR is registered on the
basis of Ex.P2 first information given by one Jagadish.
The said Jagadish is also an inmate of the car and
injured in the said accident. In the Ex.P2 the first
informant being the injured and eye witness alleged the
rash and negligent driving by the driver of Innova Car
bearing No. KA.41.A.2699 and stated that the driver of
SCCH-17 13 MVC No. 2749/19
Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699 while trying to
overtake the ahead going vehicle has lost his control and
turtle the vehicle by which they got injuries.
11. After the registration of FIR the IO has
conducted the spot mahazar and rough sketch as per
Ex.P3 and on perusal of the rough sketch it is found that
the accident spot is in the left edge of the road and it
shows that the driver of Innova Car bearing No.
KA.41.A.2699 tried to over take the ahead going vehicle
from the left side and thereby lost his control. The Ex.P4
is IMV report where major portion of the Innova Car
bearing No. KA.41.A.2699 has got severe damages. No
other vehicles are involved and got damaged in the
accident. The accident spot is on the left side of the road,
which once again evidentiates the negligence of driver of
Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699.
12. In a claim for compensation under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimant is to prove the
SCCH-17 14 MVC No. 2749/19
incident only on preponderance of probabilities and the
standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
required as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
decision reported in 2011 SAR (CIVIL) 319 Kusum and
others V/s Satbir and others.
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of
Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport
Corporation and others (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein it
is held that, it was necessary to be borne in mind that
strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a
particular manner may not be possible to be done by the
claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their
case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability.
The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not
have been applied.
13. The Ex.P6 charge sheet is came to be filed on
the driver of Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699,
thereby it can be infer that the IO has opined that the
SCCH-17 15 MVC No. 2749/19
negligence is on the part of driver of Innova Car bearing
No. KA.41.A.2699 after the detailed investigation.
At this juncture, I would like to quote the following
judgment wherein it states that;
2009 ACJ 287 ( National Ins. Co. V/s.
Pushparama and others), wherein it is held that,
Certified copy of the criminal court records such as
FIR, recovery and mechanical inspection of the
vehicle or documents are of sufficient proof to
reach the conclusion that the rider was negligent.
Proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act are not akin
to proceedings in a Civil Court. Hence, strict rules
of evidence are not required to be followed in this
regard.
Hence, by relying on the said precedent and in the
absence of rebuttal evidence and denial in respect of
police documents marked at Ex.P1 to 6, this court is of
the opinion that the accident has happened due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of Innova Car
bearing No. KA.41.A.2699.
SCCH-17 16 MVC No. 2749/19
14. In support of these documentary evidence, if we
perused the oral evidence of the petitioners on this point,
even though the respondent No.1 cross-examined the
petitioners, nothing been elicited to disbelieve the case of
the petitioners in respect of negligence of driver of Innova
Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699. The Ex.P6 charge sheet
also supports the view of this court, as the charge sheet
filed for the offence punishable under Sec. 279, 337 &
338 of IPC against the driver of Innova Car bearing No.
KA.41.A.2699.
15. Immediately after the accident the petitioner in
MVC 2749/2019 admitted to the hospital and as per
Ex.P5 marked in MVC 2749/2019 the petitioner has got
grievous injuries. In the same way, after the accident the
petitioner in MVC 4246/2019 admitted to the hospital
and as per Ex.P6 marked in MVC 4246/2019 the
petitioner has got grievous injuries. After the accident the
petitioner in MVC 4245/2019 admitted to the hospital
SCCH-17 17 MVC No. 2749/19
and as per Ex.P4 marked in MVC 4245/2019 the
petitioner has got simple injuries. These documents along
with contents of charge sheet establishes that the
petitioners in all the cases have got injuries in the said
accident.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
vehemently argues that there is an inordinate delay of 3
days in lodging the FIR and the same cannot be brushed
aside lightly, instead has to be construed as a
circumstance showing that the case is an afterthought
and the offending vehicle is implicated in the case even
though it is not involved in the accident and the accident
was not caused by the negligence of the alleged offending
vehicle. But not every delay would move this court to
view the case of the petitioners doubtfully. Because there
might be genuine circumstances that could have
contributed to the delay. In fact only if the delay is left
unexplained the same needs to be viewed seriously. No
SCCH-17 18 MVC No. 2749/19
doubt in the facts of this case, the accident occurred on
30-04-2015 at about 4.30 a.m., but the FIR was lodged
on 01-05-2015 at about 7.30 p.m., and hence it is
evident that the FIR is lodged after 3 days of occurrence
of the accident. But the informant in the Ex.P2 first
information it is stated that soon after the accident the
inmates of the car who were injured initially shifted to
SSM hospital, Hassan and thereafter shifted to Fortis
hospital for treatment. As such the complaint is lodged
belatedly. In this regard if we verify Ex.P2 first
information statement was taken by the police in the
Fortis hospital, Bangalore on 01-05-2015 itself. Along
with this the wound certificates produced by the
respective petitioners shows that on 30-04-2015 at about
9.15 a.m they have admitted in Bangalore Fortis hospital
for treatment with the alleged history of RTA on
30-04-2015. These documents supported the case of the
petitioner regarding the occurrence of accident. The
endeavor of the injured usually will be getting the
SCCH-17 19 MVC No. 2749/19
treatment to the injuries than thinking about the legal
formalities.
Perhaps the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others reported in AIR
2011 SC 1226, has observed thus:
"The purpose of lodging the FIR in motor accident cases
is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of
criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of
accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for
compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground
for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although
lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases,
delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for
such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate
satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of
reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless
kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of
tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if there
is delay, the same deserve to be condoned. In such
circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more
significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons.
If the court finds that there is no indication of
fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to
SCCH-17 20 MVC No. 2749/19
implicate innocent persons then even if there is a delay
in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed
merely on that ground."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
In the judgment reported in 2011 ACJ 911 between
Ravi V/s. Badrinarayan and others, wherein it is held as
follows;
"18. The cumulative effect of the
aforesaid events clearly established
that accident had taken place on
7.10.2001 at about 8.30 in the
morning on account of rash and
negligent reversing of the truck by
driver Badrinarayan, owned by
Respondent No. 2, Prahlad Singh.
Under these circumstances, it cannot
be said that delay in lodging the FIR
could have proved fatal to the claim
case filed by Ravi.
19. Narration of the aforesaid events
would show the bonafides of Suresh.
As mentioned herein above, a
consistent stand has been taken right
from the beginning till the lodging of
the FIR. The chronological events
narrated herein above inspire
confidence and it does not smack of a
concocted case which has been filed
against the driver and the owner of
the vehicle only with an intention to
get compensation.
SCCH-17 21 MVC No. 2749/19
20. It is well-settled that delay in
lodging FIR cannot be a ground to
doubt the claimant's case. Knowing
the Indian conditions as they are, we
cannot expect a common man to first
rush to the Police Station immediately
after an accident. Human nature and
family responsibilities occupy the
mind of kith and kin to such an extent
that they give more importance to get
the victim treated rather than to rush
to the Police Station. Under such
circumstances, they are not expected
to act mechanically with promptitude
in lodging the FIR with the Police.
Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot
be the ground to deny justice to the
victim. In cases of delay, the courts
are required to examine the evidence
with a closer scrutiny and in doing so;
the contents of the FIR should also be
scrutinized more carefully. If court
finds that there is no indication of
fabrication or it has not been
concocted or engineered to implicate
innocent persons then, even if there is
a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim
case cannot be dismissed merely on
that ground.
21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in
such type of cases is primarily to
intimate the police to initiate
investigation of criminal offences.
Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum
of accident so that the victim is able to
lodge a case for compensation but
SCCH-17 22 MVC No. 2749/19
delay in doing so cannot be the main
ground for rejecting the claim petition.
In other words, although lodging of
FIR is vital in deciding motor accident
claim cases, delay in lodging the same
should not be treated as fatal for such
proceedings, if claimant has been able
to demonstrate satisfactory and
cogent reasons for it. There could be
variety of reasons in genuine cases for
delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith
and kin of the victim are able to regain
a certain level of tranquility of mind
and are composed to lodge it, even if,
there is delay, the same deserves to be
condoned. In such circumstances, the
authenticity of the FIR assumes much
more significance than delay in
lodging thereof supported by cogent
reasons.
22. In the case in hand, the Claims
Tribunal as well as the High Court,
committed grave error in not
appeciating the mental agony through
which Suresh was passing, whose son
was severely injured.
23. In the light of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the considered
opinion that the MACT as well as High
Court committed error in coming to
the conclusion that lodging the FIR
belatedly would result in dismissal of
the claim petition".
SCCH-17 23 MVC No. 2749/19
Hence the delay of 3 days, in the light of reasons as
mentioned in the Ex.P2, complaint and wound certificate
it cannot be considered as inordinate.
17. The respondent No.1 insurance company
examined its official as RW.2 but the evidence of RW.2 in
respect of negligence cannot be considered as he is not
an eye witness and also his evidence is on the basis of
police documents which shows the negligence of the
driver of Innova Car.
18. As per well settled principle of law, the standard
of proof in the claim petition like the present is
preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds
to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the absence of
rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record
leading to show that, petitioners have sustained injuries
in the accident took place which is caused by the driver
of the the Innova Car bearing No. KA.41.A.2699 which
belonging to respondent No.2. There is no reasons to
SCCH-17 24 MVC No. 2749/19
discard the evidence of petitioners on the point of
negligence of the driver of Innova Car bearing No.
KA.41.A.2699. In the claim petition like present one strict
proof is not necessary but preponderance of probabilities
is sufficient. Accordingly, issue No.1 answered in the
affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.4246/2019:
19. As already held herein above, the petitioner
has proved that she has sustained injuries in RTA which
is caused by respondent No.1. Hence, the petitioner is
entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of
compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
20. The petitioner has produced wound certificate
as per Ex.P6 which shows that the petitioner sustained
three injuries, which are grievous in nature. The
petitioner has not examined the doctor who treated the
petitioner at the time of accident. Without the evidence of
SCCH-17 25 MVC No. 2749/19
doctor, it is not possible to believe that, the petitioner has
sustained disability due to grievous injuries.
21. According to the petitioner she was working as
Copy Supervisor at Ogilvy and Mather Ind Pvt Ltd and
was earning Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. To prove her avocation
and income, the petitioner has neither produced any
documents nor lead any evidence to show that after the
accident during the laid up period the petitioner has not
got any salary.
22. While determining the compensation this court
has to look into the pain and sufferings, medical
expenses, diet, food, nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges and loss of amenities and enjoyment
of life that the PW-1 has suffered, which are discussed
herein below:
(A) TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
The petitioner has relied upon Ex.P.6-wound
certificate, which make it crystal clear that PW-1 has
SCCH-17 26 MVC No. 2749/19
sustained 3 grievous injuries. Hence keeping in mind the
injuries mentioned in wound certificate, it can be said
that the petitioner must have undergone some amount of
physical pain and sufferings, for which, an amount of
Rs.75,000/- can be held to be just and proper
compensation under this head.
(B) TOWARDS DIET, FOOD, NOURISHMENT,
ATTENDANT AND CONVEYANCE CHARGES:
As already observed the Ex.P-6, makes it amply clear
that the petitioner underwent treatment for the injuries
sustained by her. During the said period the petitioner
might have taken assistance from others and taken diet
food. On consideration of the injuries sustained by the
petitioner this Tribunal is of the opinion that it is
just and proper to award an amount of Rs.40,000/-
under this head.
(C) TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNING CAPACITY
ON ACCOUNT OF PERMANENT DISABILITY:
It is necessary to note that the loss of future earning
SCCH-17 27 MVC No. 2749/19
capacity cannot be presumed and has to be proved with
cogent evidence. But interestingly the petitioner though
claims that she is unable to do any work and has become
disabled but she has not put in any efforts to prove the
disability by examining the doctor, who treated her. In
fact she has not even produced the disability certificate
issued by competent authority. In the absence of any
such material piece of evidence, it is very difficult for this
Court to assess the disability and thereby assess the loss
of earning capacity due to disability. This makes it clear
that the petitioner has not suffered any permanent
physical disability. At the time of cross-examination also
the PW.1 admitted that she has left the earlier job and
joined the new company from which she is getting more
salary and other benefits.
In the judgment reported in 2020(4) KCCR 2621
between Sri Nandish K. V/s United India Insurance Co.
Ltd. & another wherein it is held that no compensation
could be awarded towards the loss of earning capacity if
SCCH-17 28 MVC No. 2749/19
physical disability do not effect claimant's capacity to
work.
In this case at the time of cross-examination the
petitioner stated that she is joining new job and going to
get more salary and other benefits. No expert evidence is
also available to hold that the petitioner sustained
physical permanent disabilities. The answers given by
the petitioner in MVC 4246/2019 evidentiates that the
petitioner is continued in the service and no disability is
caused which effects her earning capacity. Hence, this
court has no option but to hold that the petitioner has
not suffered any permanent physical disability which has
resulted in reduction of her salary and hence she is not
entitled for any compensation under this head.
(D) TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP
PERIOD:
The petitioner has not made out any evidence or
grounds to hold that she sustained the loss of income
during the laid down period. Even though it is argued
SCCH-17 29 MVC No. 2749/19
that the petitioner has not got salary during the laid up
period as she was working in the private company, no
evidence is adduced in this regard. Hence, in the absence
of any evidence, petitioner is not entitled for any
amount under the head of loss of income during laid
up period.
(E) TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES AND
ENJOYMENT OF LIFE:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the injuries
sustained by her, which might certainly have deprived
her of the basic comforts and enjoyment. Therefore, it is
just and proper to award him a reasonable sum of
Rs.40,000/- under this head.
To sum up the above discussion, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation under the following
Towards pain and sufferings - Rs. 75,000/-
Towards diet, food, - Rs. 40,000/-
nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges
Towards loss of future earning - NIL
SCCH-17 30 MVC No. 2749/19
capacity
Loss of income during laid up - NIL
period
Towards loss of amenities - Rs. 40,000/-
Total - Rs. 1,55,000/-
Issue No.2 in MVC 4245/2019;
23. As already held herein above, the petitioner
has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which
is caused by respondent No.2. Hence, the petitioner is
entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of
compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
(A) TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: The
petitioner has relied upon Ex.P.4 -wound certificate,
which make it crystal clear that the petitioner in MVC
4245/2019 has sustained simple injury. The petitioner
stated in the petition itself that he was admitted to SSM
Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was taken and
admitted to Manipal hospital and took treatment as an
inpatient. As per the discharge summary marked at
SCCH-17 31 MVC No. 2749/19
Ex.P6 & P8 the petitioner sustained left hip posterior
dislocation with osteochondral fragments, Osteoarthritis
left hip and secondary to avascular necrosis. By
considering the nature of the injuries and period he
spent to overcome the pain and other allied effects of the
accident Rs.25,000/- may be awarded to the petitioner
under this head.
B) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced
medical bills as per Ex.P13, amounting to Rs.17,616/-.
These bills are not disputed by the respondents and no
grounds are made out to disbelieve these bills. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined
with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitle for the
reimbursement of the same by rounding of the same i.e.,
Rs.17,700/-.
C) Loss of income during laid up period: The
petitioner has stated that he was working as a Creative
Director at Ogilvy and Mather Inv Pvt Ltd., and getting
SCCH-17 32 MVC No. 2749/19
salary of Rs.1,20,000/- p.m. To prove the said fact the
petitioner has produced Ex.P9 appointment letter, Salary
slip at Ex.P9 and Ex.P11 Form No.16. Except producing
these documents the petitioner has not produced any
account statement to show that he was getting the salary
as mentioned in Ex.P9 & 10. The employer or the author
of Ex.P9 & P10 are also not examined before this
tribunal. When the PW.1 is cross examined he has
admitted that the salary was used to be credited to his
account and he can produce the account statement to
prove the exact income. But in spite of sufficient
opportunity the petitioner has not produced the said
documents to prove his avocation and income. As such
in the absence of proper evidence, it is just and
necessary to consider the notional income of the
petitioner at Rs.9,000/- p.m.
As per the discharge summaries marked at Ex.P6
& 8 the petitioner was admitted to Manipal Hospital from
SCCH-17 33 MVC No. 2749/19
30-04-2015 to 04-05-2015 for 5 days and once again to
Fortis hospital from 26-01-2020 to 31-01-2020 for 5
days. Thereafter usually the healing period has to be
considered for which in the absence of evidence, this
court is of the opinion that in total 4 months period
including 10 days inpatient period may be considered
under this head as a loss of income. So, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.9,000 X 4 months =
Rs.36,000/- during the laid up period.
D) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioner he has examined Dr. S A
Somashekar, Orthopedic Surgeon at Bowring and Lady
Curzon hospital as PW.2, through him OPD record and
X-ray are marked under Ex.P.14 & 15. PW.2 also
deposed that, he examined the petitioner and he has
stated that the petitioner sustained left hip posterior
dislocation with osteochondral fragments and
osteoarthritis left hip secondary to avascular necrosis.
SCCH-17 34 MVC No. 2749/19
According to this witness petitioner has sustained total
disability of the left lower limb at 50% and whole body
disability at 25%.
According to the petitioner he was working as
Creative Director at Ogilvy and Mather Ind Pvt Ltd., The
alleged injuries and the evidence of the PW.2 doctor
reveals that the petitioner complains of pain and
difficulty in walking and climbing stairs, inability to
squat and sit cross legged. The disability caused to the
petitioner may affect on his occupation to some extent.
Hence, I hold that the petitioner sustained disability of
15% to the whole body.
The petitioner has produced his Aadhaar card
marked at Ex.P7, as per these documents the date of
birth of the petitioner is shown as 12-09-1978. The
accident was occurred in the year - 2015. So, as on the
date of the accident the petitioner was aged 37 years.
SCCH-17 35 MVC No. 2749/19
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier
applicable to the age of petitioner is '15 '. Hence, I
inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.9,000/- X
12 X 15 X 15% =Rs.2,43,000/- which is the total loss of
future income.
E) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per
Ex.P6 & P8 discharge summaries, the petitioner took
treatment as inpatient for a period of 10 days. As per
discharge summaries the injuries sustained by the
petitioner are grievous in nature. By considering the
nature of the injuries and period he spent to overcome
the pain and other allied effects of the accident Hence
looking to the treatment taken by the petitioner and
injuries sustained he is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards food and nourishment,
conveyance.
F) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained
grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent
SCCH-17 36 MVC No. 2749/19
10 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or
pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in
need of attendant. No doubt that as per the discharge
summary marked at Ex.P8 the petitioner admitted to the
hospital after 5 years of the accident but the said
admission is also for the Osteoarthritis left hip. Hence
the said treatment is also considered. But by considering
the nature of the fracture as discussed above, it may be
considered to award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per
day i.e., Rs.10,000/- in total.
G) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of
life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the
injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have
deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment.
Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable
sum of Rs.30,000/- under this head.
SCCH-17 37 MVC No. 2749/19
To sum up the above discussion, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation under the following
Towards pain and sufferings - Rs. 25,000/-
Towards Medical expenses - Rs. 17,700/-
Towards diet, food, - Rs. 40,000/-
nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges
Towards loss of future earning - Rs. 2,43,000/-
capacity
Loss of income during laid up - Rs. 36,000/-
period
Attendant charges - Rs. 10,000/-
Towards loss of amenities - Rs. 30,000/-
Total - Rs. 4,01,700/-
Issue No.2 in MVC 2749/2019;
24. As already held herein above, the petitioner
has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which
is caused by respondent No.2. Hence, the petitioner is
entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of
compensation is to be ascertained on different heads.
SCCH-17 38 MVC No. 2749/19
(A) TOWARDS PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: The
petitioner has relied upon Ex.P.5 - wound certificate,
which make it crystal clear that PW-1 has sustained
grievous injuries. The petitioner stated in the petition
itself that he was admitted to SSM Hospital, wherein first
aid treatment was taken and admitted to Fortis hospital
and took treatment as an inpatient. As per the wound
certificate and discharge summary marked at Ex.P5 & 7
the petitioner sustained head injury with fracture of right
supra orbital bone, frontal bone, left fronto parietal and
temporal hemorrhagic contusion and sub arachnoid
bleed left tentorium cerebelli. By considering the nature
of the injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain
and other allied effects of the accident Rs.75,000/- may
be awarded to the petitioner under this head.
B) Medical expenses: The petitioner has produced
medical bills as per Ex.P13, amounting to Rs.51,451/-.
These bills are not disputed by the respondents and no
SCCH-17 39 MVC No. 2749/19
grounds are made out to disbelieve these bills. Looking
to the facts and circumstances of the case in combined
with the alleged injuries the petitioner is entitle for the
reimbursement of the same by rounding of the same i.e.,
Rs.51,500/-.
C) Loss of income during laid up period: The
petitioner has stated that he was working as a Creative
Director at Ogilvy and Mather Inv Pvt Ltd., and getting
salary of Rs.18,00,000/- p.a. To prove the said fact the
petitioner has produced promotion letter dated
20-10-2013 and salary slips fo the year 2013-2014,
promotion letter dated 10-10-2014 and salary slip of the
year 2014-2015, appointment letter, pay slip,
appointment letter dated 23-04-2013 and pay slip for the
year 2013-2014 as per Ex.P9, P10, P15 to P18. Except
producing these documents the petitioner has not
produced any account statement to show that he was
getting the salary as mentioned in Ex.P9, P10, P15 to
SCCH-17 40 MVC No. 2749/19
P18. The employer or the author of Ex.P9, P10, P15 to
P18 are also not examined before this tribunal. In spite of
sufficient opportunity the petitioner has not produced the
said documents to prove his avocation and income. The
bank statement or the employer is examined before this
tribunal to prove the exact income of the petitioner. As
such in the absence of proper evidence, it is just and
necessary to consider the notional income of the
petitioner.
The petitioner also produced Ex.P19 paper
publications, Ex.P20 copy of Cannes award letter and
Ex.P21 copy of publications made in the social media.
The petitioner also produced the copies of his degree
certificate which shows that the petitioner in MVC
2749/2019 has completed his MBA. Admittedly the
petitioner is a MBA holder and was working in an
reputed company. The documents produced at Ex.P19 to
P21 shows the activities of the petitioner.
SCCH-17 41 MVC No. 2749/19
In the reported decision in 2015 ACJ Page 2526,
in the case of HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company
V/s Lalta Devi. As per this decision the tribunal was
considered the notional income of a student who was
perusing B-Tech,at Rs.25,000/- per month . The Hon'ble
High court of Delhi Court has observed that, even in
private section the deceased would have able to
secure a job with as salary of about Rs.26,000/-
In another decision, in the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd., V/s Anitha and others 2017
SCC on line Delhi 11152, the tribunal was considered
the notional income of a student who was studying 6th
semester of B-Tech (Mechanical and Automation
Engineering) at Rs.26,851/- and added 50% towards
future prospectus. This quantum is confirmed by the
Hon'ble High Court Delhi.
In the case on hand also the petitioner is an MBA
holder. Hence, keeping in view of the above two
SCCH-17 42 MVC No. 2749/19
judgments along with facts of the present case, I am of
the considered opinion is that, if the notional income of
the deceased is considered at Rs.30,000/- it would be
just compensation.
As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P7 the
petitioner was admitted to Fortis Hospital from
30-04-2015 to 04-05-2015 for 6 days. The petitioner
sustained 2 grievous injuries as per Ex.P5 wound
certificate. As per the answers given by the petitioners at
the time of cross-examination he has lost sense for nearly
3 months and he regained his memory and
consciousness and realized about the world. Hence the
healing period has to be considered for which in the
absence of evidence, this court is of the opinion that in
total 4 months period including 6 days inpatient period
may be considered under this head as a loss of income.
So, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
SCCH-17 43 MVC No. 2749/19
Rs.30,000/- X 4 months = Rs.1,20,000/- during the
laid up period.
D) Disability;- To prove the nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioner he has examined Dr. Banu
Prakash A S, Senior Consultant, Neuro surgeon and
spine surgeon at Shreyas Clinic as PW.3, through him
clinical notes, disability certificate, neuro psychological
assessment report, CD and MRI scan are marked under
Ex.P.24 to 28. PW.3 also deposed that, he examined the
petitioner and he has stated that the petitioner has
pigmentation to left face by injury, right clavicle fracture
restricting shoulder movements, right upper limb feels
heavy, clumsy with difficult right pronation. He examined
the petitioner for assessment of disability. On the recent
MRI of the petitioner dated 23-01-2024 the PW.3 doctor
found Gliotic/Cystic encephalomalacia old hemorrhagic
residue in left temporal region consistent with post
traumatic sequelae and Small T2 hyper intensity on
SCCH-17 44 MVC No. 2749/19
bilateral frontal. On clinical examination the doctor also
found that the petitioner is unable to carryout his earlier
activities, difficulty to speak, stammering, creating stress
at home and work. Further the neuropsychological
disability of the petitioner is assessed at 43.06%. As per
the PW.3 the whole body permanent disability is assessed
at 68%. In support of his assessment the PW.2 doctor
produced Ex.P24 clinical notes, Ex.P25 disability
certificate, Ex,P26 neuropsychological report. On perusal
of Ex.P26 neuropsychological report the mental speed of
the petitioner is impaired, sustained attention is
impaired, categorical fluency - impaired, verbal working
memory - impaired, verbal learning and memory is
impaired, logical memory - impaired, visual learning and
memory - impaired. The cognitive disability was
assessed at 26%.
The PW.3 doctor is cross-examined at length by the
learned counsel for the respondent No.1 insurance
SCCH-17 45 MVC No. 2749/19
company. No doubt that the PW.3 is not a treated doctor
but assessed the disability of neurological assessment by
conducting the test of NIMHANS neuropsychological
battery (2004) head injury. Nothing been elicited to
disbelieve the case of the petitioner at the time of cross
examination of PW.3. But when the petitioner can
answer the fact of accident in the cross-examination
whether the evidence of PW.3 regarding the cognitive and
neuropsychological disability can be considered or not
has to be looked into. No doubt that the petitioner's
normal life is undisturbed by the accident. But as per
the evidence of PW.3 doctor in the complex situation the
petitioner cannot behave normally. As per the PW.3 the
petitioner behaves normal in the simple comprehensive
situation. But in the complex situations the condition of
the petitioner is impaired and the answers given by the
petitioner at the time of cross-examination also reveals
that his memory and behavior and also normal life is
disturbed by the head injury sustained by him in the
SCCH-17 46 MVC No. 2749/19
accident. By considering the same, for a person to lead
his life in a normal way without depending on others,
they have to behave and react normally in both normal
and complex situation. The total body disability disability
of the petitioner is assessed at 68%. It is stated that the
petitioner was working as creative director at Ogilvy and
Mather India Pvt Ltd., To prove his nature of work the
petitioner also produced Ex.P20 award letters and
Ex.P21 copy of publications made by the petitioner in
social media. Ex.P19 is the paper publication which
shows that the petitioner was a art director. Thus the
neuropsychological disability which is permanent in
nature, certainly effects the profession of the petitioner as
art director. By considering the nature of the work of
the petitioner certainly the disability caused by the
injuries sustained in the accident it may effect the
working capacity of the petitioner. Hence the functional
disability of the petitioner by considering the alleged
nature of work is assessed at 100%.
SCCH-17 47 MVC No. 2749/19
The petitioner has not produced any proof regarding
his age. On perusal of police and medical documents the
age of the petitioner is 34 years. So, as on the date of
the accident the petitioner was aged 34 years.
As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier
applicable to the age of petitioner is '16 '. Hence, I
inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.30,000/- X
12 X 16 X 100% =Rs.57,60,000/- which is the total loss
of future income.
E) FOOD, NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE; As per
Ex.P7 discharge summary, the petitioner took treatment
as inpatient for a period of 6 days. As per discharge
summary the injuries sustained by the petitioner are
grievous in nature. By considering the nature of the
injuries and period he spent to overcome the pain and
other allied effects of the accident Hence looking to the
treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained
SCCH-17 48 MVC No. 2749/19
he is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards
food and nourishment, conveyance.
F) ATTENDANT CHARGES: The petitioner sustained
grievous injuries in the accident. The petitioner has spent
6 days in the hospital and there is no evidence or
pleading in this regard to show that the petitioner is in
need of attendant. But by considering the nature of the
fracture as discussed above, it may be considered to
award attendant charges at Rs.1,000/- per day i.e.,
Rs.6,000/- in total.
G) Towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of
life:
The petitioner admitted to the hospital for the
injuries sustained by him, which might certainly have
deprived him of the basic comforts and enjoyment.
Therefore, it is just and proper to award a reasonable
sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
SCCH-17 49 MVC No. 2749/19
To sum up the above discussion, the petitioner is
entitled for compensation under the following
Towards pain and sufferings - Rs. 75,000/-
Towards Medical expenses - Rs. 51,500/-
Towards diet, food, - Rs. 50,000/-
nourishment, attendant and
conveyance charges
Towards loss of future earning - Rs. 57,60,000/-
capacity
Towards attendant charges - Rs. 6,000/-
Loss of income during laid up - Rs. 1,20,000/-
period
Towards loss of amenities - Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total - Rs. 61,62,500/-
25. Liability:- The respondent No.1 is the insurer
of the Innova Car bearing No. KA-41-A-2699 and the
respondent No.2 is the owner of the said car (since dead
represented by his LR's). The respondent No.1 in its
objection statement has admitted the issuance of policy to
the Innova Car bearing No. KA-41-A-2699 and the policy
was in force at the time of accident.
SCCH-17 50 MVC No. 2749/19
26. The respondent No.1 examined RW.1 the
official of RTO department who produced Ex.R2 to 7,m
certified copy of Form No.49 & 47 and Ex.R8 & 9
computerized RC and FC details. On perusal of Ex.R2 to
7 the vehicle bearing No. KA-41-A-2699 was having valid
permit on the following period and also cancelled on the
the periods mentioned therein.
Exhibits Period of permit Cancelled period
Ex.R2 07.01.2012 to 06.01.2017 The permit was cancelled
with effect from
25.02.2014
Ex.R4 10.03.2014 to 09.03.2019 The permit was cancelled
with effect from
20.03.2015
Ex.R6 02.05.2015 to 01.05.2020 The permit was cancelled
with effect from
28.12.2015
By producing the said documents, the respondent
No.1 insurance company contended that as on the date of
accident i.e., on 29.04.2015 there was no valid permit for
the offending vehicle bearing No. KA-41-A-2699 as such it
cannot indemnify the liability of respondent No.2. In this
regard, the official i.e., RW.1 cross-examined by the
SCCH-17 51 MVC No. 2749/19
learned counsel for the petitioners. In the cross-
examination the RW.1 answered that he was not the
author Ex.R2 to 9 and he has not produced the
application filed for the cancellation of permit. Further
the RW.1 also answered that when the authorisation is
valid, the permit also valid and the vehicle can travel all
over Karnataka and India. But the RW.1 also answered
that if the authorisation is renewed without permit then,
the authorisation has no authenticity. Thereby, by
cross-examining the officials of RTO i.e., RW.1 the
petitioner has not made out any grounds to show that
there was a valid permit at the time of accident. The oral
answers of RW.1 is not sufficient to consider that there
was a valid permit for the offending vehicle at the time of
accident because, the documents produced at Ex.R2, 4 &
6 being the public documents clearly establishes that as
on t he date of accident, there was no valid permit for the
offending vehicle bearing No. KA-41-A-2699.
SCCH-17 52 MVC No. 2749/19
27. The respondent No.1 insurance company has
taken specific defence of non existence of permit to the
offending vehicle and also taken steps to prove that, the
offending vehicle has no permit at the time of accident.
28. In this regard, in MFA No.967 of 2017 (MV-D)
in the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in between
Sri.Venkatesh V/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance
Company Ltd., and others wherein it is held as follows;
"The Regional Transport Officer, R.W.2
has stated in his evidence that the bus
did not have permit to ply on Bangalore-
Mysore Road via Kengeri and
Kumbalagudu Road. The owner of the
vehicle has admitted in his cross-
examination that the bus was plying from
Bengaluru to Ramanagara via
Kumbalagudu. He has also admitted that
he had no other permit than Ex.R3.
Thus, it is clear that the bus did not have
permit to ply on Bengaluru- Ramangara
Road via Kumbalagudu and to put it
simply, there was no permit to ply the
bus at the spot of accident. Based on
evidence on record, the Tribunal has
rightly absolved the insurer and directed
the owner of the offending vehicle to
satisfy the award. The judgment of the
Tribunal is in consonance with National
SCCH-17 53 MVC No. 2749/19
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Challa
Bharathamma and others 3.
29. Further in Civil Appeal No.2253/2018: Amrit
Paul Singh Vs. TATA AIG General Ins. Co. Ltd., (Supreme
Court). Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in
case of absence of valid permit, the insurance company
can be directed to pay and recover.
30. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance
of insurance policy and its validity as on the date of
accident. However the evidence of RW.1 & 2 coupled with
the contents of Ex.R2 to 9 make it evident that the Innova
car beairng No. KA-41-A-2699 was not having valid
permit as on the date of accident. But only on that
ground the insurance company cannot disown its
liability. In the case of Amrit Paul Singh V/s Tata AIG
General Insurance Company Ltd., and Others reported in
(2018) 7 SCC 558 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that
even when there is violation of permit conditions, the
insurer is liable to satisfy the award with a liberty to
SCCH-17 54 MVC No. 2749/19
recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
The respondent No.2(a) & (b) in their objection has stated
that after the death of their son i.e., respondent No.2 they
are fighting to lead their livelihood and also they are in
old age. But no evidence is placed by the respondent
No.2 (a) (b) in support of their defence. Therefore following
the ratio laid down in the decision cited supra, this
tribunal opines that it just and proper to direct the
insurer i.e., respondent No.1 to pay the aforesaid award
amount to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% p.a,
from the date of claim petition till realization of entire
award amount with a liberty to recover the same from the
respondent No.2 (a) & (b) in appropriate execution
proceedings subject to the inheritance made by them on
the estate of the deceased respondent No.2 as held in
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd V/s Nanjappan & others,
reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224. Accordingly issue No.2 is
answered as ' In the Affirmative'.
SCCH-17 55 MVC No. 2749/19
ISSUE NO.3 in all the cases:
31. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
The petitions filed by the petitioners U/s. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC No.4246/2019 is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization of the amount.
The petitioner in MVC No.4245/2019 is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,01,700/- (Rupees Four lakhs one thousand seven hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization of the amount.
The petitioner in MVC No.2749/2019 is entitled for compensation of Rs.61,62,500/- (Rupees Sixty one lakh sixty two thousand five hundred only) along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realization of the amount.
The respondent No.1 is directed to deposit the compensation amount in all the 3 cases within 60 days from the date of this SCCH-17 56 MVC No. 2749/19 order and recover the same from respondent No.2(a) & 2(b).
Considering the quantum of amount awarded to petitioners in MVC No.4246/2019 and 4245/2019, it is ordered to release the entire amount in their favour.
Out of total compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners in 2749/2019, 75% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner through E-payment on his proper identification and remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in his name.
Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/-. Draw up award accordingly.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.4246/2019 and copy of the same in MVC No.4245/2019 and 2749/2019.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of January, 2025) Digitally signed by KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA MAYANNA GOUTAM GOUTAM Date: 2025.01.25 15:41:24 +0530 (Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT BENGALURU.
SCCH-17 57 MVC No. 2749/19ANNEXURE MVC No.4246/2019:
List of witnesses examined for petitioner.
PW.1 Neetha Kumar.
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 & 4 Spot mahazar along with sketch Ex.P5 IMV report Ex.P6 Wound certificate Ex.P7 Charge sheet Ex.P8 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 Sri Veeranna. RW.2 Sri Pradeep K S. List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents: Ex.R1 Authorisation letter Ex.R2 to 7 Form No.49 and 47 Ex.R8 & 9 RC and FC details Ex.R10 Authorization letter Ex.R11 Insurance policy SCCH-17 58 MVC No. 2749/19 MVC No.4245/2019:
List of witnesses examined for petitioner. PW.1 Sri Anil Kumar K @ Anil K Nair. PW.2 Dr S.A. Somashekar.
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR along with first information statement Ex.P2 spot mahazar along with sketch Ex.P3 IMV report Ex.P4 Wound certificate Ex.P5 Charge sheet Ex.P6 Discharge summary Ex.P7 Notarised copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P8 Discharge summary Ex.P9 Letter dated 16-11-2011, 23-10-2012 Ex.P10 Salary slip Ex.P11 Form No.16 Ex.P12 Medical reports Ex.P13 Medical bills Ex.P14 OPD record Ex.P15 X-ray List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
- None -SCCH-17 59 MVC No. 2749/19
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
Ex.R1 Letter Ex.R1(a) Signature of petitioner MVC No.2749/2019:
List of witnesses examined for petitioner.
PW.1 Vinciraj N C. PW.2 Chethan Kumar PW.3 Dr. Banu Prakash A S.
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR Ex.P2 Complaint Ex.P3 Spot mahazar along with sketch Ex.P4 IMV report Ex.P5 Wound certificate Ex.P6 Charge sheet Ex.P7 Discharge summary' Ex.P8 Order sheet in CC No.8/2016 Ex.P9 Promotion letter dated 20-10-2013 and salary
slip of the year 2013-2014.
Ex.P10 Promotion letter dated 10-10-2014 and salary slip of the year 2014-2015.
Ex.P11 Lap report
SCCH-17 60 MVC No. 2749/19
Ex.P12 OP case sheet of Chinmay hospital
Ex.P13 Medical bills
Ex.P14 Notarized copy of degree of bachelors, degree of
master of science and degree of MBA Ex.P15 Appointment letter Ex.P16 Pay slip Ex.P17 Appointment letter dated 23-04-2013 Ex.P18 Pay slip for the year 2013-2014 Ex.P19 & 19(a) Paper publication dated 05-04-2012 and relevant portion Ex.P20 Cannes award letter Ex.P21 Publications made in social media along with certificate Ex.P22 Authorization letter Ex.P23 Case sheet Ex.P24 Clinical notes Ex.P25 Disability certificate Ex.P26 Neuro psychological assessment report Ex.P27 CD Ex.P28 MRI scan List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
- None -SCCH-17 61 MVC No. 2749/19
List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
- Nil -Digitally signed by
KANCHI KANCHI MAYANNA
MAYANNA GOUTAM
Date: 2025.01.25
GOUTAM 15:41:32 +0530
(Kanchi Mayanna Goutam) XIX ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT BENGALURU.