Bangalore District Court
Mr.Suraj Chaudhary vs In All The Cases : 1. The Divisional ... on 20 February, 2023
SCCH-20 1 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL & V
ADDITIONAL JUDGE (SCCH.20), Mayohall Unit,
Bangalore.
Dated this the 20th day of February 2023
Present: Smt.Sharmila C.S. BA.L., LL.M
V Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.M.M.
M.V.C.No.4931/2019 C/w 4932/2019
PETITIONERS: Mr.Suraj Chaudhary
(MVC.4931/2019) S/o Asarlal Chaudhary
Aged 24 years,
R/at No.655, 1st main,
Kirloskar Layout,
Opp.Sapthagiri Eng.college,
Nagasandra Post,
Bangalore - 560073
PETITIONERS: 1. Mr.Ram Raj Pandhit
(MVC.4932/2019) S/o Tulsi Prasad Pandit
Aged 52 years,
2. Smt.Yashodha Pandit,
W/o Ram Raj Pandit
Aged about 42 years,
Nagasandra post,
Bangalore - 560073
R/at Kawalparasi, Harmashi-16
Danda, Nawalparasi District
Lumbine Zone, Nepal.
(By pleader Sri.B.S.Devaraju)
-V/s-
SCCH-20 2 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
COMMON
RESPONDENTS
In all the cases : 1. The Divisional Manager
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport
Corporation
K.H.Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore - 560027
2. Mr.Jijesh
S/o Rajesh
R/at No.655, 1st main,
Kirloaskar Layout,
Sapthagiri Junction,
Bengaluru-560073
3. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd.,
TP Claim Hub, NO.121,
"The estate building'
9th floor, Dickenson Road,
Bangalore - 560042
(R1- By pleader Sri.Afzal Ahemed)
(R-2 By pleader Sri.K.H.Dinesh Reddy)
(R-3 By pleader Sri.Manoj Kumar M.R)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are arising out of the same accident
and therefore, the petition in MVC.No.4932/2019 has been
clubbed along with MVC No.4931/2019 and thus disposed
off by a common judgment.
2. The brief facts of petitioner's case in both the cases
are as under:
SCCH-20 3 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
The petitioner in MVC No.4931/2019 was pillion rider in
his scooter bearing No.KA-04-JF-6581, where the rider was
one Mr.Utsav Pandit, who were moving on Hesaragatta main
road, Bangalore on 04.07.2019 at about 06.00 P.M., near
Little millennium school, while the BMTC bus bearing NO.KA-
57-F-522, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner
on wrong lane, dashed against the petitioner's scooter from
behind. That the petitioner and rider fell down and sustained
grievous injuries.
The petitioner in MVC No.4931/2019, sustained injury
to shoulder, hands, complete loss of left ear and injuries to
the chest. That he was immediately shifted to Sapthagiri
Hospital and was admitted as an inpatient. That the rider of
the two wheeler, Sri. Utsav Pandit succumbed to the injuries.
The petitioners in MVC No.4932/2019 are the parents of the
deceased Utsav Pandit. That the case in Cr.No.61/2019 was
registered by the Jalahalli traffic police station against the
driver of the BMTC bus. The petitioner was a student and has
SCCH-20 4 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
lost the academic year. The deceased also was the student
and petitioners have lost the love and affection etc., Thus
prays to grant compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and
Rs.75,00,000/- respectively.
3. The respondent no.1, BMTC filed written statement
and denied the negligence on the part of the respondent
vehicle. Submits that there is negligence on the part of the
rider. In the mean time an application seeking to implead the
owner and insurance company pertaining to the vehicle
driven by the deceased Utsav Pandit was made, where the
said owner and insurance company submitted no objection to
the application and they were impleaded as respondent No.2
and 3.
The respondent No.2 in the written statement denied all
the averments of the petition and admits his ownership and
gives details of the insurance policy pertaining to his vehicle
and also details of vehicles. Submits that the petition is bad
for mis joinder of the parties. The respondent No.3 also in the
SCCH-20 5 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
written statement denied the negligence on the part of the
petitioners and submits that it is not a necessary party and
prays to dismiss the petition against the respondent.
4. On the basis of the Pleadings and materials, the
following issues were framed.
ISSUES
in MVC 4931/2019
1.Whether the petitioner proves that on
04.07.2019 at about 06.00 PM., on
Hesaraghatta main road, Bangalore, petitioner
proceeding as pillion rider on scooter bearing
No.KA-04-JP-6571 along with his friend
Mr.Utsav Pandit at that time BMTC bus bearing
No.KA-57-F-522 came in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger to human life and
dashed against petitioner scooter, as a result,
the deceased and petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous hurt and Mr.Utsav Pandit
died on the way to hospital?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
3. What order or award?
in MVC 4932/2019
1.Whether the petitioner proves that on
04.07.2019 at about 06.00 PM., on
Hesaraghatta main road, Bangalore, petitioner
SCCH-20 6 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
proceeding as pillion rider on scooter bearing
No.KA-04-JP-6571 along with his friend
Mr.Utsav Pandit at that time BMTC bus bearing
No.KA-57-F-522 came in a rash and negligent
manner so as to endanger to human life and
dashed against petitioner scooter, as a result,
the deceased and petitioner fell down and
sustained grievous hurt and Mr.Utsav Pandit
died on the way to hospital?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, to what amount and
from whom?
3. What order or award?
5. In order to prove their cases, the petitioner in
MVC.4931/2019 has been examined as PW1 and the
petitioner n.1 in M.V.C No.4932/2019 was examined as PW-2
and other 3 witnesses were examined as PW-3 to PW-5 and
got marked total 78 documents on their behalf. The
respondents got examined 3 witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3.
6. Heard arguments of learned Counsels for petitioner
and respondents in both the cases.
7. My findings on the above issues in both the cases are
as follows:
Issue No.1 : Partly Affirmative
SCCH-20 7 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
(in both the cases)
Issue No.2 : in affirmative ( in both the cases )
From the respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following
(in both the cases):
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 (in both the cases):- These two cases are
taken up together for common discussion since the two
issues are related to the same incident and attract same
reasonings and discussion.
The petitioner in MVC No.4931/2019 was pillion rider in
his scooter bearing No.KA-04-JF-6581, where the rider was
one Mr.Utsav Pandit, who were moving on Hesaragatta main
road, Bangalore on 04.07.2019 at about 06.00 P.M., near
Little millennium school, while BMTC bus bearing NO.KA-57-
F-522, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner on
wrong lane, dashed against the petitioner's scooter from
behind. That the petitioner and rider fell down and sustained
grievous injuries and the rider succumbed to the injuries.
That the case in Cr.No.61/2019 was registered by the
Jalahalli traffic police station against the driver of the BMTC
SCCH-20 8 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
bus. Thus prays to grant compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-
and Rs.,75,00,000/-.
9. In order to prove their cases, the petitioner in
MVC.4931/2019 has been examined as PW1 and the
petitioner in M.V.C No.4932/2019 was examined as PW-2
and other 3 witnesses as PW-3 to PW-5 and got marked total
78 documents on their behalf. The respondent got examined
3 witnesses as RW-1 to RW-3. To further prove the case, the
PW-1 got produced several documents and marked as Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.78. He has reiterated the averments of the petition. To
further prove the allegations, the copy of FIS is produced as
Ex.P.2, which is lodged by one Pramindra Kushwaha, the
friend of the petitioner and the deceased, who submits in the
FIS that on 14.07.2019 at about 06.10 P.M., while he was in
room, got call from police and public regarding the accident
that has occurred to his friend at Hesaragatta main road.
That when he reached Sapthagiri Hospital, he found the said
Suraj Choudhary was being treated in the emergency and
rider Utsav Pandit was found dead. That on information from
SCCH-20 9 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
public, he came to know that they were hit by BMTC bus
bearing No.KA-57- F-522 at about 06.00 P.M., which colluded
to the vehicle ridden by Utsav Pandit. This complaint was
lodged on the same day at about 07.00 P.M., in the hospital
where Mr.Suraj Choudhary/ PW-1 was taking treatment. The
FIR is lodged as per Ex.P.1 in Cr.No.61/2019, alleging
offences punishable under section 279, 337, 304(A) of IPC
and Under section 134(A and B) of IMV Act. The police
intimation is marked as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.34 issued by the
Sapthagiri Hospital with respect to the petitioner and the
deceased respectively, showing the history of RTA near Little
millennium school. That the spot panchanama along with
sketch are produced as Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.4 respectively,
showing the place of accident. As per the said sketch both the
vehicles i.e., ridden by the deceased and BMTC bus were
moving in the same direction, where the driver of the BMTC
bus has taken a move towards left side causing the accident.
The notice is issued to the owner of the vehicle i.e., Regional
Manager, BMTC as required under section 133 of IMV Act,
marked as Ex.P.7. There is reply by the said Regional
SCCH-20 10 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
Manager, as per Ex.P.8 that one Sri.Nataraj S/o Ningappa
was driving the vehicle as on the date of accident. That he is
in-charge owner of the said vehicle. He has got released the
said vehicle by executing indemnity bond as per Ex.P.9. The
final report is produced as Ex.P.38, alleging offences
punishable under section 279, 338, 304(a) of IPC and under
section 134(A and B), 187, 5, 180 of IMV Act, alleging the
said offences against the driver of the BMTC bus by name
Nataraj and the respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle
ridden by the deceased, alleging that the vehicle was handed
over to the person who was not having driving license. The
post mortem report pertaining to the deceased is produced as
Ex.p-365 and the inquest report as Ex.P-35. As per the P.M.
report, the opinion as to the death of the deceased is given as
due to haemorrhagic shock as a result of multiple injuries
sustained. The Motor vehicle accident report marked as Ex.P-
37 shows the front left side portion damaged to the vehicle of
the deceased and the right side body scratched of the vehicle
belonging to the 1st respondent. The opinion as to the cause
of the accident is produced as not due to any mechanical
SCCH-20 11 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
defects.
10. The defence was taken up by the counsel for the
respondent no.1 that there was no negligence on the part of
the rider of the driver of the respondent no.1 and the counsel
for the respondent no. 2 and 3 as that there was no
negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler . In this
regard PW-1 was cross examined by the counsel for the
respondent No.1 and 3. As per PW-1, the rider of the vehicle
Utsav Pandit was riding the two wheeler at 15 to 20 KMPH
and the road was divided by median. He further submits that
the bus dashed the scooter from back side. Also admits that
as per IMV report, the indicator of the scooter, mud guard,
front left side of the two wheeler has been damaged and the
right side portion is shown to have been scratched, but
denied that the accident occurred while the scooter tried to
over take the bus in the lesser space. Thus denies that the
rider lost control over the scooter causing the accident. He
also denies that the rider is solely responsible for the accident
and apart from this, nothing is there regarding negligence on
SCCH-20 12 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
the part of the rider of the two wheeler.
11. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has relied upon
the two authorities.
1.reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1081 , in lachoo Ram and
ors Vs. Himachal Road Transport corporation. It was held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as Under: "mere involvement of
bus of respondent corporation in the accident, cannot make the
respondent liable to pay compensation, unless it is shown that
the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the bus
driver.
2. Further, Reported in ILR 2009 Kar 2921, in Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance company limited Vs. B.C.Kumar and
another, wherein it is directed to the tribunal that the tribunal
has to assess the evidence before it independently of any
finding of the criminal court on the question of the driver
pleading guilty. At most, the circumstance of the driver
pleading guilty may be considered as one of the pieces of
evidence to support the case of the claimant".
3. The counsel for the respondent no. 3 has relied upon
SCCH-20 13 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
the following authorities,
1. Reported in (2012) 4 Supreme Court cases 552, in
Surender Kumar Arora and another vs. Manoj Bisla and
others, where the distinction between section 163-A and 166 of
the Motor vehicles Act is explained and held that when the
petition is filed under section 166 of the Act, there is complete
responsibility on the part of the petitioners to prove the rash
and negligence on the part of the respondent.
2. In Mahalingappa Vs. The state of Karnataka of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka , in Cr. R.P. No.2217/2011,
where the fact of negligence is discussed in detail. Thus Held
that " the requirement under section 304 (A) of IPC are that
there must be a direct nexus between death of a person and a
rash and negligent act of accused. Negligence or rashness
must be such as carrying with him a criminal liability. Thus
whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and
material on record, act of the respondent can be said to be rash
or negligent is to be seen"
12. These authorities are aptly applicable to the instant
SCCH-20 14 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
case and thus now it is to be seen that whether the
petitioners prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver
of the 1st respondent.
13. The PW-2 is the father of the deceased who is not an
eye witness to the accident. Therefore when nothing could be
elicited from the Pw-1 or PW-2, the driver of the respondent
No.1 was summoned and was examined as RW-1. He has
deposed in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief
that he was on the scheduled trip from Kengeri to
Dwarakanagar, near Sapthagiri College at about 05.45 PM.,
on 04.07.2017. That the rider of scooter bearing No.KA-04-
JF-6581, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
without helmet and tried to over take bus from wrong side,
where there was no much space between the bus and center
median, which the driver dashed to the divider and lost
balance and both fell down in the hard surface of the
road.That both the rider and the pillion rider were not
wearing helmet and suffered injuries. Submits that the
accident was due to the negligence of the scooter. But during
SCCH-20 15 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
his cross examination, he submits that he is the driver of the
vehicle for past 7 years. That he was driving in the said route
from Kengeri to Dwarakanagara for past 3 years and denies
the sketch produced. He further during course of cross
examination, submits that he knows what to do after
commission of the accident i.e., he knows that the injured are
to be taken immediately to the hospital. He further submits
that the conductor took the injured to the hospital and he
took vehicle to the police station. He also submits that since
there was no fault of him in causing the accident, he did not
lodge any complaint against them. Therefore he relies
completely on the sketch which he submits as wrongly noted.
14. As per the said RW-1, the deceased drove the vehicle
and tried to over take from right side. That he has seen the
rider, riding the vehicle from right side, which is against the
said sketch. But has not challenged the said sketch or
panchanama till now and also admits that the charge sheet is
filed against him and still criminal case is pending against
him. But the IMV report shows the right portion of the BMTC
SCCH-20 16 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
bus touched with the left portion of the two wheeler run by
Utsav Pandit. Therefore, somewhere the version of the driver
of the BMTC appears to be true. But why the said sketch is
not challenged till now is not known. Neither the IO was
summoned in this regard. That the said road is about 60 feet
and has the center median dividing the road into 30 feet.
There is center median in the said road. Thus from the IMV
report, it appears that the deceased had tried to over take
from right side and might have touched the BMTC bus and
must have caused the accident. Or there are chances of the
BMTC bus, the 1st respondent bus tried to take a move and
might have touched the two wheeler of the deceased. The
RW-1 neither tried to submit any documents which shows
that he has challenged the said sketch or panchanama in
criminal court. Therefore, the second possibility overrules the
1st possibility a lot and the same may be over ruled in the
present situation. Thus this version of the petitioner if
corroborates with any other oral or the documentary
evidence is to be seen.
SCCH-20 17 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
15. RW-1, the driver of the BMTC, 1 st respondent further
submits that he took the vehicle to the police station which is
against the spot panchanama and the complaint where it is
shown that the vehicle was left on the spot and the driver ran
away. He further submits that the conductor by name
Chaitra took the injured to the hospital which is against the
police intimation showing that one Mr.Dharma Nayak, PC
No.202 has taken the injured to the hospital. Thus, submits
his unawareness regarding impleading of section 134(A and
B) in the final report. He also admitted the fact that he was
suspended from the duty for a period of 3 months from the
date of accident.
16. Therefore in this situation, the sketch which is not
challenged till now has to be believed. The injured is the eye
witness/ victim of the accident. His statement is corroborated
with the documentary evidence placed on record. Therefore in
this situation the investigation conducted by the Investigating
officer needs to be believed. As per the sketch, the BMTC bus
has taken move towards left side causing the accident and
SCCH-20 18 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
there is no dispute that the accident was caused by bigger
vehicle I.e., the BMTC bus.
17. The counsel for the respondent relies upon the
authority in Manju Vs Mathue, of the Hon'ble High court of
Karnataka, in MFA No.2829/2009, wherein it is held that "
the filing of Charge sheet under section 173(5) Cr.P.C, may
give raise to a presumption. However that is not decisive on
the issue. If the court finds evidence adduced by parties and
material placed by the parties are sufficient to hold that
charge sheet filed by police is a fabricated document, the
claim petition cannot be sustained". But in the instant case
the respondents have failed to show that the charge sheet is
fabricated. Apart from the charge sheet, the other documents
supports the case of the petitioners,. Thus, this court is of
the considered opinion that there is negligence on the part of
the driver of the BMTC bus in causing accident.
18. It was also urged by the counsel for the respondent
that the deceased Utsav Pandit had no driving license to drive
SCCH-20 19 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
the vehicle and therefore there is negligence on the part of the
deceased in causing the accident. Therefore owner of the two
wheeler by name Jijesh was made as party to the petition
who was examined as RW-2. In his evidence he submits that
he is the owner of the said Honda Dio bearing No.KA-04-JP-
6581 and was insured with the respondent No.3. He further
deposed that at the time of accident, his vehicle was driven
by the said Utsav Pandit. That without proper investigation,
concerned police have filed charge sheet against him for
having handing over the motor cycle to the said person, who
was not having driving license to drive the vehicle. He
submits that the injured and the deceased are his neighbors
and well known for past 2 years before the accident. He also
further submits that the deceased used to take his vehicle
frequently and admits that he is being arrayed as 2nd accused
in the criminal case. He also further admits that he has
pleaded guilty before the criminal court only because his
marriage was being held at that time and he wants to move to
Kerala for his marriage. He further submits that the deceased
had DL and he is aware of the said facts that the deceased
SCCH-20 20 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
had driving license.
19. Only for the fact that his marriage was fixed and he
wanted to move to Kerala, he has accepted the guilt and
admitted the charge against him in the criminal case cannot
be believed by this court. No person unless there is some
guilt on their behalf would plead guilt and be convicted for
any offence. Even after such long inquiry and trial before this
court, which is pending since 2019, neither petitioners nor
owner of the vehicles tried to produce the driving license
pertaining to the deceased/riderof the two wheeler
UtsavPandit. Thus the fact that the charge sheet is filed
against the respondent No.2 alleging offences punishable for
handing over the vehicle to the person having no driving
license is to be considered.
20. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon
following two authorities;
1. Reported in 2008 ACJ 1834 of Supreme Court of
India in ( Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs Surinder singh and others)
SCCH-20 21 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
Where the discussion is made of minors having no driving
license and held that no contributory negligence can be
attributed only because he was not possessing the driving
license. This authority relies upon a complete different facts,
where the petitioner is a minor as against the deceased in the
instant case.
2. The counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the
authority in 2014 ACJ 574 of the Hon'ble High court of Delhi,
in "Mohd Israj vs. Dharambir and others", where the Hon'ble
High court has held that the scooterist cannot be held guilty
of contributing negligence , on ground of not holding driving
license.
But as against this. the counsel for the respondent has
relied upon the authority of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka
in MFA NO.32096/2012, in Devendrappa Vs Venkataiah and
other binding on this court, wherein the Hon'ble High court
has held as under:
"Anybody who commits an offence punishable under
any act, such offence cannot be ignored. On the contrary, he
SCCH-20 22 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
cannot be decorated with compensation liberally as claimed
by him". Further he has relied upon another authority in
Rehmani Begum and others Vs Krishan Pal and others, the
High court of Delhi dated 18.01.2019, where it is held that "
the deceased neither had a learner's driving license nor was
having a valid driving license. The claimant before seeking the
relief has to prove that the deceased was holding a valid
permit to drive at the time of the incident under section 2(10)
of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. The truck driver being a
party to the accident per se does not make him liable". Thus
has dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants, where the
petition seeking compensation for the accident was dismissed
by the tribunal.
21. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the charge
sheet is filed against the owner for not producing the D.L,
which does not mean that the deceased was not having the
driving license to drive the two wheeler. As discussed above,
the matter is pending since 2019. Therefore no efforts are
made by any parties to produce the D.L. the concerned RTO
SCCH-20 23 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
was not summoned. Thus all the documents reveals the fact
that the deceased was not having Driving license and coupled
with the fact of the owner pleading guilty, this court can come
to the conclusion that the deceased had no driving license to
drive the vehicle.
22. As per the recent authority of the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka in MFA No.101921/2019, dt.
15.09.2021, in "Divisional manager, Cholamandalam
insurance company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Nagava and another, the
Hon'ble High court has clearly held that if the person having
no driving license to drive the vehicle, trial court have to
consider 35% contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioner's themselves in causing the accident".
23. Therefore petitioners in MVC No.4932/2019 are
imposed with 35% contributory negligence on the part of their
son/rider in the accident. But the petitioner in MVC
No.4931/2019 was pillion rider. Hence no contributory
negligence can be attributed to him. Therefore for the above
SCCH-20 24 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
reasons by holding that there is contributory negligence on
the pat of the deceased to an extent of 35%, rest of negligence
to an extent of 65% can be attributed towards the driver of
the BMTC bus and accordingly the above issue is answered in
partly affirmative.
24. Issue No.2 (in MVC No.4931/2019): The petitioner
submits he was a student at Acharya Institute of
Management sciences, Bangalore. In this regard, The physical
Education Director of the said college was examined as PW-3,
who has deposed in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in
chief that the petitioner aged 25 years, was studying final
year in Bachelor of Hotel Management, 4 years course in the
institution. That due to the accident, he was unable to attend
the final year 8th semester examination and lost one year
academic education. That he has to pay the examination fee
for the failed subjects. Further has produced the
authorization letter, authorizing him to give evidence and
produced the copy of the declaration given by the
student/PW-1, the provisional eligibility certificate, migration
SCCH-20 25 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
certificate, PUC marks card, citizen ship certificate, character
certificate, fee receipt and the details of the fee receipt paid by
the PW-1, which are marked from Ex.P-47 to P-61. As per the
Ex.P-61 the total fees shown to be paid is Rs.2,86,364/- and
hostel fee of Rs.73,000/-. Ex.P-58, P-55 depicts that the
petitioner is from Nepal and has come to India for studies.
The marks card shows that his date of birth is 18.10.1994
and thus was aged 25 years. There is a formal denial of all
the documents by the counsel for the respondent, where
nothing is elicited regarding the verocity of either the witness
or the documents produced by him. The college is such an
institution, which moulds the carrier and the life of a
student. No college except in the rare cases would issue such
a certificate regarding the nationality of the parties or the
course undergone by them or the fees paid by them especially
when there arises any such special circumstances. Therefore
when nothing is brought out by the counsel for the
respondent regarding the verocity of the documents, this
court has to believe the same. Thus it is clear that the
petitioner was a student and was about to complete the
SCCH-20 26 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
degree within the next semester and would have a bright
future in the hotel business management if not met with the
accident. Since the petitioner was a student, the notional
income to an extent of Rs.13,250/- can be considered. The
age being 25 and appropriate multiplier would be 18.
25. Petitioner submits that due to the accident he has
suffered injuries to the limb, with the right hearing
impairment and other disabilities. Thus got examined
Dr.S.A.Somashekar, the Orthopaedic surgeon at Bowring and
Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore as PW-4 and Dr. Sudhir
B.M., the consultant Plastic and Reconstructive surgeon at
Sapthagiri Hospital as PW-5. The PW-4 submits that he
diagonised the Petitioner Suraj Chowdhary on 17.01.2020,
who was treated at Sapthagiri hospital and at Bombay
hospital and Research centre for bilateral humeral mid shaft
fractures, right clavicle fracture, bilateral hand crush injury,
left ear pinna on avulsion amputation, right ear pinna
avulsion, fracture of right parasymphyseal mandible, right
brachial plexus injury and underwent surgery in the form of
SCCH-20 27 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
ORIF with LCP, ORIF with DCP under GA on 05.07.2019 and
orthopaedic debridement of both hands and bilateral pinna
suturing under GA on 05.07.2019, ORIF with miniplate, split
skin grafting for the hands under GA on 11/07/2019 and
Exploration and micro surgical repair of brachial plexus on
13/11/2019. He further submits that on examination the
PW-1 has gross wasting and deformity of right upper limb.
Surgical scars and keloids over both upper limb, right upper
limb is flobby and hands by the side of the trunk i.e.,
dangling limb and the x-rays shows united fractures of right
clavicle, both humerus shaft with implants in situ at all 3
sites, with sagging (subluaxation) left upper limb. Thus, has
assessed the disability of the right upper limb, Dangling
(function less) limb at 80%. Thus considers 60% to whole
body out of right upper limb and 22% from left upper limb.
Thus finally submits that the whole body disability is 69%.
26. PW-5 is the treated doctor, who submits in his
affidavit filed that he is a consultant plastic and
reconstructive surgeon at Sapthagiri hospital, Bangalore
SCCH-20 28 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
from the past 4 years and personally examined the PW-1.
Further submits that the petitioner sustained injuries which
are in corrolatery with the evidence of the PW-4 and thus
needs no repetition. He has assessed the whole body
disability of the PW-1 as 29.6%, where the right upper limb
disability is considered as 89%. He further submits that the
patient requires surgical procedure in future for brachial
plexus right side with left radial nerve palsy and left ear
reconstruction (two stage procedure), which costs around
Rs.6 lakhs in private care centre.
27. These two witnesses were cross examined by the
counsel for the respondent, where nothing is elicited to
disregard the verocity of the evidence or the assessment made
by the PW-4 or PW-5. Thus the same may be considered.
However important to note that the PW-4,the Orthopaedic
surgeon has assessed the whole body right upper limb
disability at 60% and left upper limb disability to 29% and
comes to the conclusion that there is whole body disability of
69% and submits that the said disabilities affect his career.
SCCH-20 29 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
The petitioner is said to have been suffering with flobby right
upper limb and hands by the side of the trunk i.e., dangling
limb. This absolutely has effect on the physical work done by
the petitioner and the right side ear of the petitioner has been
completely cut off, which absolutely hampers the whole life of
the petitioner and also hampers his marriage in the future.
The PW-4 submits that since the hand is hanging, it is
nothing but having no hand or amputed hand. Thus submits
that the 1/3rd of the disability assessed cannot be
considered. Also has assessed the disability of the dangling
(function less) limb to an extent of 80%. Therefore I deem it fit
to consider the said disability as assessed by the PW-4.
28. PW-5 has assessed the disability to an extent of
29.6% . But has assessed the disability for the affected right
upper limb to an extent of 89%. The said assessment of the
whole body can be considered in order to calculate the loss of
future income.
29. Thus in order to calculate loss of future income,
SCCH-20 30 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
certain guidelines are issued by the central gazette
notification in this regard, where by applying the formula "a
+b(90-a)/90, the total disability to the whole body can be
considered to 69 + 29.6 (90-69) /90 = 75.8 to the whole
body. Thus considering the same, the loss of future income
can be calculated as under.
13,250X12X18X75.8% = Rs.21,69,396/-
30. As per the available materials on record, Ex.P24,
25, 26, 27, 28 and Ex.P.78 , all the medical expenses
(4,14,733+1,84,929+2,78,000) would tune to Rs.8,77,662/-,
which he is entitled under the head of medical expenses and
hospital charges.
31. As per the Wound Certificate Ex.P6 and discharge
summaries Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.14, the petitioner had sustained
Avulsion head injury on both parietal region 8X8 cm exposing
underlying bone, left side pinna avulsed, right side pinna
beerated, multile contusion over right cheek, swelling over
distal upper arm humerus fracture and crush injury over
SCCH-20 31 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
both hands involving all the fingers and first, fourth and fifth
injuries are grievous in nature and second and third injuries
are simple in nature and has undergone conservative
treatment at Sapthagiri super speciality hospital from
04.07.2019 to 19.07.2019 for about 16 days, and again
admitted in the same hospital from 03.08.2019 to 05.08.2019
for about 3 days and has undergone treatment at Bombay
Hospital and medical research centre. Mumbai from
12.11.2019 to 15.11.2019 for about for about 4 days. The
petitioner has taken total 23 days treatment at two hospitals.
Thus he was in the hospital 23 days and may be expected to
be in the complete bed rest for 6 months. Thus the petitioner
can be made entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and
sufferings, Rs.20,000/- towards food and nourishment
charges, Rs.20,000/- towards conveyance charges, and
Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.1,00,000/-
towards loss of amenities.
32. The petitioner and his parents are to travel from
Nepal to India, i.e, to Bangalore and Mumbai several times.
SCCH-20 32 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
The flight charges are around 10,000/- per person. The
petitioner and his parents have travelled many a times to
Bangalore, Mumbai etc. Either for the treatement or for co-
operating with the investigation or to give evidence before this
court. Thus an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be granted as
flight charges to Bangalore and Rs.30,000/- for travelling to
Mumbai. The other conveyance charges might have been to
an extent of Rs.5000/- with in the bangalore and the same is
granted.
33. The petitioner is said to have completed 6 th semister
of the Hotel Management services and has paid the fees, as
produced by the PW-3. The PW-2 submits that the petitioner
if want to continue studies hasto pay such a fee. But on going
through the injuries suffered by the petitioner, it appears that
the petitioner might not be able to continue with the studies
as there is unfunctional limb and right ear being cut and also
based upon the way he answered in the court. Therefore,
when the petitioner is not able to continue his studies, the
amount paid by him to the tution fee to the college needs to
SCCH-20 33 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
be refunded or in the other way if the petitioner is able to
continue with his studies, the necessary fee along with the
hostel fee as stated by the PW-2, to an extent of Rs .2,86,364/-
with the hostel fees to an extent of RS.73,0009/- needs to be
paid, which he is entitled to.
34. As stated above, the petitioner has a disability of
more than 75% to the whole body with loss of function of the
right upper limb, which will affect his marriage prospects. No
amount can be compensated with the said marriage
prospects, which a normal person has to lead his life.
However, a nominal amount of Rs.1,00.000/- can be granted
to the petitioner under the head of loss of marriage.
35. PW-4 submits that the petitioner needs surgeries
for removals of implants at affect all 3 sites, which would cost
around 60,000/- contracture release and tendon transfers,
which would cost around R.1,00,000/- all put together
future cost of surgeries would be around Rs.1,60,000/- in
private set up. The PW-5 submits that the petitioner requires
SCCH-20 34 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
surgical procedure in future for brachial plexus right side
with left radial nerve palsy and left ear reconstruction(two
stage procedure and the cost of the said procedure is around
Rs 6 lakhs in private care centre. These may be reduced in
other hospitals also. Therefore coupling the both a nominal
amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses can be
granted.
36. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs.2,00,000/-
2 Medical expenses and hospital charges Rs.8,77,662/-
4,14,733+1,84,929+2,78,000
3 Food and nourishment Rs.20,000/-
4 Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/-
5 Conveyance charges at Bombay Rs.30,000/-
hospital
6 Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
7 Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
8 Loss of income during laid up period Rs.79,500/-
9 College fee 6th sem Rs.2,86,364/-
10 Hostel fee Rs.73,000/-
11 Future medical expenses Rs.3,00,000/-
12 Flight charges Rs.50,000/-
13 Marriage Prospects Rs.1,00,000/-
13 Future loss of earning capacity. Rs.11,34,783/-
13,250X12X18X75.8%
SCCH-20 35 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
TOTAL Rs.32,26,309/-
In all the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.32,26,309/-, which can be rounded to Rs.32,27,000/-.
37. Issue No.2 (in MVC No.4932/2019):The petitioners
3
submits that the deceased was a student at Acharya Institute
of Management sciences, Bangalore. In this regard, The
physical Education Director of the said college was examined
as PW-3, who has deposed in his affidavit filed in lieu of
examination in chief that the petitioner aged 25 years, was
studying final year in Bachelor of Hotel Management, 4 years
course in the institution. That he was one of the brilliant
student in their institution. Thus produced the copy of the
declaration given by the student/PW-1, the provisional
eligibility certificate, migration certificate, PUC marks card,
citizen ship certificate, character certificate, fee receipt and
the details of the fee receipt paid by the deceased, which are
marked from Ex.P-62 to P-73. As per the Ex.P-73, the
deceased has paid the total fees of Rs.2,17,464/- and hostel
fee of Rs.39,000/-. Ex.P-64, P-69 depicts that the deceased
SCCH-20 36 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
was from Nepal and has come to India for studies. The marks
card shows that his date of birth is 20.01.1999 and thus was
aged 20 years. There is a formal denial of all the documents
by the counsel for the respondent, where nothing is elicited
regarding the verocity of either the witness or the documents
produced by him. Therefore when nothing is brought out by
the counsel for the respondent regarding the verocity of the
documents, this court has to believe the same. Thus it is
clear that the deceased was a student and was about to
complete the degree within the next semester and would have
a bright future in the hotel business management if not met
with the accident. I notice that the deceased had scored
66.75% in Higher secondary education board. Therefore the
deceased being admittedly talented student could have been
expected to earn good income in future. Since when there is
no other document, the notional income to an extent of
Rs.13,250/- can be considered. The age being 20, the
appropriate multiplier would be 18.
38. The deceased was bachelor and therefore 50% of
SCCH-20 37 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
salary must be deducted and 40% of income should be added
as future prospects. Therefore the petitioner No.1 and 2
being the parents of the deceased are entitled for Rs.40,000/-
each towards loss of consortium and Rs.50,000/- for funeral
expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate.
39. The petitioner have lost their future support, love
and affection. Therefore the petitioners No.1 and 2 are
entitled to consortium of Rs.40,000/- each, totally tuning to
Rs.80,000/-. Therefore, in all the petitioners are entitled to a
compensation as calculated below;
Thus Loss of dependency calculation is thus as follows:
Yearly income of the deceased is 13250X12=1,59,000/-
1. Calculating 40% future prospects:
40% X 1,59,000 = 63,600/-
Adding 40% future prospects:
1,59,000+63,600= 2,22,600/-
2. calculation 1/2 income of Rs.2,22,600/-
2,22,600 X 1/2 = 1,11,300/-
SCCH-20 38 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
3. Deducting 1/2 personal expenses:
Rs.2,22,600-1,11,300/- 1,11,300/-
4. Calculating loss of dependency
1,11,300 X '18' 20,03,400/-
40. Therefore, in all the petitioners are entitled to a
compensation as calculated below;
1. Loss of dependency Rs. 20,03,400/-
2 Loss of estate Rs. 1,00,000/-
3 Towards funeral and
obsequies ceremonies Rs. 50,000/-
4. Body cold storage charges Rs. 20,000/-
4. Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/-
5. College fee Rs. 2,17,400/-
6. Hostel fee Rs. 39,000/-
7. Flight charges Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.25,34,800/-
41. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the total
compensation of Rs.25,34,800/-, after deducting of 35% of
contributory negligence, the net compensation of
Rs.16,47,620/-, which can be rounded of to Rs.16,48,000/-.
42. Liability:- The respondent no. 1 submits that the
SCCH-20 39 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
owner of the two wheeler has been charge sheeted and thus
has sought for impleading of the respondent no.2 and 3, the
owner and the insurer of the vehicle driven by the deceased
Utsav Pandit. Thus submits that the owner is also liable to
compensate the petitioner.
As discussed above, the owner of the two wheeler riden
by deceased Utsav Pandit is only charged for not producing
the Driving licence of the rider, I.e, for handing over the
vehicle to the person who is not having not driving license.
For the above said offence, contributory negligence on the
part of the rider of the vehicle has been considered. It is not
in dispute that the deceased was not known driving. As per
the owner, the respondent no.2, who was examined as RW-2,
the deceased was taking his vehicle regularly. The deceased
was a major. Only for the purpose of not having the Driving
license, the owner of the vehicle, who has handed over the
vehicle to the neighbors cannot be burdened to compensate
the petitioners. The driving license is not produced. The fact
whether the deceased had no driving license or not is not
SCCH-20 40 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
known. Therefore either the respondent no.2 or respondent
no. 3 cannot be made liable to compensate the petitioners
and step into the shoes of the person committing the offence.
The respondent no.1 has failed to show that there is no
negligence on the part of the driver of the 1 st respondent. The
respondent no.1 cannot rely upon the weakness of the other
respondent in order to lessen its burden. Thus in this
situation, when it is shown that the accident occurred due to
the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus,
and the petitioners in MVC no.4932/19 are implicated with
35% contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for
not having the D.L, this court is of the opinion that the entire
burden of paying the petitioners is upon the respondent
no.1. Accordingly the above issue is answered burdening the
respondent no.1 to pay the compensation , with the present
bank interest of 6% p.a.
43. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
following authorities.
1. Reported in 2010 ACJ 760 in (N.Obalaranga Vs
SCCH-20 41 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
United India Insurance Co.Ltd., and another) where the
principles regarding "whether injured is entitled for loss of
earning" is explained by the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka.
2. Reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2609 (Nararajappa Vs
Divisional Managar, Oriental insurance Co.Ltd.,) in this case,
it is held that "Where the petitioner suffered permanent gross
deformity of left forearm and wrist and hand and shortening
of left upper limb, the deformity severally affecting his ability
to perform any work, the disability assessed by the doctor for
left arm ought to be considered and noT the disability
assessed of whole body".
This authority is aptly applicable to the instant case,
where the petitioner is suffering from left arm dragging and
as no use to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has
examined two doctors and assessed the disability for which
the government notification rules a+b(a-90)/90 is applied and
calculated as above.
3. Reported in 2016(4) T.A.C 693 (J & K) in (National
SCCH-20 42 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Daleed Singh and others ) where
considering age of the petitioner of 24 years, award amount
was modified and enhanced.
4. Reported in 2020 ACJ 1448 in (Managing Director,
TNSTC Ltd., Vs Bharanidharan), where the Hon'ble High
court of Judicature at Madras, took the disability considered
by the doctor and the award was enhanced based upon the
doctor opinion, where the injured suffered 60 % permanent
disability.
5. Reported in 2020 ACJ 1452 in (Devamma and others
Vs Bharat and another) where there is direction to the
tribunals by explaining their duty to ensure just and
reasonable compensation to the victims and not to ignore
that basic tenet.
6. IN MFA No.668/2014 of the Hon'ble High court of
Karnataka dated 22.11.2022, in (Krishnegowda Vs M/s
Royal Sundaram Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,) where
SCCH-20 43 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
relying upon the judgment in " Erudhaya priya Vs State
Express transport corporation ltd., reported in 2020 SCC
online SC 601, and held that in a case of more than 31%
disability, future prospects has to be added. Hence, it is a fit
case to add future prospects".
These authorities are aptly applicable to the instant case
on hand and the principles laid down in the above cases are
applied in the above discussion.
44. Issue No.3: For the reasons stated in the aforesaid
paragraphs, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
In MVC No.4931/2019 The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.32.27,000/- with interest @ 6% pa., (Excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realization.
SCCH-20 44 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019The respondent No.1 shall pay aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest to the petitioners within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, 60% compensation of the petitioner shall be released in his favour with proper identification and remaining 40% compensation shall be kept as FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
In MVC No.4932/2019 The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners no. 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,48,000/- with interest @ 6%pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall pay aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest to the petitioners within two months from date of this order.
SCCH-20 45 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019After deposit, the petitioners are entitled to share in the ratio of 50:50 with cost and interest and consortium as under.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,24,000/-, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 and 2 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in their name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Original Judgment kept in MVC No.4931/2019 and copy of judgment kept in another case) (Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of February 2023) (Sharmila C.S) V ASCJ & Member, MACT, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined for petitioners:
P.W.1 Suraj Chaudhary
P.W.2 Ram Raj Pandit
SCCH-20 46 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
P.W.3 Dr.N.S.shivaprasad
P.W.4 Dr.S.A,Somashekar
P.W.5 Dr.Sudhir.B.M
Documents marked for petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : Copy of FIS Ex.P.3 : Copy of police intimation Ex.P.4 : Copy of spot sketch Ex.P.5 : Copy of spot mahazar Ex.P.6 : copy of Wound certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P.7 : copy of 133 notice Ex.P.8 :copy of reply to133 notice Ex.P.9 : true copy of indemnity bond
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Identity card in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P.11 : Bonafide certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P.12-14: Discharge summaries 3 in nos in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P15-16: out patient records 2 in nos Ex.P17-23: Boarding tickets 7 in nos in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P24-27: Advance cum final payment receipts 4 in nos Bombay hospital Ex.P28 : Medical bills for Rs.4,14,733/-in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P29 : prescriptions 7 in nos in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P30-31: 9 Photos with CD in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P32-33: Air tickets 2 nos in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P34 : True copy of police intimation in MVC No.4932/19 SCCH-20 47 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019 Ex.P35 : True copy of Inquest report in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P36 : True copy of PM report in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P37 : True copy of IMV report Ex.P38 : True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P39 : Notarized copy of college ID in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P40 : Notarized copy of voter ID in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P41 : Bonafide certificate in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P42 : Certificate to take the dead body in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P43 : Fligh tickets 6 in nos in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P44 : Ambulance bills of Rs.21,000/- and travel bills Flight tickets for Rs.55,000/- Ex.P45-46: Citizen cards in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P47-48: Authorization letters in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P49 : Admission form in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P50 : Provisional eligibility certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P51 : Character certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P52 : Migration certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P53 : Marks card Higer education RV Board in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P54 : Admission form in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P54(a) : Declaration by the student in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P54(b) : Declaration by the parent in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P55 : Cetizenship certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P56 : Provisional eligibility certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P57 : Marks card in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P58 : Migration certificate in MVC No.4931/19 SCCH-20 48 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019 Ex.P59 : Character certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P60 : Cetizenship certificate in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P61 : Fee details, Fee of Rs.2,86,364, hostel fee of Rs.73,000/-
Ex.P62 : Authorization letter in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P63 : Admission form in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P64 : Cetizenship certificate in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P65 : Admission form in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P65(a) : Declaration by the student in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P65(b) : Declaration by the parent in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P66 : Provisional eligibility certificate in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P67 : School leaving certificate in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P68 : Marks sheet in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P69 : Migration certificate in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P70 : Academic transcript in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P71 : Marks sheet in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P72 : Provisional eligibility certificate in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P73 : Fee details in MVC No.4932/19 Ex.P74 : Out patient record in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P75 : X-ray in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P76 : Inpatient case sheet from 04.07.2019 to 19.07.2019 Ex.P77 : X-rays in MVC No.4931/19 Ex.P78 : Medical bills in MVC No.4931/19 SCCH-20 49 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019 Witnesses examined for respondents:
Rw.1 : H.N.Nataraju Rw.2 : Jijesh, Rw.3 : Ashwini.J
Documents marked for respondents: NIL SHARMILA CS Digitally signed by SHARMILA C S Date: 2023.02.21 13:19:59 +0530 (Sharmila C S) V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore.SCCH-20 50 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
20.02.2023 Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (vide separate order):
ORDER In MVC No.4931/2019 The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.32.27,000/- with interest @ 6% pa., (Excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall pay aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest to the petitioners within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, 60% compensation of the petitioner shall be released in his favour with proper identification and remaining 40% compensation shall be kept as FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
In MVC No.4932/2019 The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.SCCH-20 51 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
The petitioners no. 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,48,000/- with interest @ 6%pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall pay aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest to the petitioners within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioners are entitled to share in the ratio of 50:50 with cost and interest and consortium as under.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,24,000/-, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 and 2 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in their name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Original Judgment kept in MVC No.4931/2019 and copy of judgment kept in another case) V A.S.C.J.&24th ACMM.SCCH-20 52 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
AWARD SCCH NO.20 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.4931/2019 PETITIONERS: Mr.Suraj Chaudhary S/o Asarlal Chaudhary Aged 24 years, R/at No.655, 1st main, Kirloskar Layout, Opp.Sapthagiri Eng.college, Nagasandra Post, Bangalore - 560073 (By pleader Sri.B.S.Devaraju)
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS 1. The Divisional Manager Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation K.H.Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore - 560027
2. Mr.Jijesh S/o Rajesh R/at No.655, 1st main, Kirloaskar Layout, Sathagiri Junction, Bangaluru-560073
3. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., TP Claim Hub, NO.121, "The estate building' 9th floor, Dickenson Road, Bangalore - 560042 SCCH-20 53 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019 (R1- By pleader Sri.Afzal Ahemed) (R-2 By pleader Sri.K.H.Dinesh Reddy) (R-3 By pleader Sri.Manoj Kumar M.R) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Smt.Sharmila.C.S, XXIV.Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.32.27,000/- with interest @ 6% pa., (Excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent No.1 shall pay aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest to the petitioners within two months from date of this order.
SCCH-20 54 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019After deposit, 60% compensation of the petitioner shall be released in his favour with proper identification and remaining 40% compensation shall be kept as FD in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2022.
Member, M.A.C.T, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff/s Defendant/s
1. Stamp paid on plaint (C/f)
2. Stamp paid for power
3. Stamp on I.A's
4. Service on Process
5. Advocate
6. Others / Total Decree drafted Decree Scrutinized Member, M.A.C.T, by by Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
SCCH-20 55 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
AWARD
SCCH NO.20
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.4932/2019 PETITIONERS: 1. Mr.Ram Raj Pandhit S/o Tulsi Prasad Pandit Aged 52 years,
2. Smt.Yashodha Pandit, W/o Ram Raj Pandit Aged about 42 years, Nagasandra post, Bangalore - 560073 R/at Kawalparasi, Harmashi-16 Danda, Nawalparasi District Lumbine Zone, Nepal.
(By pleader Sri.B.S.Devaraju)
-V/s-
RESPONDENTS : 1. The Divisional Manager Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation K.H.Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore - 560027
2. Mr.Jijesh S/o Rajesh R/at No.655, 1st main, Kirloaskar Layout, Sathagiri Junction, Bangaluru-560073 SCCH-20 56 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019
3. ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd., TP Claim Hub, NO.121, "The estate building' 9th floor, Dickenson Road, Bangalore - 560042 (R1- By pleader Sri.Afzal Ahemed) (R-2 By pleader Sri.K.H.Dinesh Reddy) (R-3 By pleader Sri.Manoj Kumar M.R) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Smt.Sharmila.C.S, XXIV.Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, MACT, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners no. 1 and 2 are entitled for compensation of Rs.16,48,000/- with interest @ 6%pa., from the date of petition till its realization.
SCCH-20 57 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019The respondent No.1 shall pay aforesaid compensation amount with 6% interest to the petitioners within two months from date of this order.
After deposit, the petitioners are entitled to share in the ratio of 50:50 with cost and interest and consortium as under.
The petitioner No.1 and 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,24,000/-, after deposit, 60% share of the petitioner No.1 and 2 shall be released and deposit 40% share of compensation amount as FD in their name with any nationalized or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2022.
Member, M.A.C.T, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
SCCH-20 58 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff/s Defendant/s
1. Stamp paid on plaint (C/f)
2. Stamp paid for power
3. Stamp on I.A's
4. Service on Process
5. Advocate
6. Others / Total Decree drafted Decree Scrutinized Member, M.A.C.T, by by Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
Decree Clerk Sheristedar
SCCH-20 59 M.V.C.No.4932/2019 C/w 4931/2019