Bangalore District Court
Fakruddin Ali Ahammad vs Smt. Renukamma on 4 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE AND XVIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AND M.A.C.T., BENGALURU (SCCH-22)
PRESENT :Smt. Niveditha T.M.,
B.A.L., LL.B.,
C/C of XX Additional Small Causes Judge,
& XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate & Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
DATED : This the 4th day of February 2020.
M.V.C.1810/2018
PETITIONER : Fakruddin Ali Ahammad,
@ Ali Ahammad,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o P. Khadar Basha,
#12-947, Sai Nagar,
5th Cross, Anantapur,
Andhra Pradesh-515 001.
And also at:
No.35, Seven Hills P.G.,
Arekere Village, Bannerughatta,
Road, Bengaluru-560 076.
(Rep.By Sri.K. Suresh, Advocate)
- Vs -
RESPONDENTS : 1. Smt. Renukamma
W/o Venkataswamy,
Resident of Block-1,
Nayakanakoppalu,
Belluru,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District-571 418.
(Owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307)
SCCH-22 2 M.V.C.1810/2018
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional office, T.P. Hub,
5th & 6th Floors,
Krishika Samaj Building,
Hudson Circle, Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
(Insurer of Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307)
Policy No.0716023116P115212808,
Valid from 11.02.2017 to 10.02.2018)
(Res.1:Ex-parte
Res.2: By Sri.K.R. Shivananda, Advocate)
:: JUDGMENT ::
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Sec.166 of M.V. Act against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
On 19.02.2017 at about 8.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-EC-9454 slowly, carefully, cautiously by observing all moving vehicles proceeding on the Arakere Main Road, Bengaluru, when he reached near Anjaneya Temple, a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307 driven by SCCH-22 3 M.V.C.1810/2018 its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and property came to its wrong side and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle from the opposite direction. Due to impact the petitioner was thrown out of the motor cycle and sustained severe injuries and the motor cycle was also badly damaged. Immediately the petitioner was shifted to Namratha Orthopaedic and Surgical Centre, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient, X-ray taken and examined clinically and radiologically and found that the petitioner has sustained severally comminuted, grade-1 compound fracture of distal femur and right leg with intra articular fracture with displacement and other injuries. The petitioner underwent operation with internal fixation to the right femur and discharged on 01.03.2017 and he is under follow-up treatment as per the advise of the doctor and has taken complete bed rest, continue medicines as an outpatient. Since fracture developed complication, the petitioner got admitted to the above said hospital on 28.03.2017 and 31.05.2017 and after necessary treatment discharged with an advise to take complete bed rest, continue medicines and follow up SCCH-22 4 M.V.C.1810/2018 treatment. For all these the petitioner has spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards medicines, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charge and he has to undergo two more surgeries in future for removal of implants, which will cost Rs.1,00,000/-.
3. It is the further case of the petitinor that, inspite of best treatment taken, the petitioner is suffering with permanent disability, he is not able to stand or walk without support and also longer duration, cannot climb stairs, cannot use Indian type of toilet, there is restriction of movements in his right knee and hip joint and he cannot bend his right leg backward and forward and confined to bed. At the time of accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, working as Material Maintenance Supervisor at Narayana PU College and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. After the accident he is not able to attend his work and lost salary. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307 and the police have registered the case against the said driver. Hence, the petitioner requested to pass the award as prayed.
SCCH-22 5 M.V.C.1810/2018
4. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 remained absent and she has been placed Ex-parte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and resisted the case of the petitioner by filing objection statement. In the objection statement, the 2nd respondent has stated that, the alleged vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The petitioner was lodged the complaint before the police by wrongly implicated the alleged vehicle in the accident and colluded with the police to file charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle to get wrongful gain. This respondent has admitted the issuance of insurance policy with respect to the car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307 and their liability if any is strictly in terms and conditions of the policy and provisions of M.V. Act, such as valid permit and fitness certificate. It is stated that, the above said car has been driven by a person who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident. The jurisdictional police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against the owner and driver of the said vehicle under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and 134(a&b) r/w Section 187, 3(1), 181, 5 and 180 of M.V.Act., that the owner SCCH-22 6 M.V.C.1810/2018 of said vehicle had knowingly allowed the person who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident and there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. The 2nd respondent has denied the the age, occupation, income of the petitioner, date, time and place of accident, rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307, injuries sustained, treatment taken, permanent disability caused and amount spent by the petitioner. This respondent stated that, the petitioner is the main architect of the alleged accident and he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and regulations. Further stated that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismiss the petition.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, this Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 19.02.2017 at about 8.00 p.m., while he was proceeding in a two wheeler SCCH-22 7 M.V.C.1810/2018 bearing Registration No.KA-51-EC-
9454 on Arakere Main Road, Bengaluru, the driver of Car bearing Registration No.KA-53-C-0307 driven the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner dashed against him and caused accident, resulting which he sustained injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove his case the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and two witnesses examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 were got marked.
The Respondent No.2 has examined two witnesses as R.W.1 and R.W.2 on its behalf and got marked documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5.
7. I have heard the arguments from both sides.
8. After assessing the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the arguments, my findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following
SCCH-22 8 M.V.C.1810/2018
:: REASONS ::
ISSUE No.1:-
9. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 19.02.2017 at about 8.00 p.m., he was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-EC- 9454 slowly, carefully, cautiously by observing all moving vehicles proceeding on the Arakere Main Road, Bengaluru, when he reached near Anjaneya Temple, a Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C- 0307 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger to human life and property came to its wrong side and dashed against his motor cycle from the opposite direction. Due to impact he was thrown out of the motor cycle and sustained severe injuries and the motor cycle was also badly damaged. In support of his case petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and filed affidavit in lieu of her chief-examination by reiterating the petition averments. He has produced the copies of First Information Report, Complaint, Mahazar, Sketch, IMV Report, Wound Certificate, Charge sheet, 4 Discharge Summaries, 6 medical bills, 3 photographs with CD and Studio Receipt, 4 X- rays, 3 OPD Cards, which are marked at Ex.P.1, 1(a) to Ex.P.14. SCCH-22 9 M.V.C.1810/2018 P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the respondent No.2. In the cross-examination P.W.1 states that, at the time of accident he was going on the motor cycle and he has got driving licence to ride the motor cycle. He states that, he lost the driving licence at the time of accident, therefore he does not know the number of the driving licence, hence he has not obtained the new driving licence. He also states that, since he was admitted to hospital and could not walk properly due to leg pain, he has not lodged the complaint immediately after the accident and he lodged the complaint after three days of the accident. At the time of accident his brother took him to the hospital and when he was unconscious he was taken to hospital.
10. The petitioner has examined P.W.2 Sri. C. Prakasha Somayaji, Manager of Namratha Orthopedic and Surgical Centre, Jayanagar, Bengaluru as P.W.2. P.W.2 has produced three case sheets marked at Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.18. According to the said document, it is written as "Patient got admitted with h/o Alleged RTA on 19.02.2017 at around 8 p.m., near Arakere, Bg road, Bangalore, patient was riding a 2 wheeler, collided with 4 wheeler, SCCH-22 10 M.V.C.1810/2018 sustained injury to right leg, fracture right forearm. No head injury". He has been cross-examined by the 2nd respondent counsel. In the cross-examination P.W.2 states that, they have not prepared separate MLC and he denied the suggestion that, he has deposed falsely to help the petitioner.
11. The 2nd respondent has examined its Administrative Officer by name Mr. M. Nava Kumar as R.W.1. R.W.1 has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief and reiterated the averments of the objection statement. He has produced Authorization letter, notice issued to insured, postal acknowledgment and copy of insurance policy, which are marked as Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.4. The 2nd respondent has also examined the Sub-Inspector of Adugodi Police Station by name Sri. M. Yellappa as R.W.2. R.W.2 in his chief-examination stated that, he has investigated this case and there is no L-Board Badge to the vehicle. Therefore, he has filed the charge sheet accordingly and he has seized the D.L. at the time of investigation and it is light motor non-transport D.L., and the acknowledgment is marked as Ex.R.5. He states that, after paying the fine original D.L. was returned back SCCH-22 11 M.V.C.1810/2018 to him. In the cross-examination by the petitioner counsel, he admits that, the driver holding D.L. for light motor vehicle non- transport and the car unladen weight is 990 k.g.
12. In this case there is nothing much disputed with respect to the negligent and rash driving of the petitioner for the occurrence of the accident. In the cross-examination P.W.1 has admitted the suggestion that, the complainant has lodged after three days of the accident. He has stated that, his brother has engaged to provide medical treatment to him, hence he has lodged the complaint belatedly. At this juncture, this Tribunal would like to rely upon the decision reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 - Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & others, wherein it is held as follows:
A. Motor Vehicles Act 1988 - Ss. 166, 168 & 173 - Delay in lodging FIR Dismissal of claim petition based thereon-Legality of -
Held, delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant's case in genuine cases - In Indian conditions, it is not expected that a person would to rush to police station after accident - Treatment of victim is given priority over lodging FIR -
Kith and kin of victim are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging FIR - Hence, delay in lodging FIR not a ground to dismiss claim petition.
SCCH-22 12 M.V.C.1810/2018So as per the above referred decision, in a claim petition, delay in lodging complaint cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. It is clearly held in the said decision with regard to expecting a common man first run to police station immediately after the accident. Human nature and family responsibility occupy the mind of the kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get victim treated rather than rush to the police station. In such circumstance, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. However the petitioner in this case has produced the rough sketch and charge sheet marked at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.6. According to the said documents, it is clear that, this accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car bearing Reg.No.KA- 53-C-0307 by its driver. In this case there is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident.
13. I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of P.W.1 along with the documents pertaining to the criminal case registered against the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307. The evidence of P.W.1 and above documents speaks that the accident SCCH-22 13 M.V.C.1810/2018 was occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307 and the police have registered the case against the driver of the above said offending vehicle and filed charge sheet against him after through investigation. Therefore, I hold that the evidence of P.W.1 and available documents are sufficient to say that, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C- 0307 by its driver and the petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident. Accordingly I answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.2:-
14. The petitioner has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and it is the contention of the petitioner that, he has sustained grievous injuries. P.W.1 has deposed that, immediately after the accident he was shifted to Apollo Hospital, after first aid treatment he was shifted to Namratha Orthopedic and Surgical Center, Jayanagar, Bangalore, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. Further stated that, he underwent open reduction and internal fixation to the right femur and he has taken continuous SCCH-22 14 M.V.C.1810/2018 follow-up treatment as an outpatient. P.W.1 has stated that, again he was admitted to Namratha hospital on 28.03.2017 due to discomfort and pain the right thigh and he was treated with antibiotics and discharged on 01.04.2017 with an advise to take complete bed rest, continue medicines and to take follow up treatment as an outpatient. Further stated that, again he got admitted to the above said hospital on 31.05.2017 with a chief complaint of infection and discharge from the surgical site and he underwent surgery for removal of implants and discharged on 01.06.2017 with an advice to take complete bed rest, medicines and follow up treatment. P.W.1 has stated that, the injuries developed complications, he was forced to admit at Balaji Institute of Surgery, Research and Rehabilitation at Tirupathi on 26.06.2017, wherein he underwent surgery and Ring Fixator was applied to his right femur and got discharged on 01.09.2017 after prolonged treatment with an advice to take complete bed rest, medicines and to take follow up treatment as an outpatient and he is confined to bed. In support of the said evidence, he has produced wound certificate and four discharge summaries marked at Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10. On SCCH-22 15 M.V.C.1810/2018 perusal of the same it reveals that, petitioner has sustained severally comminuted grade 1 compound fracture of distal femur right leg with intra-articular fracture with displacement and he took treatment at Namratha Orthopedic and Surgical Centre as an inpatient on three occasions i.e., from 20.02.2017 to 01.03.2017, 28.03.2017 to 01.04.2017, 31.05.2017 to 05.06.2017 and also he underwent ORIF with Distal Femoral LCP + Bone Grafting (R).
15. I have carefully scrutinized the oral evidence of P.W.1 along with the medical documents produced by him. On perusal of documents produced by the petitioner it reveals that, the petitioner has sustained fractured injury to right femur and took treatment as an inpatient on three occasions as an inpatient and undergone surgery. Considering the gravity and nature of injuries, period of treatment including follow-up treatment and nature of surgery, it is just and proper to award Rs.30,000/- under the head pain and sufferings including mental agony.
16. The petitioner has stated that, inspite of all best possible treatment taken by him he is suffering with permanent SCCH-22 16 M.V.C.1810/2018 disability, he is not able to walk or stand without the help of the wheel chair and he need an attendant round the clock to attend his day to day routine works. He cannot walk, climb stairs, use Indian type of toilet, cannot bear minimal weight on his right leg as there is non union of femur. In support of his case, the petitioner has examined the witness by name Mr. C. Prakasha Somayaji, the Manager of the Namratha Orthopedic and Surgical Centre, Jayanagar, Bangalore as P.W.2. P.W.2 has produced his Authorization Letter marked at Ex.P.15 and 3 Case Sheets, which are marked at Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.18.
17. The petitioner has also examined Dr. Ramachandra, Assistant Professor of Orthopedics at Victoria Hospital as P.W.3. P.W.3 has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief. He has stated that, as per oral statement and medical records the petitioner had med with an accident on 19.02.2017 at about 8.00 p.m., and it is diagnosed that, type-1 open (compound) fracture severally comminuted distal femur right sustained by the petitioner and open reduction internal fixation with distal femoral LCP (locking compression plate) with bone grafting done on 21.02.2017 SCCH-22 17 M.V.C.1810/2018 and discharged on 01.03.2017. Further stated that, the petitioner had admitted for the second time on 28.03.2017 and diagnosed fracture distal femoral LCP in situ, infective wound over distal femur-right, treated conservatively and discharged on 01.04.2017. He has stated that, for the third time the petitioner was admitted on 31.05.2017 and diagnosed infective-nonunion distal femur right, operation of implant removal and debridement done on 01.06.2017 and discharged on 05.06.2017. He has stated that, for the 4 th time admission of the petitioner at B.I.R.R.D. Hospital at Tirupathi on 26.06.2017, it is diagnosed the Osteomyelitis right distal femur, operation done are debridement + Ortofix application done on 17.07.2017 to the right femur corticotomy done on 09.08.2017 and he was discharged on 01.09.2017. P.W.3 stated that, recently he examined the petitioner at Victoria Hospital on 29.09.2018 exclusively for disability assessment, his OPD number is 411874. On radiological examination it reveals that, type-1 compound severally comminuted distal femur fracture right shows gross mal union with LRS frame in situ. The petitioner suffers 55.4% of disability of right lower limb and the permanent residual physical SCCH-22 18 M.V.C.1810/2018 disability of about 27.7% of whole body. P.W.3 stated that, the petitioner is said to be working as material maintenance supervisor at the time of accident and this disability will greatly affect his avocation. P.W.3 has produced OPD Book and X-ray, which are marked at Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. P.W.3 has been cross-examined by the 2nd respondent's counsel. In the cross-examination he has denied all the suggestion made to him. He sates that, he has not treated the petitioner personally, but on the basis of discharge summaries he has assessed the disability. He has denied the suggestion made to him that, the fractures are united but he has falsely deposed the disability. He has stated that, the fractures are mal untied (ವಕ ಕವಗ ಕಕಡಕಕಕಡದ/.
18. By looking into the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and also the medical documents produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are due to accident and he has taken treatment as an inpatient on four times. The doctor in this case has given the disability at 55.4% to the right lower limb and to the whole body 27.7%. As per Sarala Verma case, 1/3rd of SCCH-22 19 M.V.C.1810/2018 disability of particular limb has to be taken. So the whole body disability would comes to 18.46%. Hence by considering all these facts and age of petitioner, nature of injuries and disability suffered by him and the evidence of P.W.3 and documents produced by him, it is just and reasonable to consider the whole body disability of the petitioner to the extent of 18.46%, which is rounded off to 19%.
19. The petitioner has stated that at the time of accident, he was hale and healthy, working as a material maintenance supervisor at Narayana PU College, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru and getting salary of Rs.20,000/- per month. On account of accidental injuries, he is unable to continue his earlier work as it involves extensive traveling and physical fitness and lost his earnings for the rest of his life. P.W.1 stated that, the disability is greatly coming in the way of his day to day activities and avocation. With respect to the same, the petitioner has not produced any documents. Therefore, I would like to take the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month. With SCCH-22 20 M.V.C.1810/2018 regard to age, petitioner has not produced any documents. The medical records discloses that, the age of the petitioner is 35 years at the time of accident. So as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 35 years and same is taken as age of the petitioner. The appropriate multiplier for the age group over 30 to 35 is '16'. Thus, the calculation for loss of his future earnings would works out to Rs.10,000/- X 12 X 16 X 19% =Rs.3,64,800/-. Hence the petitioner is entitled for Rs.3,64,800/- under the head loss of future earnings.
20. The petitioner has stated that, he has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medicines, conveyance, nourishing food and attendant charges. In support of the same he has produced 6 medical bills for Rs.1,75,053/-. However taking into consideration of nature of injuries sustained, period of treatment, expenses incurred, it is just and proper to award Rs.1,75,053/- under the head medical expenses.
21. The petitioner has stated that, he has to undergo SCCH-22 21 M.V.C.1810/2018 surgeries in future for removal of ring fixator and bone grafting for the non union of right femur. P.W.3 the doctor in his evidence stated that, the petitioner advised to undergo another operation for removal of LRS frame from right femur. But he has not produced any estimate towards the cost of future surgery. Therefore, by considering the above facts, I am going to award Rs.20,000/- under the head future surgery cost. In addition to above I am going to award a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of conveyance, nourishment, nutritious food, Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of amenities and unhappiness.
22. In all I am going to award compensation of Rs.6,34,853/- under the following heads:
1. Pain and sufferings. Rs. 30,000/-
2. Loss of future earnings due to Rs. 3,64,800/-
disability.
3. Medical expenses. Rs. 1,75,053/-
4. Conveyance expenses, Rs. 25,000/-
nourishment and nutritious food
5. Loss of amenities and Rs. 20,000/-
unhappiness.
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs. 6,34,853/-
SCCH-22 22 M.V.C.1810/2018
23. I have already discussed and held supra that, this accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-53-C-0307 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with respondent No.2. The 2nd respondent has taken specific contention that, the offending car has been driven by a person who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the time of accident. Hence, the owner alone is liable to pay the compensation. In order to prove the said contention, the 2nd respondent has examined its Administrative Officer by name Mr. M. Nava Kumar as R.W.1. R.W.1 has filed affidavit evidence in lieu of examination-in-chief and reiterated the averments of the objection statement. The 2nd respondent has also examined the Sub-Inspector of Adugodi Police Station by name Sri. M. Yellappa as R.W.2. R.W.2 in his chief-examination stated that, he has investigated this case and there is no L-Board Badge to the vehicle. Therefore, he has filed the charge sheet accordingly and he has seized the D.L. at the time of investigation and it is light motor non-transport D.L., and the acknowledgment is marked as Ex.R.5. He states that, after paying the fine original D.L. was SCCH-22 23 M.V.C.1810/2018 returned back to him. In the cross-examination by the petitioner counsel, he admits that, the driver holding D.L. for light motor vehicle non-transport and the car unladen weight is 990 k.g. In this regard, the petitioner has produced the decision reported in (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663 between Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein it is held that:
"C. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.10 (as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994) -
Amendment of Form 4 (Form of application for licence to drive a motor vehicle) w.e.f.28.03.2001 - Effect, if any, on exclusion of transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class from the purview of Ss.10(2)(d) and 2(41) of the Act- Endorsement in the LMV vehicle licence for driving a transport vehicle falling under the LMV class"
In view of the above decision, the LMV vehicle driving licence is sufficient to drive transpose vehicle. Hence, the insurance copay is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the subsistence of insurance policy, respondent No.2 has to deposit compensation amount before the Tribunal. With these SCCH-22 24 M.V.C.1810/2018 observations, I have answered Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3:-
24. In view of the discussions made supra, I proceed to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
The claim petition under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act filed by the petitioner against respondents No.1 and 2 is hereby allowed in part with cost.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.6,34,853/-(Rupees Six Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Three only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the deposit of the amount in the Tribunal.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 insurance company shall deposit the said amount in the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation amount 50% of the amount shall be invested in fixed deposit in the name of petitioner for a period of three years in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice and balance amount shall be released to petitioner through account payee cheque.SCCH-22 25 M.V.C.1810/2018
The advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of February 2020) (NIVEDITHA T.M.) C/C of XX Additional Small Causes Judge & XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
:: ANNEXURE ::
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIOENRS:
P.W.1 - Fakruddin Ali Ahammad @ Ali Ahammad.
P.W.2 - C. Prakasha Somayaji.
P.W.3 - Dr. Ramachandra.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIOENRS:
Ex.P.1 - True copy of First Information Report.
Ex.P.1(a) - True copy of Complaint.
Ex.P.2 - True copy of Mahazar.
Ex.P.3 - True copy of Rough Sketch.
Ex.P.4 - True copy of IMV Report.
Ex.P.5 - True copy of Wound Certificate.
Ex.P.6 - True copy of Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.7 to 10 - 4 Discharge Summaries.
Ex.P.11 - 6 Medical Bills for Rs.1,75,053/-.
SCCH-22 26 M.V.C.1810/2018
Ex.P.12 - 3 Photographs with CD.
Ex.P.13 - 4 X-rays.
Ex.P.14 - 3 Outpatient Cards.
Ex.P.15 - Authorization letter of P.W.2.
Ex.P.16 to 18 - 3 Case Sheets.
Ex.P.19 - OPD Book.
Ex.P.20 - X-ray.
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS:
R.W.1 - M. Nava Kumar.
R.W.2 - M. Yellappa.
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 - Authorization Letter of R.W.1.
Ex.R.2 - Notice issued by the 2nd respondent to
owner of vehicle.
Ex.R.3 - Postal Acknowledgment.
Ex.R.4 - Copy of Insurance Policy.
Ex.R.5 - Acknowledgment issued by Sub-Inspector,
Hulimavu Traffic Police, Bengaluru.
(NIVEDITHA T.M.)
C/C of XX Additional Small Causes Judge
& XVIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate & Member, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.