In Mvc Kum.Manasa vs In All 1. Reliance General Insurance on 31 March, 2016

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

In Mvc Kum.Manasa vs In All 1. Reliance General Insurance on 31 March, 2016

Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.

Dated this the 31st day of March 2016

M.V.C. Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015

Petitioner in MVC Kum.Manasa,
No.2485/2015 Daughter of K.V.Shivalingaiah,
Aged about 20 years,
Residing at No.48, 7th cross,
2nd block, Behind Sai Raj Garden
Apartments, Akshyanagar,
Rammurthynagar,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.

Petitioner in MVC Shri Shivalingaiah K.V.,
2486/2015 Son of Venkatappa,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at No.48, 7th Cross,
2nd stage, Akshyanagar,
Ramamurthynagar,
Kowdenahalli,
Dooravaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
Petitioner in MVC Smt.Prabhavathi C.,
No.2487/2015 Wife of Shivalingaiah,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.48, 7th Cross,
2nd Stage, Behind Sairaj Apartment,
Akshyanagar, R.M.Nagar,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
2 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Petitioner in MVC Kum.Bhumija,
2488/2015 Daughter of Manjunath V.,
Aged about 10 years,
Residing at No.48, 7th Cross,
2nd Stage, Behind Sairaj Apartment,
Akshyanagar, R.M.Nagar,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
She is minor represented by her
mother Smt.D.T.Shobha as natural
guardian.

Petitioner in MVC Kum.Bharghavi,
2489/2015 Daughter of Manjunath V.,
Aged about 10 years,
Residing at No.48, 7th Cross,
2nd Stage, Behind Sairaj Apartment,
Akshyanagar, R.M.Nagar,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
She is minor, represented by her
mother Shobha D.T. as a natural
guardian.

Petitioner in MVC Smt.Muniykkayamma,
2490/2015 Wife of L.Venkatappa,
Aged about 85 years,
Residing at No.48, 7th Cross,
2nd Stage, Behind Sairaj Garden
Apartment,
Akshyanagar, R.M.Nagar,
Doorvaninagar,
Bengaluru-560 016.
Petitioner in MVC Shri Ravi Kumar A.,
2491/2015 Son of Annaiyappa,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.1 A, 6th Cross,
Boopasandra New Extension,
Bengaluru-560 094.
3 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Petitioner in MVC Kum.Brunda,
2492/2015 Daughter of A.Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 12 years,
Residing at No.1 A, 6th Cross,
Boopasandra New Extension,
Bengaluru-560 094.
Since she is a minor, represented by
her father A.Ravi Kumar as a
natural guardian.

Petitioner in MVC Smt.Lakshmi C.,
2493/2015 Wife of Ravi Kumar,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.1 A, 6th cross,
Boopasandra New Extension,
Bengaluru-560 094.

Petitioner in MVC Smt.K.V.Rajamma,
2494/2015 Wife of Chikkamuniyappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.54/4, 3rd cross,
Geddalahalli, RMV II Stage,
Bengaluru-560 094.
(Shri R.Chandrashekar, Advocate)

V/s.

Respondents in all 1. Reliance General Insurance
the cases Co.Ltd., Regional office No.28,
5th floor, Centenary building,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru.
Policy issued at:
Reliance General Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
No.570, Naigaum Cross Road,
Next to Royal Industrial Estate,
Wadala (W) Mumbai-400 031.
(Policy No.1405742340000237
valid from 11.7.2014 to
4 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

10.7.2015)
(Shri H.T.Venkataraju, Advocate)

2. Shri Madhusudhana,
Son of Krishnamurthy,
No.64, 2nd cross,
Sheshadripuram,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-560 003.
(Exparte)
3. Shriram General Insurance
Co.Ltd., E-8, EPIP, RIICO
Industrial Area, Sitapur,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302 022.
(Policy
No.418005/31/15/004955 valid
from 4.1.2015 to 3.1.2016)

(Shri K.M.Ravi, Advocate)

4. Shri Syed Imran,
M/s BABA Transport,
No.101/102, 4th cross, 1st Stage,
BTM Layout,
Bengaluru-560 029.
(Exparte)

COMMON JUDGMENT

These claim petitions filed by the petitioners against

the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-

Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/-,
5 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/-,

Rs.15,00,000/-, Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.8,00,000/-

respectively for the injuries sustained by the petitioners

in a road traffic accident.

2. The brief facts of the claim petitions are as

under:

The petitioners being said to be the injured in their

claim petition were alleged that on 14.4.2015 at about

6.30 a.m. they being the occupants of the Tempo

Traveller bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332 and one

Manjunath was the driver of the said tempo traveller

proceeding on Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48 road, from

Savadatti towards Bengaluru when they were reached

Dwaralu Bridge, Sira Taluk the driver of the tempo

traveler has drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner without observing the traffic rules and

regulations in zigzag manner and hit the lorry bearing

No.KA-05-AD-2865 from its behind as the driver of the

lorry had parked the lorry loaded with iron rods on the

road negligently neither switching on any indicator nor
6 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

keeping any signal reflectors. So, the driver of the lorry

was also equally negligent for the cause of the accident as

the lorry was unattended, as a result, they were

sustained grievous injuries. The driver of the tempo

traveler was shifted to Government Hospital, Sira, on the

way to the hospital the driver was succumbed due to the

accidental injuries and they were shifted to Government

hospital, Sira, wherein they took the first aid treatment,

later on they were shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,

wherein they took the treatment as inpatient and

underwent surgery by spending huge amount.

3. The petitioner in MVC No.2485/2015 prior to the

accident she was hale and healthy, student of BBM and

also conducting the tuition by getting monthly income of

Rs.5,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries, she could not

do the work as before.

4. The petitioner in MVC 2486/2015 prior to the

accident was hale and healthy working as a machine

operator by getting monthly salary of Rs.24,000/-, due to
7 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as

before.

5. The petitioner in MVC 2487/2015 prior to the

accident she was hale and healthy working as a tailor by

getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, due to the

accidental injuries, she could not do the work as before.

6. The petitioners in MVC 2488/2015 and

2489/2015 prior to the accident they were hale and

healthy being minors studying in 3rd standard. Due to

the accidental injuries, they could not attend the classes,

inspite of best treatment they could not come to normal

position, still they were facing difficulties.

7. The petitioner in MVC 2490/2015 prior to the

accident was hale and healthy being house wife, due to

the accidental injuries, she could not do the work as

earlier.

8. The petitioner in MVC 2491/2015, prior to the

accident was hale and healthy working as a driver by

getting monthly income of Rs.28,000/-. Due to the

accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before.
8 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

9. The petitioner in MVC 2492/2015 prior to the

accident was hale and healthy being a minor and

student, due to the accidental injuries, she could not

attend the classes regularly.

10. The petitioner in MVC 2493/2015 prior to the

accident was hale and healthy working as a tailor by

getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, due to the

accidental injuries, she could not do the work as before.

11. The petitioner in MVC 2494/2014 prior to the

accident was hale and healthy being house wife, due to

the accidental injuries, she could not do the work as

earlier.

12. The accident in question was taken place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

Tempo Traveller and lorry driver. Thereby, Tavarekere

Police have registered the case against the offending

vehicle driver in their police station crime No.46/2015 for

the offences punishable u/s 279, 283, 337 and 304(A) of

IPC. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are being the insurer and

the owner of the tempo traveler and the lorry are jointly
9 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays

for allow the claim petitions.

13. In response of the notice, the respondent Nos. 2

& 4 did not appear nor file their written statement as

they were placed exparte. The respondent Nos.1 & 3 were

appeared through their respective counsel and filed their

written statement.

14. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the

tempo traveler in its written statement has alleged that

the claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not

maintainable in law or on facts and he has denied that

on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. the petitioners were

proceeding in a tempo traveler bearing registration

No.KA-02-AA-1332 and the driver by name Manjunath

was driving the said tempo traveler on Chitradurga-

Bengaluru NH-48 from Savadatti towards Bengaluru

when they were reached near Dwaralu Bridge,

Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk the driver of the tempo

traveler has drove the same without observing the traffic

rules and regulations in a zigzag manner and dashed
10 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

behind the lorry as the driver has parked the lorry loaded

with iron rods on the road negligently neither switching

on the indicator nor keeping any signal reflectors, the

driver of the lorry was equally negligence for the cause of

accident, the said lorry was unattended, as a result they

were sustained grievous injuries and the tempo traveler

was shifted to Government hospital, Tumkur, on the way

to the hospital he was succumbed due to the accidental

injuries and the petitioners were sustained grievous

injuries in a road traffic accident and he has denied that

after the accident they were shifted to Government

hospital, wherein they took the first aid treatment, later

on they were shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, wherein

they took the treatment as inpatient by spending huge

amount and he has denied the age, avocation and

income of the petitioners and he has alleged that the

accident was taken place on account of negligence of the

driver of the lorry which was stationed without parking

lights and without taking any precaution by the driver

nor putting the stones around lorry, even not at all
11 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

shown any signal nor any indications to the other users

of the road to take diversion at that place and to avoid

the accident, the driver of the lorry without following the

traffic rules and regulations negligently parked the lorry

in the national highway-48. So, he is solely responsible

for the cause of accident and there was no rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the tempo traveler and

the petitioners have taken undue advantage of the death

of the driver have filed the false complaint against the

driver of the tempo traveler to get wrongful gain. But he

has admitted about the issuance of the policy in favour

of the second respondent in respect of offending vehicle

and the policy was valid from 11.7.2014 to 10.7.2015,

but its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the

policy and the driver of the tempo traveller was not

holding valid and effective driving license as on the date

of alleged accident as the second respondent being the

owner of the tempo traveler has entrusted the vehicle to

the person who was not holding valid and effective

driving license, so he has contravened the terms and
12 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

conditions of the policy, as the vehicle was not having

RC, FC and permit as on the date of alleged accident and

the driver was not holding valid and effective driving

license to drive the passenger carrying transport vehicle.

The petitioners in colluding with the owner of the tempo

traveler have filed the instant claim petitions and prays

for reject the claim petitions.

15. The respondent No.3 being the insurer of the

lorry in its written statement has alleged that the claim

petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable in

law or on facts, but he has admitted about the issuance

of the policy in favour of the 4th respondent in respect of

the lorry and its liability is subject to terms and

conditions of the policy and he has alleged that the 4th

respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle has

entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding

valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. So,

he has contravened the terms and conditions of the

policy. Thus, he is not liable to pay any compensation to

the petitioners and as on the date of alleged accident the
13 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

offending vehicle was not having valid permit and fitness

and the 4th respondent being the owner has entrusted

the vehicle knowing fully well that the vehicle was not

having valid permit and fitness, so the 4th respondent

has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and

either the owner of the offending vehicle nor the

jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory

provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of the M.V.

Act in furnishing better particulars and he has denied

that the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AD-2865

was involved in the accident and the driver of the lorry

was negligently parking the vehicle on the road without

putting any indication nor signal and he has denied the

age, avocation and income of the petitioners and he has

also denied that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. the

petitioners were proceeding in a tempo traveler bearing

registration No.KA-02-AA-1332 and the driver by name

Manjunath was driving the said tempo traveler on

Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48 from Savadatti towards

Bengaluru, when they were reached near Dwaralu
14 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Bridge, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk the driver of the

tempo traveler has drove the same without observing the

traffic rules and regulations in a zigzag manner and

dashed behind the lorry as the driver has parked the

lorry loaded with iron rods on the road negligently

neither switching on the indicator nor keeping any signal

reflectors, the driver of the lorry was equally negligence

for the cause of accident, the said lorry was unattended,

as a result, they were sustained grievous injuries and the

tempo traveler was shifted to Government hospital,

Tumkur, on the way to the hospital he was succumbed

due to the accidental injuries and the petitioners were

sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and

he has denied that after the accident they were shifted to

Government hospital, Sira, wherein they took the first

aid treatment, later on they were shifted to M.S.Ramaiah

Hospital, wherein they took the treatment as inpatient by

spending huge amount and underwent surgery and he

has alleged that the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-

AD-2865 was not at all involved in the accident and the
15 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

accident in question was taken place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the tempo traveler driver as the

lorry driver was parked the lorry with all precaution

measure and putting the indicator on extreme left side of

the road, even then unfortunate accident was occurred

only on the rash and negligent driving of the tempo

traveller driver. So the driver of the tempo traveler was

solely responsible for the cause of accident. But the

petitioners have filed the instant false, malicious,

incorrect and malafide claim petition for wrongful gain

and the petitioners have not approached the court with

clean hands and the driver of the offending vehicle was

not having valid and effective driving license to drive the

said vehicle as on the date of alleged accident, so the

respondent No.4 being the owner has contravened the

terms and conditions of the policy and prays for reject

the claim petition.

16. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

following issues are framed in all the claim petitions:
16 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

MVC No. 2485/2015

1. Whether the petitioner proves that she
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in wound certificate, in a road
traffic accident on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30
a.m. on Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48
road, near Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere
Hobli, Sira Taluk, Tumkur due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
Tempo Traveller bearing registration No.KA-
02-AA-1332 and negligent parking of the
driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.KA-05-AD-2865 without any indicator
nor keeping any signal reflectors?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?

3. What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2486/2015

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in
wound certificate, in a road traffic accident
on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. on
17 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48 road, near
Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira
Taluk, Tumkur due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Tempo
Traveller bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-
1332 and negligent parking of the driver of
the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AD-
2865 without any indicator nor keeping any
signal reflectors?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2487/2015

02-AA-1332 and negligent parking of the
driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.KA-05-AD-2865 without any indicator
nor keeping any signal reflectors?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2488/2015

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2489/2015

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?
20 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

MVC No. 2490/2015

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2491/2015

1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in
wound certificate, in a road traffic accident
on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. on
21 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2492/2015

02-AA-1332 and negligent parking of the
driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.KA-05-AD-2865 without any indicator
nor keeping any signal reflectors?

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2493/2015

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?

MVC No. 2494/2015

2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so, to what extent and
from whom?

3.What Order or Award?
24 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

17. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed

the memo on 13.11.2015 and prays for to club the MVC

Nos. 2486/2016 to 2494/2015 with MVC 2485/2015 as

these cases are arising out of the same accident,

accordingly the said memo was came to be accepted and

MVC Nos. 2486/2015 to 2494/2015 are clubbed with

MVC 2485/2015 for the purpose of recording of common

evidence and for disposal.

18. The petitioner in MVC 2485/2015 has examined

herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1

to Ex.P12 and Ex.P77. The petitioner in MVC No.

2486/2015 has examined himself as PW2 and got

marked the documents as Ex.P13 to Ex.P19, Ex.P78 and

Ex.P79. The petitioner in MVC 2487/2015 has examined

himself as PW3 and got marked the documents as

Ex.P20 to Ex.P24. The petitioner in MVC 2488/2015 and

the petitioner in MVC 2489/2015 being the minors have

examined their mother as PW4 and got marked the

documents as Ex.P25 to Ex.P37, Ex.P80, Ex.P82 and
25 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Ex.P83. The petitioner in MVC 2490/2015 has examined

herself as PW5 and got marked the documents as Ex.P38

to Ex.P41. The petitioner in MVC 2491/2015 being the

injured and the father of the minor petitioner in MVC

2492/2015 has examined himself as PW6 and got

marked the documents as Ex.P42 to Ex.P62. The

petitioner in MVC 2493/2015 has examined herself as

PW7 and got marked the documents as Ex.P63 to

Ex.P72. The petitioner in MVC 2494/2015 has examined

herself as PW8 and got marked the documents as Ex.P73

to Ex.P76 and they have examined doctor as PW9 and got

marked the documents as Ex.P84 to Ex.P114 and

examined Executive Corporate of M.S. Ramaiah hospital

as PW10 and got marked the documents as Ex.P115 to

Ex.P155. The petitioner in MVC 2489/2015 has

examined one witness as PW11. The third respondent

has examined the driver of the lorry as RW1 and Legal

Manager of the first respondent as RW2 and got marked

the document as Ex.R1. The third respondent has
26 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

examined its Legal Manager as RW3 and got marked the

document as Ex.R2.

19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed

the written arguments. Heard arguments on both side.

20. My findings to the above issues are as under:

Case No. Issue No.1 Issue No.2 Issue
No.3
2485/2015
In the Partly As per final
to
Affirmative Affirmative order
2494/2015

REASONS

21. Issue No.1 in all the claim petitions.

The petitioners being said to be the injured were

approached the court on the ground that, on 14.4.2015

at about 6.30 a.m. they were proceeding in a Tempo

traveller bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332 and one

Manjunath was the driver of the said tempo traveler

proceeding towards Bengaluru from Soudatti on

Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48, when they were reached

near Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, driver

of the Tempo Traveller has drove the same in a rash and
27 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and

regulations in a zigzag manner and dashed behind the

lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AD-2865 as the lorry

driver had parked the lorry loaded with iron rods on the

road negligently neither switching on any indicator nor

keeping any signal reflectors. So, the driver of the lorry

was equally responsible for the cause of accident, as the

said lorry was unattended and due to the said accident

they were sustained grievous injuries. Immediately they

were shifted to Government hospital, Sira, later on they

were shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital, Bengaluru and

took the treatment as inpatient and underwent surgery

by spending huge amount. Thereby, they have filed the

instant claim petitions against the respondents.

22. The petitioner in MVC 2485/2015 in order to

prove her case has filed her affidavit as her chief-

examination as PW1, in which has stated that on

14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. herself and others being

the occupants of the tempo traveler bearing registration
28 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

No.KA-02-AA-1332 were proceeding towards Bengaluru

from Soudatti on Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48, when

they were reached near Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere

Hobli, Sira Taluk, driver of the Tempo Traveller has drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner without

observing the traffic rules and regulations in a zigzag

manner and dashed behind the lorry bearing registration

No.KA-05-AD-2865 as the lorry driver had parked the

lorry loaded with iron rods on the road negligently

neither switching on any indicator nor keeping any signal

reflectors. So, the driver of the lorry was equally

responsible for the cause of accident. Due to the said

impact herself and other inmates of the tempo traveler

were sustained grievous injuries. So, she has been

shifted to Government hospital, Sira, later on, she was

shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital, Bengaluru and took

the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount.

Though the driver of the tempo traveler has been shifted

to Government hospital, Tumkur but on the way to the

hospital he was succumbed due to the accidental
29 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

injuries. The accident in question was taken place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo

traveler driver and the negligent act of the driver of the

lorry. Thereby, Tavarekere Police have registered the case

against the both the drivers in their police station

Cr.No.46/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 283,

337 and 304(A) of IPC. PW1 in her cross-examination

has admitted that as on the date of alleged accident in all

thirteen persons were proceeding in the tempo traveler

since they had been to Soudatti Yellamma Temple to offer

pooja, after the pooja, they were proceeding towards

Bengaluru and she was sitting on the left side seat of the

tempo traveler and the tempo traveler driver has drove

the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed behind

the lorry and she has admitted that the driver of the lorry

had parked the lorry in the middle of the road without

giving any indication or signal, thereby the accident was

occurred. But she has denied that the accident was

occurred on the sole negligence of the lorry driver, but

she has stated that the accident was occurred on
30 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

account of both the drivers of the vehicle and she has

denied that they took the undue advantage of the death

of the tempo traveler have filed the false case against the

tempo traveler driver for wrongful gain.

23. The PW2 being the petitioner in MVC

2486/2015 and the injured in his evidence has stated

that himself and others were proceeding in a tempo

traveler and one Manjunath was the driver of the tempo

traveler has drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner without observing the traffic rules and

regulations on Chitraddurga-Bengaluru NH-48, when

they were reached near Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere

Hobli, Sira Taluk, dashed behind the lorry bearing

registration No.KA-05-AD-2865 as the lorry driver had

parked the lorry loaded with iron rods on the road

negligently neither switching on any indicator nor

keeping any signal reflectors. So, the driver of the lorry

was equally responsible for the cause of accident. Due to

the said impact himself and other inmates of the tempo
31 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

traveler were sustained grievous injuries. So, he has been

shifted to Government hospital, Sira, later on he was

shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital, Bengaluru and took

the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount.

Though, the driver of the tempo traveler has been shifted

to Government hospital, Tumkur but on the way to the

hospital he was succumbed due to the accidental

injuries. The accident in question was taken place on

account of rash and negligent driving of the tempo

traveler driver and the negligent act of the driver of the

lorry. Thereby, Tavarekere Police have registered the case

against the both the drivers in their police station

Cr.No.46/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 283,

337 and 304(A) of IPC. PW2 in his cross-examination

has admitted that as on the date of alleged accident the

driver of the lorry was not putting any around the lorry

and either the driver nor the cleaner were not present by

the side of the lorry and the accident was occurred on the

negligence of the lorry driver and has denied that as on

the date of alleged accident the tempo traveler driver was
32 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

not drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and it

was taken place on the sole negligence of the driver of the

lorry and has denied that the accident was occurred on

the sole negligence of the tempo traveler driver and he

has admitted that the police have recorded his statement

and admitted that they were continuously traveled in a

tempo traveler for a period of two days, but he has denied

that the accident was occurred on the sole negligence of

the tempo traveler driver.

24. The PW3 being the petitioner in MVC

2487/2015 and the injured in her evidence has clearly

stated that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. herself and

others being the occupants of the tempo traveler bearing

registration No.KA-02-AA-1332 were proceeding towards

Bengaluru from Soudatti on Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-

48, when they were reached near Dwaralu Bridge,

Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, driver of the Tempo

Traveller has drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner without observing the traffic rules and
33 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

regulations in a zigzag manner and dashed behind the

lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AD-2865 as the lorry

driver had parked the lorry loaded with iron rods on the

road negligently neither switching on any indicator nor

keeping any signal reflectors. So, the driver of the lorry

was equally responsible for the cause of accident. Due to

the said impact herself and other inmates of the tempo

traveler were sustained grievous injuries. The Tempo

traveller driver also sustained grievous injuries, though

he was shifted to Tumkur Government Hospital, but he

was succumbed on the way to the hospital and herself

and other inmates of the tempo were shifted to

Government hospital, Sira, later on she was shifted to

M.S. Ramaiah hospital, Bengaluru and took the

treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount. The

accident in question was taken place on account of rash

and negligent driving of the tempo traveler driver and the

negligent act of the driver of the lorry. Thereby,

Tavarekere Police have registered the case against the

both the drivers in their police station Cr.No.46/2015 for
34 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the offences punishable u/s 279, 283, 337 and 304(A) of

IPC. PW3 in her cross-examination has admitted that at

the time of accident either the driver of the lorry nor the

cleaner were not present by the side of the lorry and the

accident was occurred on the negligence of the lorry

driver, but she has denied that as on the date of alleged

accident the tempo traveler driver was not drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner and the accident

was not taken place on account of rash and negligent

driving of the tempo traveler driver, but it was taken

place on account of negligence of the lorry driver and she

has denied that they were taken undue advantage of the

death of the tempo traveler driver have filed the false

complaint against the tempo traveler driver for wrongful

gain and she has denied that the accident in question

was taken place on the sole negligence of the driver of the

tempo traveler and it was not taken place on account of

negligence of the lorry driver, as the lorry driver was

parked the lorry by putting signal by showing indicator.
35 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

25. The PW4 being the natural guardian of the

petitioner in MVC 2488/2015 and 2489/2015 in her

evidence has stated that her daughters were traveling in

a tempo traveler bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332

along with others and one Manjunath was the driver of

the tempo traveler was proceeding towards Bengaluru

from Savadatti, when they were reached Dwaralu bridge,

Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, the driver of the tempo

traveler has drove the same in a zigzag manner and hit

the lorry from behind as the lorry driver was parked the

lorry negligently on the road. Due to the said impact,

they were sustained grievous injuries and immediately

they were shifted to Sira Government hospital, later on

M.S.Ramaiah hospital, Bengaluru wherein she took the

treatment as inpatient. The driver of the tempo traveler

was succumbed on the way to the hospital due to the

accidental injuries. Thereby, they have filed the case

against the offending vehicle drivers.
36 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

26. The PW5 to PW8, who are the petitioners in

MVC 2490/2015, 2491/2015. The PW6 being the natural

guardian of the minor petitioner in MVC 2492/2015 and

the petitioners in MVC No.2493/2015 and 2494/2015

being the injured in their evidence have clearly stated

that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. themselves and

others were proceeding in a Tempo traveler bearing

registration No.KA-02-AA-1332 towards Bengaluru from

Soudatti on Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48, when they

were reached near Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere Hobli,

Sira Taluk, driver of the Tempo Traveller has drove the

same in a rash and negligent manner without observing

the traffic rules and regulations in a zigzag manner and

dashed behind the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-

AD-2865 as the lorry driver had parked the lorry loaded

with iron rods on the road negligently neither switching

on any indicator nor keeping any signal reflectors. So,

the driver of the lorry was equally responsible for the

cause of accident. Thereby, Tavarekere police have

registered the case against both the vehicle drivers in
37 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

their police station cr.No.46/2015 for the offences

punishable u/s 279, 283, 337 and 304(A) of IPC. The

PW5 to PW8 in their cross-examination were admitted

that as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the

tempo traveller was proceeding towards Bengaluru with

high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed

behind the lorry, but they have denied that the accident

was occurred on the sole negligence of the tempo traveler

driver and it was not taken place on account of

negligence of the lorry driver as the lorry driver was

parked the lorry by taking precaution.

27. The petitioners in support of the oral evidence

have produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P155. Ex.P1 is the information filed by one

Channakeshava who is the inmate of the tempo traveller

in which has stated that on 12.4.2015 himself and his

mother Rajamma, relatives Praghavathi, Manasa,

Shivalingaiah, Munilakshmamma, Ravikumar, Lakshmi

and her daughters Bhomika, Brunda, Bhargavi had been
38 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

to Savadatti Yellamma Temple to offer pooja through

tempo traveler bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332

and one Manjunath was the driver of the tempo traveler

as they left the Bengaluru in the night on 12.4.2015 and

reached Yellamma Temple on 13.4.2015, after offering

pooja at Yellamma temple they were left Savadatti in the

night hours on 13.4.2015 proceeding towards Bengaluru.

On 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. when they were reached

near Dwaralu Bridge, Gowdagere Hobli, Sira Taluk, on

Chitradurga-Bengaluru NH-48, the driver of the tempo

traveler has drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner without observing the traffic rules and

regulations dashed behind the lorry which was parked on

the road. So, inmates of the tempo traveler were

sustained injuries, but he has not sustained any injury,

the driver of the tempo traveler had sustained severe

injuries on his face, head and other injuries all over the

body. So, he was get down from the tempo traveler and

noticed that the lorry bearing registration No.KA-05-AD-

2865 which was loaded with iron rods as the lorry driver
39 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

was parked the said lorry by the side of the road without

putting any indicator nor signal. So, he was also

responsible for the cause of accident. So, the injured

were shifted to Sira Government Hospital through 108

ambulance. Though the driver of the tempo traveler was

shifted to Tumkur Government hospital, but on the way

to the hospital he was succumbed due to the accidental

injuries. The accident was occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the tempo traveler and the negligence

of the lorry driver. So, based on the information

Tavarekere Police have registered the case against both

the vehicle drivers in their police station cr.No.46/2015

for the offences punishable u/s 279, 283, 337 and 304(A)

of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 &

3 were cross-examined the PW1 to PW8, but nothing is

elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Though, the learned

counsel for the respondent No.1 has suggested the PW1

to 8 that the accident in question was taken place on

account of negligence of the lorry driver since the lorry

driver has parked the lorry without putting any indicator
40 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

nor signal and the accident was occurred on the sole

negligence of the lorry driver, for which they have denied

the same and the learned counsel for the respondent

No.3 has cross-examined the PW1 to 8 but nothing is

elicited to disbelieve their evidence, though he has

suggested that the accident in question was taken place

on the sole negligence of the tempo traveller driver, for

which they have denied the same and further they have

stated that the accident was occurred on the negligence

of both vehicle drivers and both vehicle drivers are

equally responsible for the cause of accident.

28. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3

while canvassing his arguments has much argued that

the driver of the lorry has parked the lorry by the side of

the road and there are two lanes by the side of the road

towards right side for moving vehicles without any

obstruction towards Bengaluru and the driver has taken

precaution while parking of the lorry, even then the

accident was occurred on the sole negligence of the
41 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

tempo traveller driver and it was not taken place on

account of negligence of the lorry driver as the RW1 being

the driver of the lorry in his evidence has clearly stated

about the precaution taken by him while parking of the

lorry by the side of the road. So, no negligence on the

part of the driver of the lorry and it was sole negligence of

the driver of the tempo traveler the accident was occurred

and the said counsel has drawn the Court attention on

the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported

in 2014 AIR SCW 1081 in between Lachoo Ram and

others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation.

29. On careful perusal of the said judgement

claimants being legal heirs of the deceased were filed the

claim petition for seeking compensation and the said

claim petition was came to be allowed by awarding

compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- with interest at the rate

of 12% p.a. So, the respondent has filed the appeal before

the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court

reversed the finding given by the Tribunal. Thereby the
42 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

claimants were filed the appeal before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere

involvement of the bus respondent corporation cannot

make respondent liable to pay the compensation unless it

is shown that the accident was caused by the rash and

negligent act of the bus driver, simply involvement of the

bus in the accident cannot make respondent liable to pay

the compensation unless it can be held on the basis of

the materials on record that the accident was caused on

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

respondent No.2 and the appeal was came to be

dismissed.

30. In the instant case, admittedly PW1 to PW8 in

their evidence have clearly stated that the driver of the

lorry was parked the lorry on the road negligently neither

switching on any indicator nor keeping nay signal with

effect easy flow of the traffic. Thereby, the driver of the

lorry equally responsible for the cause of accident. The

learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has cross-
43 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

examined the PW1 to PW8, nothing is elicited to

disbelieve their evidence to show that the accident was

occurred on the sole negligence of the driver of the tempo

traveler. If that is so, the matter would have different.

Though, he has suggested the PW1 to PW8 that the

accident was occurred on the sole negligence of the

Tempo traveler driver, for which they have denied the

same, further they have stated that the accident was

occurred on both the vehicle drivers. Ex.P4 is the spot

sketch though it appears that the driver of the lorry has

parked towards extreme of the road side, even RW1 in his

evidence has stated that as on the date of alleged

accident he was taken all precaution to avoid the

accident by putting signal and the cleaner was also

standing within 100 metres from the lorry by showing the

flag. But in his cross-examination has categorically

admitted that he has filed the complaint on the ground

that the accident was not occurred on his own

negligence, but did not produce complaint copy to show

that the accident was not occurred on his negligence.
44 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Thereby, he has lodged the complaint. Ex.P3 is the

panchanama drawn by the I.O. clearly reflects that the

driver of the lorry was also responsible for the accident.

So, for proper appreciation of the recitals as appeared in

Ex.P3 is necessary for reproduction;

F ¯ÁjAiÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀ ZÁ¹ðAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ÁâUÀ PÀ©âtzÀ
DAUÀ¯ïUÉ ¥ÉÇÃ¸ïð mÁæª®
É gï ªÁºÀ£À ©½AiÀÄ §tÚ
CAnPÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »A¨sÁUÀ mÉçÊ®gï ªÉÄÃ¯É UÁf£À
ZÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢ÝgÀÄvÉ.Û PÀ©âtzÀ DAUÀ¯ï£À vÀÄ¢ C®è°è
¸Àé®à ¨ÉAqÁVgÀÄvÀÛÉ. §®¨sÁUÀzÀ EArPÉÃlgï ¯ÉÊmï
ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÀÛÉ. PÀ©âtzÀ PÀA©UÀ¼ÀÄ ©½AiÀÄ §tÚ
CAnPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛ. ¯Áj ¤AwzÀÝ ¸À¼
Ü ÀzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ
C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀÜ¼Àz°
À è ¯ÁjAiÀÄ ZÁ®PÀ ¯Áj
¤AwgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ »AzÉ §gÀÄªÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀU½
À UÉ UÉÆÃvÁÛUÀ®Ä
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀævÉ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀîzÉ
¤®ðPÀëvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹gÀÄvÁÛ£AÉ vÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À
¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÉÛAvÀ ¥ÀAZÀgÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄäU¼
À À
C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄªÁVgÀÄvÉÛ.
45 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

31. So, the above recitals as appeared in Ex.P3

clearly reflects that the driver of the lorry has not taken

precaution while parking. That itself is clear that there is

negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Though

the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has much

argued that RW1 being the driver of the lorry in his

evidence has clearly stated about the precaution taken at

the time of parking. But the said facts are not appeared

either in Ex.P3 or in Ex.P4. If at all he was taken

precaution at the time of parking he would have

examined the I.O. to show while parking by the lorry the

driver has taken precaution to avoid the accident. Thus,

this court drawn its attention on Section 122 of M.V. Act

1988, reads like thus;

S.122;- Leaving vehicle in dangerous

position;- No person in charge of a motor

vehicle shall cause or allow the vehicle or

any trailer to be abandoned or to remain at

rest on any public place in such a position
46 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

or in such a condition or in such

circumstances as to cause or likely to cause

danger, obstruction or undue

inconvenience to other users of the public

place or to the passengers.

32. So, one thing is clear by virtue of above

provision, about precaution in case if the vehicle parked

in the public place or road, but the lorry driver had

parked without giving any sign nor indication. Though

the RW1 has stated in his evidence about precaution

taken by him, but nothing is placed on record to

substantiate his evidence and Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are

reflects that the driver of the lorry had parked without

any sign nor indication. Therefore, lorry driver was also

responsible for the cause of accident. Therefore, I do

respect to the decision, which relied by the learned

counsel for the respondent, but the facts and

circumstances of the present case and the above decision

are different.
47 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

33. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 in

his arguments has submitted that the driver of the lorry

has parked on the public road without putting any

indicator nor marks. Though the RW1 being the driver of

the lorry has stated about the precaution taken by him at

the time of parking of the vehicle. But panchanama and

sketch are reflects that he has not at all taken any

precaution and the driver of the lorry was also

responsible for the cause of accident and the said

counsel has drawn the court attention on the judgement

of the Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 1997 KAR

601 in between Shakuntala & Others Vs. Logananthan

and others, which reads like thus;

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Section 110-B-

deceased driver dashed against stationary

truck in the night resulting in his death--

stationary truck driver had not taken

precautionary measures to indicate its

parking---deceased was also negligent in
48 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

contributing to accident to an extent of

50%--.

34. In the above said decision appellant being

claimant aggrieved by the judgement and award passed

by the Tribunal has filed appeal before the Hon'ble High

Court and the Hon'ble High Court held that the deceased

driver dashed against the stationary truck in the night

resulting in his death and the driver of the truck had not

taken precautionary measures to indicate its parking and

the deceased was also negligent in contributing for cause

of accident to an extent of 50% and rest of 50% is on the

truck driver.

35. In the instant case, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and the

evidence of PW1 to PW8 are clearly reflects that the lorry

driver was also responsible for the cause of accident,

though the RW1 has stated about the precaution taken

by him while parking the vehicle. But nothing is placed

on record to substantiate his defence. So, one thing is

clear that the driver of the lorry had parked without
49 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

giving indication nor signal to other vehicles, which are

passing through the said road. Though the driver of the

tempo traveler after seeing unattendant lorry on the

public place was trying to avoid the accident was applied

the break as the break marks appeared on the road

mentioned in Ex.P3. That itself is clear that the lorry

driver was also responsible for the cause of accident.

36. It is an admitted fact that Ex.P4 is clear that

there is a three lane as shown in Ex.P4 as the I.O. as

shown three ways in each side and the lorry driver has

parked the lorry in the third way without putting any

signal nor indication. Thereby the accident was occurred.

Thus, there is a negligence on the part of the driver of the

tempo traveler to an extent of 60% and 40% is on the

driver of the lorry as major contribution is on the tempo

traveler driver and less contribution is on the driver of

the lorry. So, the principles laid down in the above

decision are applicable to the case on hand.
50 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

37. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has

drawn Court attention on the judgement of the

Hon'ble High court reported in 2009 ACJ 2600 in

between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Chennappa

Shettigar and others. On careful perusal of the said

decision, in the said decision, their lordship held that

tempo hit the parked truck in the night hours and the

passenger in a tempo sustained fatal injuries. No

evidence that truck parked on the left side of the road in

municipal area had indicators to show that the vehicle

was parked, no blinking lights were kept on the truck or

the parking lights were on as required under rule 214.

So, there is a composite negligence on both the vehicle

drivers. Thereby, negligence was fixed on both vehicles

to an extent of 50%.

38. In the instant case also though the RW1 has

stated that he has putting the parking lights and lorry

cleaner was standing 100 metres away from the lorry by

holding the flag for which nothing is placed on record to
51 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

substantiate his defence. Therefore, one thing is clear

that as on the date of alleged accident the lorry driver

has parked the lorry without any signal nor indication

nor putting the stones around the lorry, thereby the

accident was occurred. So, the principles laid down in

the decision, which relied by the learned counsel for the

respondent No.1 are applicable to the case on hand. So,

one thing is clear from the oral and documentary

evidence that the major contributory negligence on the

part of the tempo traveler and less contributory

negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry for cause

of accident.

39. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has

drawn the Court attention on the judgement of the

Hon'ble High Court reported in 2014 KAR 2558 in

between Devaraju T. Vs. United India Insurance

Company Limited, represented by its Manager,

Bengaluru and Another.
52 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

40. On careful perusal of the said decision, in the

said decision, his lordship held that the contributory

negligence arises when there has been some act or

omission on the claimant's part, which has materially

contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a

nature that it may properly be described as 'negligence'.

The expression 'contributory negligence' means the

failure by a person to use reasonable care for the safety

of either himself or his property, so that he becomes

blameworthy in part as an author of his own wrong. It is

well settled that where, by his negligence, if one party

places another in a situation of danger, which compels,

other to act quickly in order to extricate himself, it does

not amount to contributory negligence if that other acts

in a way, which, with the benefit of hindsight, is shown

not to have been the best way out of difficulty.

41. In the instant case, admittedly, the driver of the

lorry has omitted to do his obligation to put the signal

nor indicator or put things around lorry. That itself is
53 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

clear that the lorry driver was also contributed for the

cause of accident. Therefore, the principles laid down in

the decision which relied by the respondent No.1 are

applicable to the case on hand. So, one thing is clear

from the oral and documentary evidence that the

accident was taken place on the negligence of both the

vehicle drivers and major contributory negligence on the

part of the driver of the tempo traveller. So, both the

drivers held responsible for the cause of accident. Ex.P1

to Ex.P155 are reflects that the petitioners were

sustained injuries and took the treatment at Sira

Government hospital, later on they were shifted to M.S.

Ramaiah hospital and took the treatment as inaptient

and underwent surgery. So, the documents marked as

Ex.P1 to Ex.P155 are coupled with the oral evidence of

PW1 to PW8. Though the respondent No.3 has examined

the driver of the lorry, but his evidence will not help the

respondent No.3 to prove that the accident was occurred

on the sole negligence of the driver of the tempo traveler.

If at all the accident was not occurred on the negligence
54 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

of the lorry driver he would have challenged the

complaint and the charge sheet filed against him. But

the reasons best known to him has not challenged either

the FIR nor charge sheet filed against him and moreover

though RW1 in his evidence has admitted that he has

filed the complaint, but nothing is placed on record to

show that the accident was not occurred on his

negligence. Though the respondent No.3 has examined

the legal manager to show that the accident was not

occurred on the negligence of the lorry driver. But in his

cross-examination has categorically admitted that the

police have charge sheeted against both the vehicle

drivers. That itself is clear that the accident was

occurred on account of negligence of both the vehicle

drivers that is the reason why I.O. after conducting the

investigation has charge sheeted against both the vehicle

drivers. The first respondent has examined the legal

manager of the respondent No.1 but his evidence will not

help the respondent to prove that there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo traveler.
55 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

On the other hand, the petitioners have proved their case

through oral and documentary evidence that the accident

in question was taken place on account of rash and

negligent driving of the tempo traveler driver and

negligence of the lorry driver. Hence, I am of the opinion

that the issue No.1 is answered as affirmative.

42. Issue No.2 in MVC 2485/2015:

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. she

was the occupant of the tempo traveler along with others

proceeding from Savadatti to Bengaluru in a tempo

traveler bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332, the

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules

and regulations inspite of request to go slow down the

speed, but drove the same and dashed behind the lorry,

as the lorry driver has parked the lorry on the road

negligently without putting any signal or indicator nor
56 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

keeping any signal reflectors. Thereby, she has

sustained the following injuries;

1)Left femur mid shaft fracture
2)Cut left chin

43. So, immediately she was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid treatment

and later on she was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital

and underwent closed reduction and internal fixation

with IMIL and she was discharged from the hospital with

an advise for follow-up treatment and she has spent huge

amount towards her treatment. Inspite of best treatment

she could not come to normal position, still she is facing

difficulties.

44. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy

studying in a final year BBM by taking tuition, getting

monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. Due to the accidental

injuries she became permanent handicapped and unable

to walk long distance and not able to stand for long time

and she is getting pain in her left leg and she is limping

while walking and there is ugly suture scar on her chin.
57 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

So, doctor has advised to undergo one more surgery for

removal of implants and for correction of surgery which

costs of Rs.50,000/-. PW1 in her cross-examination has

admitted that she took the treatment at Government

hospital, Sira, later on she has been shifted to M.S.

Ramaiah hospital and she took the treatment as

inpatient at M.S.Ramaiah hospital and underwent

surgery as she has sustained fracture of left femur mid

shaft and she has denied that she has not underwent

any surgery at M.S. Ramaiah hospital and created the

hospital records placed it before the court in order to get

the compensation and she has denied that she was not

conducting any tuition nor getting Rs.5,000/- per month

and she is not facing any difficulties due to the accidental

injuries. But she has admitted that after the accident

she has passed final year BBM.

45. PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his

evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an

accident said to have been taken place on 14.4.2015, as

she has sustained the following injuries;
58 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

1) Fracture midshaft left femur--ILN done
2) Left facial eyelid and surrounding tears
3) ½ cm healed scar left lateral eyelid
transversely
4)Inverted "V" shaped scar over left face,
lateral and inferior to left eye. Old healed
hypertrophic scar of 2.3 mm X 3mmX 3mmX
1cm

46. So, she was underwent closed reduction and

internal fixation and recently he has examined the

petitioner and found the following difficulties;

1)Difficulty in sitting cross legged,

2) Difficulty in climbing stairs,

3) Not able to take part in sports, cannot walk

more than half an hour.

47. So, the petitioner has sustained total permanent

disability of 44% for her left lower limb and one more

surgery is required for removal of implants it may costs of

Rs.55,000/-. PW9 in his cross-examination has admitted

that he was personally treated the petitioner and

personally conducted the surgery in respect of left femur
59 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

mid shaft fracture and fracture is united, but he has

denied that he has stated more disability in order to help

the petitioner to get more compensation, since the

petitioner is not facing any difficulties due to the

accidental injuries and he has advised physiotherapy and

the petitioner has taken physiotherapy and the petitioner

has took the treatment as outpatient for 3 to 4 times.

48. The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of left

femur mid shaft. So, she was underwent surgery, but

inspite of best treatment, she could not come to the

normal position, still she is facing difficulties. The PW9

being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and

disability of the petitioner as well as surgery which was

underwent by the petitioner in connection of the injuries

sustained by her in a road traffic accident. So, the

evidence of the PW9 corroborate the evidence of the PW1.

Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah
60 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained the following injuries;

1)Tenderness crepitus, swelling and deformity of
the left mid thigh
2)Painful ROM of the left knee (L)

3)Mid Shaft fracture of the left femur

49. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P8 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital on 14.4.2015 and

took the treatment till 20.4.2015 as she has sustained

the following injuries;

Left femur Mid Shaft fracture

50. So, she was underwent closed reduction

internal fixation with IMIl in respect of left femur mid

shaft fracture. Ex.P9 are the medical bills reflects that

the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the

injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
61 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Ex.P10 to Ex.P12 are reflects that the petitioner was

studying in Final year BBM at the time of accident.

51. PW10 being the Executive Corporate of M.S.

Ramaiah Medical College Hospital in his evidence has

stated that the petitioner has took the treatment at

M.S.Ramaiah hospital and hospital charges of

Rs.1,22,496/- and I.T. Company has paid the entire

medical bill amount to the hospital as per Ex.P154. So,

considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, it is just and necessary to grant just

compensation to the petitioner in the following heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained Left femur mid

shaft fracture. Thereby, she was underwent closed

reduction and internal fixation and took the treatment as

an inpatient for a period of seven days, inspite of best

treatment, she could not come to the normal position,

still she is under treatment. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated
62 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

about the treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient

and outpatient as per Ex.P85 and Ex.P86. So considering

the evidence of the PW1 and PW9 and the injuries

sustained by the petitioner as well as the duration of

treatment she would have sustained pain and agony for

which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of

Rs.60,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of

justice. Hence, Rs.60,000/- is awarded for the above

head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that prior to the accident she was hale and

healthy and student of final year BBM and she used to

take home tuition by getting monthly income of

Rs.5,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries she became

handicapped and lost earning. But the reasons best

known to her has not paled any materials on record to

show that prior to the accident she was taking tuition by

getting monthly income of Rs.5,000/-. Admittedly the

petitioner is a major as on the date of alleged accident,
63 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

she was the student of final year BBM. So, she might

have taking home tuition by getting monthly income of

Rs.5,000/-. So, considering the age of the petitioner and

her qualification it is just and necessary to consider the

same income as her monthly income of Rs.5,000/- it will

meet the ends of justice. Admittedly, the petitioner has

sustained fracture of left femur and she was underwent

surgery for closed reduction and internal fixation with

nail. Ex.P5 is reflects that the petitioner has sustained

grievous injuries. Ex.P8 is the discharge summary

reflects that the petitioner has sustained fracture of

femur and underwent surgery and took the treatment for

a period of seven days. Ex.P85 and Ex.P86 are reflects

that the petitioner has took the treatment as inpatient

and outpatient. So, considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, she might have lost

income for a period of four months. So four months

income comes to Rs.20,000/-. So, Rs.20,000/- is granted

for the above head.
64 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

c) Medical expenses

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that she has sustained fracture of left femur mid

shaft, so she was underwent surgery and took the

treatment as inpatient and even after discharge she took

the treatment as outpatient by spending huge amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards her hospitalization and incidental

charges.

PW10 being the Executive Manager of M.S.Ramaiah

Hospital in his evidence has stated that the petitioner

has spent Rs.1,22,496/- towards her treatment and

company has paid entire hospital charges of

Rs.1,22,496/-. But on record the petitioner has

produced the medical bills marked as Ex.P9 for

Rs.2,581/- which was not paid by the company. Though

the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced

by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show

that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are

created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation.

So, in the absence of the materials on record, it is clear
65 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection

of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.

Therefore, Rs.2,581/-is granted for the above head.

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of femur

mid shaft and underwent surgery inspite of best

treatment she could not come to normal position still she

is facing difficulties. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic

Surgeon and treated doctor in his evidence has clearly

stated about the complaints and disability of the

petitioner after the accident. According to him, the

petitioner has sustained disability to an extent of 44% for

her left lower limb. But in his cross-examination has

categorically admitted that the fracture is united. So,

considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, it is just and necessary to consider whole body

disability to an extent of 13% it will meet the ends of

justice. Ex.P5, Ex.P8, Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are reflects that

as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged
66 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

about 20 years. Therefore, his age is taken into

consideration as 20 years as on the date of the alleged

accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298

the multiplier applicable is 18. So the loss of future

earning is works out as under;

Rs.5,000X12X18X13/100=Rs.1,40,400/-.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,40,400/-

for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of femur

mid shaft and underwent surgery and took the treatment

as an inpatient for a period of 7 days, even after the

discharge, she took the treatment as an outpatient, still

she is under treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic

Surgeon and treated doctor in his evidence has clearly

stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an
67 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

inpatient and outpatient as well as complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident. So

considering the evidence of PW1 and PW9 and duration

of treatment as well as the complaints and disability of

the petitioner after the accident, it is just and necessary

to grant Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will meet the

ends of justice. So, Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above

head.

f) Future medical expenses:

The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of femur

mid shaft and underwent surgery and implants are in

situ. So, one more surgery is required for removal of

implants in situ. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon

in his evidence has stated that one more surgery is

required for removal of implants and it may cost of

Rs.55,000/-. So, considering the injuries sustained by

the petitioner and the evidence of the PW1 and PW9, it is

just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above
68 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

head, it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.15,000/- is

granted for the above head.

52. Thus the total award stands as follows:

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 20,000-00
up period

3.Medical bills Rs. 2,581-00

4.Loss of future earning Rs.1,40,400-00

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00

Total Rs.2,77,981-00

53. Issue No.2 in MVC 2486/2015:

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that on 14-04-2015 at about 6.30 a.m., he

was proceeding in a tempo traveler along with others, the

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same with high

speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed behind the

lorry which was parked by the lorry driver negligently,
69 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

without putting the indicator nor the signal. Thereby, he

has sustained the following injuries;

1) T12 upper plate compression fracture.

54. So, immediately he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sira, wherein he took the first aid treatment,

later on he was referred to M.S. Ramaiah Memorial

Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he took the conservative

treatment and discharged from the hospital with an

advice for follow up treatment, but inspite of best

treatment, he could not come to the normal position, still

he is under treatment.

55. Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy

working as a machine operator at ITI Ltd., by getting

monthly salary of Rs.24,000/-, due to the accidental

injuries, he was applied the leave from 14-04-2015 to 15-

06-2015. So, he lost the pay during the leave period and

he became permanently disabled, due to the accidental

injuries, as he is getting pain in his abdominal region

and unable to bend, nor lift any weight and unable to
70 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

sleep on either side and unable to stand walk for long

time and unable to climb stairs nor to do manual work as

earlier and the doctor has advised a spinal cord surgery

which may cost of Rs.1,50,000/- and due to the

accidental injuries, his company has assigned lower

profile job and Rs.2,500/- has been deducted every

month based on his condition, due to the accidental

injuries. Now, he is drawing monthly salary of

Rs.21,500/- instead of Rs.24,000/- every month. The

PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that soon

after the accident has took the treatment at Sira

Government Hospital, later on he was shifted to M.S.

Ramaiah Memorial Hospital and he was not underwent

any surgery and he has denied that he has not took the

treatment as an outpatient after the discharge and he is

not facing any difficulties, due to the accidental injuries,

as the injury sustained by him are heal up and he has

admitted that there is a company vehicle to pick up the

employees who are working in the company and he has

not produced any document to show that he has availed
71 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the earned leave for that he has sustained the loss of pay

and he has not produced any document to show that his

salary has been reduced to an extent of Rs.2,500/-, now

he is getting Rs.21,500/- instead of Rs.24,000/- every

month.

56. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has stated that the

petitioner has met with an accident said to have been

taken place on 14-04-2015, as he has sustained the

following injuries;

1) T12 upper plate compression fracture of the
thoraco lumbar spine.

57. So, he was took the conservative treatment with

LS Belt and he was discharged with an advice for follow

up treatment. So, the petitioner has sustained

permanent disability of 30% for his axial skeleton. The

PW9 in his cross examination has admitted that the

petitioner has not underwent any surgery and took the

conservative treatment and he has denied that the

injuries sustained by the petitioner are heal up and the
72 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

petitioner is not facing any difficulties, due to the

accidental injuries and he has admitted that the

petitioner is not suffering any neurological problems and

he has denied that the petitioner is suffering only 15% of

disability, though he has stated more disability in order

to help the petitioner to get more compensation, since the

petitioner is not facing any difficulties, due to the

accidental injuries.

58. The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of T12

upper plate compression, but he was not underwent any

surgery, but he took the conservative treatment, but

inspite of best treatment, he could not come to the

normal position, still he is under treatment. The PW9

being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in

his evidence has clearly stated about the conservative

treatment taken by the petitioner as well as complaints

and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So, the

evidence of the PW9 corroborate the evidence of the PW2.

Ex.P13 is the wound certificate issued by the M.S.
73 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects

that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;

1) Tenderness over the lower back at T12 - L1
region.
2) T12 upper plate compression fracture.

59. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P14 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital on 14-

04-2015 and took the treatment till 20-04-2015, as he

has sustained the following injuries;

1) T12 upper plate compression fracture.

60. So, the petitioner has took the conservative

treatment with L.S. Belt. Ex.P15 is clearly reflects that

the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the

injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.

61. The PW10 being the Executive Corporate of M.S.

Ramaiah Medical College and Hospital in his evidence

has stated that the hospital did charges of Rs.49,504/-

and ITC company has paid the said amount as per the
74 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Ex.P151. So, one thing is clear that the company has

paid Rs.49,504/- towards the treatment taken by the

petitioner in connection of the injuries sustained by him

in a road traffic accident at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital.

Ex.P88 to Ex.P90 are clearly reflects that the petitioner

has took the treatment as an inpatient and outpatient.

So, considering the evidence of the PW2 and PW9 and the

materials on record, as well as duration of treatment, it is

just and necessary to grant just compensation to the

petitioner in the following heads;

a) Pain and suffering.

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of T12

upper plate compression, but he has took the

conservative treatment for a period of 7 days at M.S.

Ramaiah Hospital, but inspite of best treatment, he could

not come to the normal position, still he is under

treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

the treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated

about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after
75 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the accident as well as treatment taken by the petitioner

as an inpatient and outpatient. So considering the

evidence of the PW2 and PW9 and the injuries sustained

by the petitioner as well as the duration of treatment he

would have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just

and necessary to award compensation of Rs.40,000/- for

the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence,

Rs.40,000/- is awarded for the above head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy

working as a machine operator at ITC Ltd., by getting

monthly salary of Rs.24,000/- and he was applied the

leave from 14-04-2015 to 15-06-2015. So, he has

sustained loss of pay, due to availment of the leave. The

PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that during

the leave period, he was drawn the salary, but he has

stated that he has availed the earned leave for which he

has lost the benefit of reimbursement, but the reasons
76 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

best known to him has not produced any document to

show that he has availed the leave for which he has

sustained the loss of pay. In the absence of the materials

from the petitioner side, it is very difficult to believe that

he has availed the earned leave for which he has

sustained the loss of pay and moreover in his cross

examination has admitted that during the leave period,

he has drawn the salary. So, question of awarding the

compensation under the above head does not arise. So,

no amount is awarded for the above head.

c) Medical expenses

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

stated that he has sustained the fracture in a road traffic

accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by

spending huge amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but whereas the

PW10 who is the Executive Corporate of M.S. Ramaiah

Medical College and Hospitals in his evidence has clearly

stated that the hospital authorities have charged

Rs.49,504/- and the ITC Company has paid the entire
77 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

bill amount. Though, the respondents have disputed the

medical bills marked as Ex.P15, but nothing is placed on

record to show that the petitioner has reimbursed the

amount which including the Ex.P15, if that is so, the

matter would have different. Therefore, Rs.2,119/- is

granted for the above head.

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries,

due to the accidental injuries, the company has assigned

a lower profile job. So, Rs.2,500/- has been deducted

every month based on his position and performance.

Now, he is drawing salary of Rs.21,500/- per month

instead of Rs.24,000/- every month. Ex.P18 are the pay

slips for the month of January 2015 to March 2015 and

June 2015 to October 2015 are clearly reflects that prior

to the accident in the month of March 2015, he was

drawing net pay of Rs.35,140.46 Paisa, now he is

drawing net pay of Rs.28,619.74 Paisa and in the month
78 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

of January 2015, the petitioner designation has been

shown as operator, even in the month of October 2015

his designation has been shown as operator, as the

petitioner in his claim petition as well as in his evidence

has clearly stated that prior to the accident, he was

working as a machine operator. Though, he has stated

that the company assigned a lower profile job, but

Ex.P18 nowhere appears that the company has assigned

lower profile job as stated by the PW2. So, question of

loss of future earning due to the accidental injuries does

not arise. Though, the PW9 has stated that the petitioner

has sustained permanent disability to an extent of 30%,

but it is not the case of the petitioner that after the

accident, the company has dismissed from the service

nor he has resigned the job, but the evidence of the PW2

clearly reflects that the petitioner has continued the

service after the accident. Therefore, question of

awarding the compensation for the above head does not

arise. Therefore, no amount is awarded for the above

head.
79 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of T12

upper plate compression and took the conservative

treatment for a period of 7 days, even after the discharge,

he took the treatment as an outpatient, still he is under

treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about

the treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and

outpatient. So considering the evidence of PW2 and PW9

and duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to

grant Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will meet the

ends of justice. So Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above

head.

f) Future medical expenses:

The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has

stated that the doctor has advised a spinal cord surgery

which may cost of Rs.1,50,000/-, but the PW9 who is the
80 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Orthopaedic Surgeon and treated doctor in his evidence

has not stated about the surgery as stated by the

petitioner nor stated the cost. So, question of awarding

the just compensation for the above head does not arise.

So, no amount is awarded for the above head.

62. Thus the total award stands as follows:

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Nil
up period

3.Medical bills Rs. 2,119-00

4.Loss of future earning Nil

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

6.Future medical expenses Nil

Total Rs. 82,119-00

63. Issue No.2 in MVC 2487/2015:

The PW2 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that on 14-04-2015 at about 6.30 a.m., she

was proceeding in a tempo traveler along with others, the
81 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same with high

speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed behind the

lorry which was parked by the lorry driver negligently,

without putting the indicator nor the signal. Thereby, she

has sustained the following injuries;

1) Fracture shaft left femur comminuted

mid shaft closed.

2) CLW over forehead, supraorbital region.

3) Tenderness over left clavicular region.

4) CLW over anterior part of right leg.

5) Swelling and tenderness present over the

left thigh.

64. So, immediately she was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid treatment,

later on she was referred to M.S. Ramaiah Memorial

Hospital, Bangalore and took the treatment as an

inpatient and she was underwent surgery, but inspite of

best treatment, she could not come to the normal
82 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

position, as she has spent an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-

towards her treatment.

65. Prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy

doing tailoring work by getting monthly income of

Rs.8,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, she could not

do the work as before, as she is getting pain in her left leg

and chest and unable to sit with cross leg nor climb

stairs and unable to sleep on her left side and upside

down and she is unable to bear weight on her left leg and

she has used hired vehicle for transportation and she has

appointed one cook and attendant by paying an amount

of Rs.11,000/- per month and the doctor has advised for

one more surgery for removal of implants and plastic

surgery which may cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. The PW3 in her

cross examination has admitted that soon after the

accident has took the first aid treatment at Sira

Government Hospital, later on she was shifted to M.S.

Ramaiah Hospital and she took the treatment as an

inpatient and underwent surgery and she has denied

that her husband employer has paid the entire amount
83 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

which was spent towards her treatment, but she has

stated that 80% of the amount has been paid by the

company rest of the 20% has been paid by her and she

has admitted that she has not produced any document to

show that she has appointed one assistant by paying

Rs.11,000/- per month and she has not produced any

document to show that prior to the accident, she was

doing tailoring work by getting monthly income of

Rs.8,000/- and she has denied that she is not facing any

difficulties due to the accidental injuries, as the injuries

sustained by her in a road traffic accident are heal up.

66. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has stated that the

petitioner has met with an accident said to have been

taken place on 14-04-2015, as she has sustained the

following injuries;

3) Fracture shaft left femur, comminuted,
mid-shaft, closed; left thorax, right upper
eyelid and right forehead.
84 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

67. So, she was underwent wound debridement and

exploration of the wound and right forehead were also

sutured on emergency basis and she was underwent

closed reduction and internal fixation with IMIL in

respect of her fracture shaft femur and she was

discharged from the hospital with an advice for follow up

treatment and recently he has examined the petitioner

and found the following difficulties;

a) Difficulty in walking.

b) Difficulty to squatting and sitting cross

leg.

c) Difficulty in putting clothes.

68. So, the petitioner has sustained the permanent

disability to an extent of 34% for her left lower limb. The

PW9 in his cross examination has admitted that after the

discharge, the petitioner has took the treatment as an

outpatient for a period of 5 times and fracture is united

and he has denied that he has stated more disability in

order to help the petitioner to get more compensation and
85 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

if the injured underwent surgery for removal of implants

in government hospital, the petitioner has to incur only

Rs.10,000/-.

69. The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained grievous injuries

and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge

amount, but inspite of best treatment, she could not

come to the normal position, still she is under treatment.

The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated

doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about the

conservative treatment taken by the petitioner as well as

complaints and disability of the petitioner after the

accident. So, the evidence of the PW9 corroborate the

evidence of the PW3. Ex.P20 is the wound certificate

issued by the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital,

Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained the following injuries;

3) 2x3 cms. CLW over the forehead.
86 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

4) 2x2 cms. CLW over the left supraorbital

region.

5) Tenderness over left clavicle region.

6) 2x2 cms. CLW over the anterior part of
right leg.
7) Swelling and tenderness over the left thigh.

70. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P21 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital on 14-

04-2015 and took the treatment till 27-04-2015, as she

has sustained the following injuries;

1) Fracture shaft left femur, comminuted

mid shaft closed.

71. So, the petitioner has underwent closed

reduction and internal fixation with IMIL nail. Ex.P24 are

clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment

in connection of the injuries sustained by her in a road

traffic accident. Ex.P91 and Ex.P92 are clearly reflects

that the petitioner has took the treatment as an
87 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

outpatient and inpatient. So, considering the evidence of

the PW3 and PW9 and the materials on record, as well as

duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant

just compensation to the petitioner in the following

heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture shaft left

femur comminuted mid shaft closed. Thereby, she was

underwent open reduction and internal fixation with IMIL

nail and took the treatment as an inpatient, but inspite

of best treatment, she could not come to the normal

position, still she is under treatment. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident as well as

treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and

outpatient. So considering the evidence of the PW3 and

PW9 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well
88 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

as the duration of treatment, she would have sustained

pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to

award compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the above head,

it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.60,000/- is

awarded for the above head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that prior to the accident she was hale and

healthy doing tailoring work by getting monthly income of

Rs.8,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, she could not

do the work as before. The PW3 in her cross examination

has admitted that she has not produced any document to

show that prior to the accident, she was doing tailoring

work by getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/-. So, in the

absence of the materials on record, it is very difficult to

believe the income of the petitioner as alleged in the

claim petition. So considering the age and skill of the

petitioner and the present life condition, it is just and

necessary to consider the monthly notional income of
89 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P21 is the

wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P22 is the discharge

summary clearly reflects that he has sustained the

grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient

for a period of 14 days. So, the petitioner might have lost

income for a period of four months. So four months

income comes to Rs.28,000/-. So Rs.28,000/- is granted

for the above head.

c) Medical expenses

The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that she has sustained the fracture in a road

traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by

spending huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, but whereas the

PW10 who is the Executive Corporate of M.S. Ramaiah

Medical College and Hospitals in his evidence has clearly

stated that the hospital has charged Rs.2,56,876/-, out

of the said amount, the company has paid Rs.2,01,824/-

and rest of the amount of Rs.55,052/- has been paid by
90 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the petitioner. Ex.P127 reflects that the petitioner has

paid an amount of Rs.55,052/- to the hospital apart from

payment made by the company. Though, the petitioner

has produced the medical bills of Rs.1,500/- marked as

Ex.P24, but whereas Ex.P127 is clearly reflects that the

petitioner has paid Rs.55,052/-. Though, the

respondents have disputed the medical bills marked as

Ex.P127 and Ex.P24, but nothing is placed on record to

show that the petitioner has created the Ex.P127 and

Ex.P24 to get the compensation. So, in the absence of the

materials from the respondents side, it is clear that the

petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the

injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Therefore, Rs.55,052/- is granted for the above head.

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture shaft left

femur comminuted mid shaft closed and she was

underwent surgery and took the treatment as an
91 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

inpatient for a period of 14 days, but inspite of best

treatment, she could not come to the normal position,

still she is facing difficulties. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to

him the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to

an extent of 34% for her left lower limb. The PW9 in his

cross examination has admitted that the fracture is

united. So, considering the evidence of the PW3 and PW9

and the medical records and the injuries sustained by

the petitioner and duration of treatment as well as her

avocation, it is just and necessary to consider the

disability of 13% of the whole body, it will meet the ends

of justice. So, her income is already considered as

Rs.7,000/- per month. Ex.P20 is the wound certificate

and Ex.P21 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that as on the date of the alleged accident, the petitioner

was aged about 45 years. Therefore, her age is taken into

consideration as 45 years as on the date of the alleged
92 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298

the multiplier applicable is 14. So the loss of future

earning is works out as under;

Rs.7,000X12X14X13/100=1,52,880/-.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,52,880/-

for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of left

femur and other injuries and she was underwent surgery

and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 14

days, even after the discharge, she took the treatment as

an outpatient, still she is under treatment. The PW9

being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the treatment taken by

the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So

considering the evidence of PW3 and PW9 and duration
93 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant

Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of

justice. So Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above head.

f) Future medical expenses:
The PW3 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained grievous injuries

and underwent surgery and implants are in situ. So, one

more surgery is required for removal of implants and

plastic surgery, it may cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, but

whereas the PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has stated that one more

surgery is required for removal of implants and surgical

procedure, it may cost of Rs.55,000/-. So considering the

injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident and

the evidence of the PW3 and PW9, it is just and

necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will

meet the ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for

the above head.

72. Thus the total award stands as follows:
94 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 28,000-00
up period

3.Medical bills Rs. 55,052-00

4.Loss of future earning Rs. 1,52,880-00

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00

Total Rs. 3,50,932-00

73. Issue No.2 in MVC 2488/2015:

The PW4 being the mother of the minor petitioner

Bhumija in her evidence has clearly stated that on 14-

04-2015 at about 6.30 a.m., her daughters Bhumija and

Bhargavi were proceeding in a tempo traveler along with

others, the driver of the tempo traveler has drove the

same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner

dashed behind the lorry which was parked by the lorry

driver negligently, without putting the indicator nor the
95 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

signal. Thereby, her daughter Bhumija has sustained the

following injuries;

1) Swelling and tenderness present over the

right side mandible along with tempro

mandibular joint.

2) Tenderness present over the right foot.

3) Parasymphesis of right mandible.

74. So, immediately her daughter was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid

treatment, later on she was referred to M.S. Ramaiah

Memorial Hospital, Bangalore and took the treatment as

an inpatient and after the discharge, she took the

physiotherapy by spending an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

towards her treatment.

75. Prior to the accident, her daughter was hale and

healthy aged about 10 years, studying in 3rd standard at

Mother Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore, due to the

accidental injuries, she could not attend her classes for a

period of 15 days, as she is getting pain in her jaws and
96 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

she is not able to chew hard food and she is getting

frequent headaches and vomiting sensation and her

memory has been reduced and she lost interest in her

studies and she is not able to walk properly due to the

nerve palsy and she cannot walk independently and

needs care of an attendant to walk and doctor has

advised for future treatments which may cost of

Rs.40,000/-. The PW4 being the mother of the minor

petitioner in her cross examination has denied that her

daughter has sustained only simple injuries and she has

not sustained any injury as stated in her affidavit and

she has admitted that one Dr. Naresh Shetty has treated

her daughter at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital and her daughter

has took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 8

days. So, she has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards her

daughter treatment and she has denied that the injuries

sustained by her daughter are heal up and she is not

facing any difficulties and she has admitted that at the

time of accident her daughter was studying in 2nd

standard, now she is studying in 3rd standard and she
97 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

did not produce any document to show that her daughter

after the accident has not attend the classes from 14-04-

2015 to 08-09-2015 and she has denied that she has

created the medical bills placed before the court in order

to get the compensation and produced the photos to get

the sympathy of the court and for higher compensation.

76. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has stated that the

petitioner has met with an accident said to have been

taken place on 14-04-2015, as she has sustained the

following injuries;

1) Fracture of right mandible, blunt injury to

left foot.

77. So, she took the conservative treatment as an

inpatient and she was discharged on 15-04-2015 with an

advice for follow up treatment. So, the petitioner

sustained the permanent disability to an extent of 10%

for her axial skeleton. The PW9 in his cross examination

has admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident,
98 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the injured was aged about 10 years and the petitioner

was not underwent any surgery and he has denied that

the petitioner has not sustained any disability, but he

has stated the disability in order to help the petitioner to

get more compensation.

78. The PW10 who is the Executive Corporate of

M.S. Ramaiah Medical College and Hospitals in his

evidence has clearly stated that the petitioner has spent

an amount of Rs.11,757/- towards the treatment and she

herself has paid the said bill amount.

79. The PW4 being the mother of the injured in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained fracture of right mandible, blunt injury to left

foot. So, she took the conservative treatment, but inspite

of best treatment, she could not come to the normal

position, still she is under treatment. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the conservative

treatment taken by the petitioner as well as complaints
99 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So, the

evidence of the PW9 corroborate the evidence of the PW4.

Ex.P25 is the wound certificate issued by the M.S.

Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects

that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;

1) Swelling and tenderness over the left side

of mandible along with tempro-

mandibular joint.

2) Tenderness over the right foot painful

ROM.

80. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P26 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital on 14-

04-2015 and took the treatment till 15-04-2015, as she

has sustained the following injuries;

Right mandible swelling with pain, K/C/O
cerebral palsy.
81. So, the petitioner has took the conservative

treatment. Ex.P27 is the document issued by the Mother
100 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore, clearly reflects that

the petitioner is studying in 3rd standard at Mother

Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore. Ex.P28 and Ex.P29

are the aadhaar card and the school ID card are clearly

reflects that the petitioner was born on 15-11-2004 and

studying in Mother Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore.

Ex.P30 is the aadhaar card belongs to the PW4 is clearly

reflects that the PW4 is none other than the mother of

the petitioner. Ex.P31 are the medical bills clearly reflects

that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection

of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Ex.P94 and Ex.P95 are clearly reflects that the petitioner

has took the treatment as an outpatient and inpatient.

Ex.P96 is the x-ray reflects that the petitioner has

sustained the fracture. So, considering the evidence of

the PW4 and PW9 and the materials on record, as well as

duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant

just compensation to the petitioner in the following

heads;
101 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

a) Pain and suffering.

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained fracture of right mandible, blunt injury to left

foot and she took the conservative treatment for a period

of 2 days, but inspite of best treatment, she could not

come to the normal position, still she is facing difficulties.

The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated

doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about the

complaints and disability of the petitioner, due to the

accidental injuries and he has also stated about the

treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and out

patient. So considering the evidence of the PW4 and PW9

and the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the

duration of treatment, she would have sustained pain

and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award

compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will

meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.40,000/- is granted for

the above head.
102 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

b) Inconvenience caused to the parents during

laid up period:

The PW4 being the natural guardian of the

petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that prior to

the accident, her daughter was hale and healthy aged

about 10 years, studying in 3rd standard at Mother

Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore, due to the

accidental injuries, she could not attend her classes for a

period of 15 days and she has sustained the fracture and

got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment as an

inpatient for a period of 2 days. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the treatment taken by

the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So one has

to take care during the treatment as an inpatient and

outpatient, for that either the father or the mother would

have lost the income, so if Rs.7,000/- is granted it will

meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.7,000/- is granted for

the above head.
103 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

c) Medical expenses.

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has stated that her daughter has sustained the

fracture in a road traffic accident and took the treatment

as an inpatient for a period of 2 days. So, she has spent

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her daughter

treatment, but whereas the PW10 in his evidence has

clearly stated that the petitioner herself has paid the bill

amount to the hospital. The petitioner has produced the

medical bills worth of Rs.13,937/- marked as Ex.P31.

Though, the respondents have disputed the medical bills

produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on

record to show that the medical bills produced by the

petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the

compensation. So, considering the injury sustained by

the petitioner and the duration of treatment, it is clear

that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection

of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Therefore, Rs.13,937/- is granted for the above head.
104 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained the fracture and blunt injury to left foot and

took the treatment as an inpatient, but inspite of best

treatment, she could not come to the normal position,

still she is facing difficulties. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has stated that the petitioner has took the

conservative treatment, as she has sustained the fracture

of right mandible and blunt injury to left foot. Thus, she

has sustained permanent disability about 10%. The PW9

in his cross examination has denied that the petitioner

has not sustained any disability, due to the fracture, but

he has admitted that the petitioner has not underwent

any surgery. So, one thing is clear that the petitioner has

sustained the fracture of right mandible and blunt injury

to left foot. Though, the PW9 has stated 10% disability,

but considering the conservative treatment taken by the

petitioner and the nature of fracture question of disability
105 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

as stated by the Orthopedic surgeon does not arise. So,

no amount is awarded for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has stated that her daughter has sustained

fracture and took the conservative treatment for a period

of 2 days, but inspite of best treatment, she could not

come to the normal position, still she is under treatment.

The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated

doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about the

complaints and disability of the petitioner, due to the

accidental injuries and he has also stated about the

treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and out

patient. So considering the fracture sustained by the

petitioner and the evidence of PW4 and PW9, it is just

and necessary to grant Rs.30,000/- for the above head, it

will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.30,000/- is granted

for the above head.

82. Thus the total award stands as follows:
106 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000-00

2.Inconvenience caused to Rs. 7,000-00
the parents during laid up
period

3.Medical bills Rs. 13,937-00

4.Loss of future earning Nil

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 30,000-00
Conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

Total Rs. 90,937-00

83. Issue No.2 in MVC 2489/2015:

The PW4 being the mother of the minor petitioner

Bhargavi in her evidence has clearly stated that on 14-

04-2015 at about 6.30 a.m., her daughters Bhargavi and

Bhumija were proceeding in a tempo traveler along with

others, the driver of the tempo traveler has drove the

same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner

dashed behind the lorry which was parked by the lorry

driver negligently, without putting the indicator nor the
107 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

signal. Thereby, her daughter Bhargavi has sustained the

following injuries;

1) Right proximal femur shaft.
2) Fracture-oblique left distal femur (supra
condylar)
3) Epiphysel injury.
4) Left proximal tibia undisplaced fracture.
5) CLW present over chin and lower lip.
6) Tenderness over mandible.
7) Swelling tenderness over proximal part of
right thigh.
8) Swelling tenderness over proximal part of
left thigh.

84. So, immediately her daughter was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid

treatment, later on she was referred to M.S. Ramaiah

Memorial Hospital, Bangalore and took the treatment as

an inpatient and after the discharge, she took the

physiotherapy by spending an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-

towards her treatment.

85. Prior to the accident, her daughter was hale and

healthy aged about 10 years, studying in 3rd standard at
108 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Mother Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore, due to the

accidental injuries, she could not attend her classes for a

period of 15 days, as she is getting pain in her left and

right legs, she used a walker and an attendant to walk

and she is not able to walk long distance, she needs

support and care of an attendant to look after her daily

needs, she was unable to sit with cross leg nor able to

climb stairs and she could not sleep on her left side and

she is not able to fold her both legs and not able to stand

for long time and her both legs are weakened, even she

cannot travel in a public transport system and she

travels in private vehicle and her left leg has been

shortened and she lost the interest in her studies and her

memory has been reduced. So, the same is affects her

career and also her marriage prospectus in future and

she became permanent handicapped. So, Rs.3,00,000/-

is required for removal of implants and physiotherapy

treatment. The PW4 being the mother of the minor

petitioner in her cross examination has denied that her

daughter has not sustained any injuries as shown in the
109 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

affidavit, but she has admitted that her daughter has

took the treatment at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital as an

inpatient for a period of 8 days and one Dr. Naresh

Shetty has treated her daughter at M.S. Ramaiah

Hospital and she has denied that the injuries sustained

by her daughter are heal up and she is not facing any

difficulties and she has admitted that at the time of

accident, her daughter was studying in 2nd standard, now

she has studying in 3rd standard and she did not produce

any document to show that her daughter after the

accident has not attend the classes from 14-04-2015 to

08-09-2015 and she has denied that she has created the

medical bills placed before the court in order to get the

compensation and her daughter without any body

assistance, she walk independently and she is not facing

any difficulties, due to the accidental injuries.

86. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has stated that the

petitioner has met with an accident said to have been
110 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

taken place on 14-04-2015, as she has sustained the

following injuries;

1) Fracture shaft right proximal femur,
oblique, left distal femur, supracondylar
fracture epiphyseal injury.
2) Left proximal tibia fracture and she had
cerebral plasy.

87. So, the petitioner was underwent open

reduction and internal fixation in respect of fracture of

shaft femur with a 9 holed plate, as she was a child aged

about 10 years and also underwent a operation in

respect of left supracondylar fracture of femur with

closed reduction and K-wiring. So, left proximal tibial

fractures were immobilized in a knee POP cast and she

was discharged on 20-04-2015 with an advice for follow

up treatment and recently he has examined the petitioner

and found that the right femur proximal shaft fracture

internally fixed with a plate and 8 screws with fracture

united and implants in situ. The left femur x-rays shows

that there is a malunion of the fracture of the left
111 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

supracondylar area with aprocurvatum deformity leading

to slight FFD of the knee joint and x-ray of the left leg

shows a cross recurvatum deformity of the proximal tibia

due to malunion of the fracture. Thus, the petitioner has

sustained shortening of the left lower limb and sustained

disability of 30 to 40% for each segment of femur and

about 60% for tibia in anyone else as it is difficult to

assess. So, 35% for right femur and 95% for left femur

and tibia put together. So, she has sustained total

permanent disability 35% for her right lower limb and

95% for her left lower limb and she was advised for

surgeries of deformity corrections of her left tibia with

ilizarov external fixation by osteotomy of the tibia. So, few

more surgeries are required it may cost of Rs.2,00,000/-

to Rs.3,00,000/-. The PW9 in his cross examination has

admitted that the petitioner was aged about 10 years and

there is a chances of improvement in future, since the

petitioner is being the minor child and the fracture is

united, but there is a deformity and he has denied that

he has stated more disability in order to help the
112 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

petitioner to get more compensation and 1/3rd has to be

considered out of the particular limb disability as her

whole body disability and the petitioner is not facing any

difficulties, due to the accidental injuries.

88. The PW11 being said to be attendant in her

evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an

accident and sustained the injuries and she has been

appointed to take care of Bhargavi for which they were

paying Rs.6,000/- per month. The PW11 in her cross

examination has admitted that she has not produced any

document to show that she has been appointed to take

care of Bhargavi by paying Rs.6,000/- per month.

Though, she has stated that she used to take her school

every day, but she has admitted that she has not

produced the ID card which was issued by the school.

So, one thing is clear that the petitioner has sustained

the fractures. Though, PW11 has stated that she has

been appointed as attendant to look out the petitioner,

but in her cross examination has admitted that she has

not produced any document to show that she has been
113 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

appointed to take care of Bhargavi. In the absence of the

materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the

evidence of the PW11 and it is not the case of the

petitioner that the PW4 is the employee and there was no

attendant in the house to look out her daughter.

Thereby, she has been appointed the PW11, if that is so,

the matter would have different. So, question of

appointing the PW11 by paying Rs.6,000/- per month

does not arise.

89. The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in

her evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained fracture of right femur and left femur and she

was underwent surgeries, but inspite of best treatment,

she could not come to the normal position, still she is

unable to walk nor attend her regular work or attend the

class independently. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic

Surgeon and the treated doctor in his evidence has

clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the

petitioner after the accident as well as her condition due

to the accidental injuries. So, the evidence of the PW9
114 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

corroborate the evidence of the PW4. Ex.P32 is the

wound certificate issued by the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial

Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained the following injuries;

1) 4x1 cms. CLW over the chin.
2) 2x1 cms. CLW over the lower lip.
3) Tenderness over the mandible.
4) Swelling and tenderness over the proximal
part of the right thigh.
5) Swelling and tenderness over the proximal
part of the left thigh.
6) Abnormal mobility of both the thighs.
7) Swelling and tenderness over the left knee
and legs.
90. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P33 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital on 14-

04-2015 and took the treatment till 20-04-2015, as she

has sustained the following injuries;

1) Right proximal femur shaft fracture
oblique left distal femur (Supra condylar).
115 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

2) Epiphyseal injury + left proximal tibia
undisplaced fracture.

91. So, the petitioner has underwent open reduction

and internal fixation with 9 holed DL plates in respect of

right femur fracture and she was also underwent open

reduction and internal fixation with K-wire and POP cast

application. Ex.P34 is the document issued by the

Mother Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore, clearly

reflects that the petitioner is studying in 3rd standard at

Mother Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore. Ex.P35 and

Ex.P36 are the school ID card and aadhaar card are

clearly reflects that the petitioner was born on 15-11-

2004 and studying in Mother Theresa Memorial School,

Bangalore. Ex.P37 are the medical bills clearly reflects

that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection

of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident

by spending an amount of Rs.1,48,508/-. Ex.P97 and

Ex.P98 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the

treatment as an outpatient and inpatient. Ex.P136 is

clearly reflects that the petitioner herself has paid the
116 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

entire bill amount to the hospital. Ex.P137 to Ex.P141

are clearly reflects that the petitioner has paid the

hospital charges. Ex.P99 are the x-rays reflects that the

petitioner has sustained the fractures and underwent

surgeries and implants in situ. So, considering the

evidence of the PW4 and PW9 and the materials on

record, as well as duration of treatment, it is just and

necessary to grant just compensation to the petitioner in

the following heads;

a) Pain and suffering.

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained fracture of right and left femur and left

proximal tibia undisplaced fracture and other injuries in

a road traffic accident and she was underwent surgery

and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 7

days, but inspite of best treatment, she could not come to

the normal position, still she is facing difficulties. The

PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated

doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about the
117 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

complaints and disability of the petitioner, due to the

accidental injuries and he has also stated about the

treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and out

patient. So considering the evidence of the PW4 and PW9

and the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the

duration of treatment, she would have sustained pain

and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award

compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the above head, it will

meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.60,000/- is granted for

the above head.

b) Inconvenience caused to the parents during

laid up period:

The PW4 being the natural guardian of the

petitioner in her evidence has clearly stated that prior to

the accident, her daughter was hale and healthy aged

about 10 years, studying in 3rd standard at Mother

Theresa Memorial School, Bangalore, due to the

accidental injuries, she could not attend her classes for a

period of 15 days and she has sustained the fracture

shaft right proximal femur oblique and left distal femur
118 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

(supra condylar), epiphyseal injury. So, she was

underwent surgeries and took the treatment as an

inpatient for a period of 7 days, but inspite of best

treatment, she could not come to the normal position,

still she is under physiotherapy. Ex.P32 is the wound

certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained 7 grievous injuries. Ex.P33 is the discharge

summary clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after

the accident has got admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah

Hospital and took the treatment till 20-04-2015 and she

has underwent surgeries. Ex.P97 and Ex.P98 are clearly

reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment as an

outpatient and inpatient. So, either the father or the

mother have to take care of the petitioner during the

hospitalization and after the discharge. So, one has to

lost the income. So, they might have lost the income for a

period of 4 months. So, it is just and necessary to

consider monthly income of Rs.7,000/-. So loss of four

months income comes to Rs.28,000/-. So, Rs.28,000/- is

granted for the above head.
119 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

c) Medical expenses.

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has stated that her daughter has sustained

grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and took the

treatment as an inpatient for a period of 7 days and she

was underwent surgeries by spending huge amount.

Ex.P37 are the medical bills clearly reflects that the

petitioner has spent an amount of Rs1,48,508/- towards

her treatment. Ex.P136 to Ex.P141 are clearly reflects

that the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.1,48,508/-

towards her treatment. Though, the learned counsel for

the respondents have disputed the medical bills

produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on

record to show that the medical bills produced by the

petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the

compensation. So, considering the injuries sustained by

the petitioner and the duration of treatment, it is clear

that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection

of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Therefore, Rs.1,48,508/- is granted for the above head.
120 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained the fracture of right and left femur. So, she

was underwent surgeries and took the treatment as an

inpatient, but inspite of best treatment, she could not

come to the normal position, still she is facing difficulties,

as the left femur is malunion and she is unable to walk

independently, she requires someone to hold to stand

and to walk and there is a deformity of her legs and she

has to suffer entire her life, that is the reason why, the

doctor has advised for surgeries of deformity corrections

of her leg tibia. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon

and the treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated

about the complaints and disability of the petitioner and

the surgeries which was underwent by the petitioner, due

to the accidental injuries. According to him, the

petitioner has sustained permanent disability of 35% for

her right lower limb and 95% for her left lower limb.
121 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

The learned counsel for the petitioner while

canvassing his arguments has requested the court to

consider 100% disability of the petitioner on the ground

that the petitioner has sustained fracture of both femur

and underwent surgeries, but inspite of best treatment,

she could not come to the normal position, still she is

facing difficulties and she cannot walk independently nor

attend the school and she requires one attendant entire

her life and the said counsel has drawn the court

attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in 2014 ACJ 1441 in between V. Mekala vs.

M. Malathi and another. On careful perusal of the above

said decision, in the said decision, the injured has

sustained a fracture of both bones of both legs, knee

injuries and mal-united knee bones, thickness of both

legs is reduced and despite multiple surgeries, both her

legs have become dysfunctional, knee folding is restricted

between 25 degree and 85 degree and the injured girl

aged about 16 years, brilliant student of class, holding

first rank in her school, suffered 70% permanent
122 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

disablement. Injured is unable to walk without crutches

and suffering severe pain while walking, she is not able

to squat and sit cross leg comfortably on floor. So, the

Tribunal has been awarded a compensation of

Rs.6,46,000/-, but the Hon'ble High Court taking a

notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month granted a

compensation of R.18,22,000/-. Again the appeal was

filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has assessed the notional income of

Rs.10,000/-, added 50 per cent for future prospectus,

taking disablement at 70%.

In the instant case, the petitioner is aged about 10

years and the PW9 being the treated doctor in his

evidence has stated that the x-ray film shows that the

right femur proximal shaft fracture internally fixed with a

plate and 8 screws with fracture united and implants in

situ. The left femur x-ray shows that there is a malunion

of the fracture of the left supracondylar area with

aprocurvatum deformity leading to slight FFD of the knee

joint and left leg shows a gross recurvatum deformity of
123 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the proximal tibia due to malunion of the fracture,

because of severity of injuries to three segments of lower

limbs with deformity of left tibia and shortening of the left

lower limb, but the facts and circumstances of the

present case and the decision which relied by the learned

counsel for the petitioner are different.

Admittedly, the PW9 being the Orthopedic Surgeon

and treated doctor in his evidence has stated the

permanent disability of 35% for her right lower limb and

95% for her left lower limb, but he has not stated the

functional disability of the petitioner. So, considering the

fracture of both femur and other injuries, if the disability

of the petitioner is taken into consideration as 35% it will

meet the ends of justice. Thus, the whole body disability

of the petitioner is taken into consideration as 35%.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the

court attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court reported in 2012 ACJ 191 in between Laxman

vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,

and another. On careful perusal of the above said
124 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

decision, in the said decision, the injured remained

hospitalized for a month in 3 hospital on different

occasions, right side movement of injured is restricted by

30% and there is wasting of right leg muscles by 3 cm.

Injured was working as a carpenter, aged about 24 years

and he was suffering urethral injury problems and he

was also facing a difficulty to sit in a cross leg and squat

and difficulty in passing urine, but the facts and

circumstances of the present case and the decision relied

by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the

court attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble High

Court of Karnataka reported in 2007 ACJ 13 in

between New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Papamma

and another. On careful perusal of the above said

decision, in the said decision, the injured being the coolie

has sustained injuries to her lip and leg and medical

evidence reflects that she has sustained the 65% of

functional disability to her left leg and 50% disability for

whole body, as she has sustained fracture of left thigh
125 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

bone and shortening of left leg by 5.5 cm. and knee joint

movement is grossly restricted. So, the facts and

circumstances of the present case and the decision which

relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner are

different, as the PW9 being the Orthopedic Surgeon and

the treated doctor has not stated either the whole body

disability nor the functional disability. Ex.P32 and

Ex.P33 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained the fracture and underwent surgeries. So,

considering the oral and documentary evidence on record

and condition of the petitioner, it is just and necessary to

consider the whole body disability of the petitioner to an

extent of 35%, it will meet the ends of justice. Thus, the

whole body disability of the petitioner is taken into

consideration as 35%. Thus, this court drawn its

attention on the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 in

between Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National

Insurance Co. Ltd., and another reads like thus;

Quantum - Injury - Principles of
assessment - Assessment of compensation in
126 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

case of children suffering disability - Apex Court
observed that appropriate compensation on all
other heads in addition to the actual
expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc.,
should be, if the disability is above 10 per cent
and up to 30 per cent to the whole body,
Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 percent, Rs.4,00,000; up
to 90 per cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per
cent, it should be Rs.6,00,000; for permanent
disability up to 10 per cent, it should be
Rs.1,00,000, unless there are exceptional
circumstances to take a different yardstick.
On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the

said decision their lordship held that where the disability

is above 10 per cent and up to 30 per cent to the whole

body, Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 per cent, Rs.4,00,000; up to

90 per cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per cent, it should

be Rs.6,00,000. For permanent disability up to 10 per

cent, it should be Rs.1,00,000, unless there are

exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.

In the instant case, the petitioner has sustained

whole body disability to an extent of 35%. So by virtue of
127 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the above said decision, the petitioner is entitled of

Rs.4,00,000/- for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has stated that her daughter has sustained

grievous injuries and she was underwent surgeries and

took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 7 days,

but inspite of best treatment, she could not come to the

normal position, still she is under treatment and she was

appointed an attendant to look out her daughter. Even

after the discharge her daughter is unable to walk nor

stand or attend her classes. Though, she has stated that

she has been appointed one attendant to look out the

petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to

substantiate her evidence. However, the evidence of the

PW4 clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained

grievous injuries and underwent surgeries, still she is

under treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic

Surgeon and the treated doctor in his evidence has
128 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the

petitioner, due to the accidental injuries and he has also

stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an

inpatient and out patient. So considering the fracture

sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of PW4 and

PW9, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.50,000/- for the

above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So,

Rs.50,000/- is granted for the above head.

f) Future medical expenses:

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

underwent two operations in respect of right and left

femur and implants in situ. So, few more surgeries are

required for removal of implants. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has stated that the petitioner has sustained

grievous injuries and underwent surgeries and implants

in situ and she requires few more surgeries, it may cost

of Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. So considering the

injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic
129 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

accident and the evidence of the PW4 and PW9, it is just

and necessary to grant Rs.20,000/- for the above head, it

will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.20,000/- is granted

for the above head.

g) Loss of marriage prospectus:

The PW4 being the mother of the petitioner in her

evidence has clearly stated that her daughter has

sustained grievous injuries and her left leg was

shortening and due to the disability, she has lost her

interest in studies and her memory power has been

reduced and it effects her career and also her marriage

prospectus in future, as she became permanent

handicapped. So, considering the age of the petitioner

and the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic

accident as well as surgeries and her deformity, it is just

and necessary to grant Rs.50,000/- for the above head, it

will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.50,000/- is granted

for the above head.

92. Thus the total award stands as follows:
130 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00

2.Inconvenience caused to Rs. 28,000-00
the parents during laid up
period

3.Medical bills Rs. 1,48,508-00

4.Loss of future earning Rs. 4,00,000-00

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 50,000-00
Conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

6. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000-00

7. Loss of marriage Rs. 50,000-00
prospectus

Total Rs. 7,56,508-00

93. Issue No.2 in MVC 2490/2015:

The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that on 14-04-2015 at about 6.30 a.m., she

was proceeding in a tempo traveler along with others, the

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same with high

speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed behind the

lorry which was parked by the lorry driver negligently,
131 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

without putting the indicator nor the signal. Thereby, she

has sustained the following injuries;

1) Proximal tibia fracture (Metaphyseal
injury) left.
2) Compression fracture of D2 spine.

94. So, immediately she was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid treatment,

later on she was referred to M.S. Ramaiah Memorial

Hospital, Bangalore and took the conservative treatment

and discharged with an advice for follow up treatment.

So, she has spent an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards

her treatment, but inspite of best treatment, she could

not come to the normal position, still she is facing

difficulties.

95. Prior to the accident, she was hale and healthy

aged about 85 years, house wife, due to the accidental

injuries, she could not do the work as before, as she is

getting pain in her left leg and she is unable to sit with

cross leg and unable to climb stairs and unable to sleep

on her left side and she is unable to fold her left leg and
132 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

she cannot stand for long time nor able to bear weight on

her left leg. The PW5 in her cross examination has denied

that she has not sustained the injuries as stated in her

affidavit and she has created the medical bills placed

before the court in order to get the compensation, but

she has admitted that she was not underwent any

surgery and she has not produced any document to show

that after the discharge, she took the treatment as an

outpatient and she has denied that she has been

reimbursed the amount which was spent towards her

treatment from the employer of her son, but she has

stated that the employer of her son has paid only 50%

and rest of the 50% has been paid by her and she has

denied that she has not facing any difficulties, due to the

accidental injuries and she is facing difficulties, due to

her age factor.

96. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has stated that the

petitioner has met with an accident said to have been
133 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

taken place on 14-04-2015, as she has sustained the

following injuries;

1) Fracture of the proximal tibia.
2) L1 compression fracture.

97. So, she was underwent closed reduction of

fracture and knee POP cast was applied and her spinal

fracture of L1 vertebra was treated conservatively with a

LS Best support and she was discharged on 20-04-2015

with an advice for follow up treatment and she has

sustained permanent disability to an extent of 30% of her

axial skeleton. The PW9 in his cross examination has

denied that the petitioner is facing the difficulties, due to

her age factor and she has not facing any difficulties, due

to the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident

and the petitioner has not sustained the fracture of T11,

T12 and she has not sustained any disability, due to the

accidental injuries.

98. The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained grievous injuries

and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge
134 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

amount and she was underwent surgery, but inspite of

best treatment, she could not come to the normal

position, still she is under treatment. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident. So, the

evidence of the PW9 corroborate the evidence of the PW5.

Ex.P38 is the wound certificate issued by the M.S.

Ramaiah Memorial Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects

that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;

1) Swelling and tenderness over the left
proximal tibia.
2) Tenderness over both sides of the chest.

99. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P39 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S. Ramaiah Memorial Hospital on 14-

04-2015 and took the treatment till 20-04-2015, as she

has sustained the following injuries;

1) Proximal tibia fracture (Metaphyseal injury).
135 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

2) Compression fracture D12 spine.

100. So, the petitioner has underwent closed

reduction and A/L POP cast applied with knee in 20

degree flexion and she has took the conservative

treatment. Ex.P41 are clearly reflects that the petitioner

has took the treatment in connection of the injuries

sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Ex.P117 is

clearly reflects that the hospital authorities have charged

an amount of Rs.45,970/- towards her treatment, out of

the said amount ITC Company has paid an amount of

Rs.43,250/-. Ex.P100 and Ex.P101 are clearly reflects

that the petitioner has took the treatment as an

outpatient and inpatient. So, considering the evidence of

the PW5 and PW9 and the materials on record, as well as

duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant

just compensation to the petitioner in the following

heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained tibia fracture and
136 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

compression fracture of D2 spine, but she has took the

conservative treatment, due to the age factor. The PW9

being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in

his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident as well as

treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and

outpatient. So considering the evidence of the PW5 and

PW9 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well

as the duration of treatment, she would have sustained

pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to

award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the above head,

it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.50,000/- is

awarded for the above head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that prior to the accident, she was hale and

healthy, house wife, due to the accidental injuries, she

could not do the work as before. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his
137 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

evidence has clearly stated about the fractures sustained

by the petitioner and treatment taken by her as an

inpatient and outpatient. Ex.P38 and Ex.P39 are clearly

reflects that the petitioner has sustained 2 fractures and

took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 7 days.

Though, she has not stated the income, but she has

stated that prior to the accident, she was house wife. So

considering the age of the petitioner and the present life

condition, it is just and necessary to consider the

monthly notional income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet the

ends of justice. So, the petitioner might have lost the

income for a period of three months. So three months

income comes to Rs.18,000/-. So Rs.18,000/- is granted

for the above head.

c) Medical expenses

The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that she has sustained the fractures in a road

traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by

spending huge amount of Rs.1,25,000/-, but whereas
138 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Ex.P41 reflects that the petitioner has spent an amount

of Rs.7,277/-. Ex.P117 reflects that the hospital

authorities have charged an amount of Rs.45,970/-

towards her treatment, out of the said amount ITC

Company has paid an amount of Rs.43,250/-, rest of the

amount of Rs.2,720/- has been paid by the petitioner.

Though, the respondents have disputed the medical bills

placed on record, but nothing is placed on record to show

that the petitioner has created nor fabricated the

documents. So, in the absence of the materials from the

respondent side, it is clear that the petitioner has took

the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by

her in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.7,277/- is

granted for the above head.

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of left tibia

and compression fracture of D2 spine and took the

conservative treatment for a period of 7 days, but inspite
139 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

of best treatment, she could not come to the normal

position, still she is facing difficulties. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and the treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to

him the petitioner has sustained permanent disability to

an extent of 30%. So, considering oral and documentary

evidence on record, it is just and necessary to consider

the disability of 10% of the whole body, it will meet the

ends of justice. So, her income is already considered as

Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.P38, Ex.P39 and Ex.P41 are

clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident,

the petitioner was aged about 85 years. Therefore, her

age is taken into consideration as 85 years as on the date

of the alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ

1298 the multiplier applicable is 5. So the loss of future

earning is works out as under;

Rs.6,000X12X5X10/100=36,000/-.
140 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.36,000/- for

the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW5 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture of left tibia

and compression fracture of D2 spine, due to the age

factor, she was not underwent any surgery, but she took

the conservative treatment, but inspite of best treatment,

she could not come to the normal position, even after the

discharge, she took the treatment as an outpatient, still

she is under treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic

Surgeon and treated doctor in his evidence has clearly

stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an

inpatient and outpatient and her difficulties. So

considering the evidence of PW5 and PW9 and duration

of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant

Rs.30,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of

justice. So Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.
141 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

101. Thus the total award stands as follows:

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 18,000-00
up period

3.Medical bills Rs. 7,277-00

4.Loss of future earning Rs. 36,000-00

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 30,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

Total Rs. 1,41,277-00

102. Issue No.2 in MVC 2491/2015:

The PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. he

was the occupant of the tempo traveler along with others

proceeding from Savadatti towards Bengaluru in a tempo

traveler bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332, the

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules

and regulations dashed behind the lorry, as the lorry

driver has parked on the road negligently without putting
142 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

any signal nor indicator nor keeping any signal reflectors.

Thereby, he has sustained the following injuries;

Proximal humerus shaft fracture left arm

(Butterfly fragment)

103. So, immediately he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Sira, wherein he took the first aid treatment

and later on he was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah hospital and

underwent surgery by spending an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/-. Inspite of best treatment he could not

come to normal position, still he is facing difficulties.

104. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy,

aged about 54 years, working as a driver at AV-

Karnataka State Archives Record Station, Kannada and

Culture Department, Bengaluru and earning Rs.28,000/-

per month. Due to the accidental injuries he became

permanently handicapped, so he was on leave for three

months after the accident. Due to the accidental injuries

he could not fold his left hand, not able to raise his left

hand above shoulder level, not able to lift any weight with

his left hand and not able to sleep on his left side and
143 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

unable to do his work as earlier. PW1 in his cross-

examination has admitted that soon after the accident he

took the treatment at Government Hospital, Sira, later on

he was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah hospital and one

Dr.Naresh Shetty has treated him and he was underwent

surgery, even after discharge he took the treatment as

outpatient and he has denied that he has reimbursed the

amount which was spent towards his treatment and he

was not facing any difficulties due to the accidental

injuries. Now he is receiving monthly salary of

Rs.32,000/- and he has admitted that during the leave,

he has availed salary and he has denied that he has

created the medical bills and placed it before the court in

order to get the compensation.

105. PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his

evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an

accident said to have been taken place on 14.4.2015, as

he has sustained the following injuries;

1) Proximal humerus shaft
2) Fracture left arm with butterfly fragment
144 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

3)Superficial abrasions over left shoulder,
abrasions over chest, CLW over chin 5x 2 cms,
sutured outside

106. So, he was underwent operation for proximal

humerus shaft fracture left arm with butterfly fragment

with CRIF with IMIL was done and he was discharged on

20.4.2015 with an advise for follow-up treatment and

recently he has examined the petitioner and found that

the petitioner has sustained total disability of 39.5% of

his left lower limb and one more surgery is required for

removal of implants which may costs of Rs.55,000/-.

PW9 in his cross-examination has denied that petitioner

is not facing any difficulties due to the accidental injuries

since the injuries sustained by the petitioner are heal up

and fracture is malunited. Though in his affidavit has

stated that his right lower limb, but it is upper limb and

he has denied that 1/4th has to be taken into

consideration as whole body disability of the particular

limb and he has denied that he has stated more disability

in order to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
145 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

107. PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of left arm,

so he was underwent surgery, inspite of best treatment

he could not come to normal position, still he is facing

difficulties. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about

the complaints and disability of the petitioner as well as

surgery which was underwent by the petitioner in

connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road

traffic accident. So, the evidence of the PW9 corroborate

the evidence of the PW6. Ex.P42 is the wound certificate

issued by the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore clearly

reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following

injuries;

1) 2x2 cms CLW over the chin
2) Superficial abrasions over the left shoulder
3) Body deformity and left shoulder altered
contours
4) Abrasion over the chest
X-ray shows Proximal shaft fracture of the left
humerus (butterfly fragment)
146 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

108. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P43 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital on 14.4.2015 and

took the treatment till 20.4.2015 for a period of 7 days as

she has sustained the following injuries;

1)Proximal humerus shaft fracture

2) Left arm (Butterfly fragment)

109. So, he was underwent closed reduction

internal fixation with IMIl synthes under GA. Ex.P24, 25,

46 to 48 are clearly reflects that the petitioner was born

on 28.8.1961. Ex.P48 is clearly reflects that the

petitioner was the driver of the Government of Karnataka

prior to the accident. Ex.P49 is reflects that the

petitioner is the driver of the Karnataka State Archives

Departmen, Vidhana Soudha. Ex.P15 are the pay slips

reflects that the petitioner is the Government Servant.

Ex.P51 & Ex.P52 are reflects that the petitioner has

taken 30 days earned leave and casual leave due to the

accidental injuries. Ex.P54 reflects that the petitioner
147 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

has took the treatment in connection of the injuries

sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Ex.P47 and

Ex.P48 are reflects that the petitioner has paid the

hospital charges. So, considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, it is just and necessary

to grant just compensation to the petitioner in the

following heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

The PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained proximal humerus

shaft, fracture of left arm with butterfly fragment. So, he

was underwent closed reduction and internal fixation

and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of

seven days, inspite of best treatment, he could not come

to the normal position, still he is under treatment. The

PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has

clearly stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner

as inpatient and outpatient. So considering the evidence

of the PW6 and PW9 and the injuries sustained by the

petitioner as well as the duration of treatment he would
148 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and

necessary to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the

above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence,

Rs.50,000/- is awarded for the above head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has

stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy

working as a driver at Kaarnataka State Archies

Department by getting monthly salary of Rs.28,000/-.

Due to the accidental injuries he has lost the earned

leave and casual leave, as he has taken three months

leave. But whereas Ex.P52 is the office order clearly

reflects that the petitioner has took the 30 days earned

leave. Ex.P50 are the pay slips reflects that the petitioner

was drawing gross salary of Rs.35,500/- and his basic

salary of Rs.21,600/- and D.A. 6,210/- and CCA of

Rs.350/-. So, it comes of Rs.28,160/-. So, one thing is

clear from the Ex.P52 that he has availed 30 days earned

leave and lost the reimbursement benefit due to the

availment of 30 days earned leave. So, the petitioner is
149 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

entitled for Rs.28,160/- towards loss of income during

the laid up period. So, Rs.28,160/- is awarded for the

above head.

c) Medical expenses

The PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and took

the treatment as inpatient by spending an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards his treatment and incidental

charges. But on record the petitioner has produced the

medical bills worth of Rs.20,566/-. Though the

respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by

the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show

that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are

created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation,

moreover PW10 being the Executive Corporate in his

evidence has stated that the petitioner has took the

treatment at M.S.Ramaiah hospital and hospital has

charged Rs.1,20,561/- and the petitioner has paid the

said amount. So, the petitioner is entitled for the medical
150 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

bill amount of Rs.1,20,560/- for the above head. So,

Rs.1,20,560/- is granted for the above head.

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that prior to the accident he was hale and

healthy working as a driver at Government Department

by getting monthly salary of Rs.28,000/-. But in his

cross-examination has admitted that he is drawing

monthly salary of Rs.32,000/- and he used to receive the

salary every month even during the leave period. That

itself goes to show that after the accident the petitioner

has been continued in the service by drawing salary.

The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

augments has submitted that though, the petitioner is

the Government employee but he has sustained

disability. So, it is just and necessary to consider future

loss of income and the said counsel has drawn the court

attention on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2535. On careful perusal of
151 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

the said decision, in the said decision claimant being the

bachelor has sustained left amputation because of the

accident. So, he had resigned his job as Quality

Engineer and take up desk job in bank. So, his loss of

future income is taken into consideration.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the

petitioner that he has resigned the job due to the

accidental injuries. Therefore, the decision relied by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the facts and

circumstances of the present case are entirely different.

Thus, this court drawn its attention on the

judgement of the Hon'ble High Court reported in

2015 (2) AKR 860 in between Devaraya V Naik Vs.

K.J.Santosh. On careful perusal of the said decision, in

the said decision their lordship held that the claimant

being the Physical Education Teacher working at Batkal

High School by getting salary, has met with an accident,

evidence shows that the claimant neither suffered any

loss of future earning capacity nor there is any reduction

in cadre of employment or salary, so the claimant is not
152 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

entitled to get the compensation under the head of loss of

future earning capacity.

In the instant case, it is not the case of the

petitioner that his cadre of employment has been reduced

nor stated that his salary has been reduced due to the

accidental injuries. By virtue of the above said decision,

the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the

above head. So, no amount is granted for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained proximal humerus

shaft, fracture of left arm with butterfly fragment and

underwent surgery and took the treatment as an

inpatient for a period of 7 days, even after the discharge,

he took the treatment as an outpatient, still he is under

treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about

the treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and

outpatient as well as complaints and disability of the
153 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence

of PW6 and PW9 and duration of treatment as well as the

complaints and disability of the petitioner after the

accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.40,000/- for

the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So,

Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above head.

f) Future medical expenses:
The PW6 being the injured in his evidence has

clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of left arm

with butterfly fragment and underwent surgery and

implants are in situ. So, one more surgery is required for

removal of implants in situ. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that one

more surgery is required for removal of implants. So,

considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and

the evidence of the PW6 and PW9, it is just and

necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will

meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.15,000/- is granted for

the above head.

110. Thus the total award stands as follows:
154 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 28,160-00
up period

3.Medical bills Rs.1,20,560-00

4.Loss of future earning Nil

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00

Total Rs.2,53,720-00

111. Issue No.2 in MVC 2492/2015:

The PW6 being the father of the minor petitioner in

MVC 2492/2015 in his evidence has stated that on

14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. himself and his daughter

and other inmates of the tempo traveler were proceeding

in a tempo traveler from Savadatti towards Bengaluru,

the driver of the tempo traveller has drove the same in a

rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic

rules and regulations dashed against the lorry which was
155 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

parked unmindfully without putting indicator nor signal.

Thereby, she has sustained following injuries;

1)Facial injuries
2)Fracture of right infra orbital ridge
3)Fracture of floor of orbit
4)Right anterior maxillary fracture
5)Right knee hemarthrosis

112. So, immediately she was shifted to

Government hospital, Sira wherein she took the first aid

treatment, later on she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah

hospital and took the treatment as inpatient and

outpatient. So, she has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards her

treatment and incidental charges. Prior to the accident

his daughter was aged about 12 years, studying in VI

standard at Sandipani Nikethan English School,

Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru. Due to the accidental injuries

she is getting frequent headache and vomiting sensation,

she is not able to chew hard food, she is getting pain in

her jaw, occasionally her face3 swells, she is not able to

concentrate on her studies, her memory has been

reduced and there is disfigurement of her face, so she
156 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

lost marriage prospects. PW6 in his cross-examination

has denied that his daughter has not sustained any

injuries as stated in his affidavit but he has stated that

his daughter has took the treatment at M.S.Ramaiah

hospital for a period of 7 days and at the time of accident

she was studying in VI standard, now she is studying in

VII standard and he has denied that his daughter is not

facing any difficulties due to the accidental injuries.

113. PW9 being the Orthopedic Surgeon and treated

doctor in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has

met with an accident said to have been taken place on

14.4.2015 and sustained the following injuries;

1)Facial injuries,
2)Fracture right infra-orbital ridge and floor of
orbit
3) Right knee Haemarthrosis
4)2x7 cms Wound over infra-orbital area
5)1x1 cms Wound over lower lip

114. So, CT scan of the facial bone was taken and

found that the petitioner has sustained fracture of right

infra orbital wall with fracture right infra orbital ridge
157 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

and right anterior maxillary wall. So, she took the

treatment as inpatient and discharged with an advise for

follow-up treatment as she was underwent open

reduction and internal fixation of axial skeleton. So, she

has sustained permanent disability of 10% of axial

skeleton. PW9 in his cross-examination has admitted

that at the time of accident the petitioner was aged about

12 years and he has denied that the petitioner has not

sustained any disability due to the accidental injuries

and he has stated disability in order to help the petitioner

to get more compensation.

115. PW6 being the father of the petitioner in his

evidence has clearly stated that his daughter has

sustained fracture of right infra orbital ridge, floor of

orbit, right anterior maxillary and right knee, thereby she

was underwent surgery. Inspite of best treatment she

could not come to normal position. PW9 being the treated

doctor and Orthopaedic Surgeon has clearly stated about

the complaints and disabilities of the petitioner due to

the accidental injuries. So, the evidence of PW9
158 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

corroborate the evidence of PW6. Ex.P57 is the wound

certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has

sustained the following injuries in a road traffic accident

said to have been taken place on 14.4.2015.

1) 2x 2 cms CLW over the right infra orbital
region
2) 1x 1 cms CLW over the lower lip
CT shows Right infra orbital ridge fracture +
fracture of right wrist, right anterior maxillary
fracture,
Fracture of right infra-orbital ridge and floor of
orbit, infra orbital area wound and right knee
haemarthrosis
116. The above injuries are grievous in nature.

Ex.P58 is the discharge summary reflects that the

petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the

M.S.Ramaiah hospital on 14.4.2015 and took the

treatment till 20.4.2015 for a period of 7 days as she has

sustained the following injuries;

1)Facial injuries

2)Fracture of right infra orbital ridge

3)Floor of orbit
159 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

4)Right knee haemarthrosis

117. So, she was underwent open reduction and

internal fixation for fracture infra orbital rim + silicone

sheet for orbital floor. Ex.P61 reflects that the petitioner

is studying in Sadipanikethan School, studying in VII

standard, Ex.P62 reflects that she has took the treatment

by spending an amount of Rs.1,18,702/-. Ex.P106 and

107 are reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment

as outpatient and inpatient. Ex.P108 reflects that the

petitioner ha sustained fracture and underwent surgery.

So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, it is just and necessary to grant just

compensation for the following heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

PW6 being the father of the petitioner in his

evidence has stated his daughter has sustained fracture

of infra orbital ridge, floor of orbit and anterior maxillary

and right knee haemarthrosis, so she was underwent

surgery, inspite of best treatment she could not come to

normal position, still she is facing difficulties.
160 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

PW9 being the orthopaedic surgeon and treated

doctor in his evidence has stated about the treatment

taken by the petitioner as inpatient and outpatient.

Ex.P57 and Ex.P58 reflects that the petitioner has

sustained grievous injures and underwent surgery and

took the treatment as inpatient for a period of 7 days. So,

considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a

road traffic accident and the duration of treatment she

might have sustained pain and agony for which it is just

and necessary to award just compensation of

Rs.40,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. So,

Rs.40,000/- is granted under the head of pain and

suffering.

b) Inconvenience caused to the parents during

laid up period:

PW6 being the natural guardian and father of the

petitioner in his evidence has stated that his daughter

has sustained fracture and underwent surgery and took

the treatment for a period of seven days. Even after

discharge still she is under treatment. PW9 being the
161 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Orthopedic surgeon in his evidence has stated about the

treatment taken by the petitioner and injuries sustained

by her in a road traffic accident, while treatment one has

to look out the petitioner either the mother or the father

in the hospital, so they have lost the income. So, if

Rs.14,000/- is granted it will meet the ends of justice.

Thus, Rs.14,000,/- is granted for the above head.

c) Medical expenses.

PW6 being the father of the petitioner in his

evidence has stated that his daughter has sustained

grievous injuries and took the treatment as inpatient, so

he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards her treatment. But

on record he has produced the medical bills worth of

Rs.1,18,702/-. Though the learned counsel for the

respondents have disputed the medical bills produced by

the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show

that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are

created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation.

In the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that

the medical bills produced by the petitioner are relating
162 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

to the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

So, Rs.1,18,702/- is granted to the petitioner towards

medical expenses.

(d) Estimated loss of future earning:

The PW6 being the father of the petitioner in her

evidence has stated that his daughter has sustained

grievous injuries took the treatment as an inpatient and

underwent surgery. Inspite of best treatment she could

not come to normal position, still she is facing difficulties.

PW9 being the treated doctor and orthopaedic surgeon in

his evidence has stated that the petitioner has sustained

fracture and underwent surgery and sustained

permanent disability to an extent of 10%. So, considering

the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is just

and necessary to consider the whole body disability to an

extent of 6% it will meet the ends of justice. Thus, this

Court drawn its attention on the decision reported in

2013 ACJ 2445 in between Mallikarjun vs. Divisional

Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another

reads like thus;
163 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Quantum - Injury - Principles of
assessment - Assessment of compensation in
case of children suffering disability - Apex Court
observed that appropriate compensation on all
other heads in addition to the actual
expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc.,
should be, if the disability is above 10 per cent
and up to 30 per cent to the whole body,
Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 percent, Rs.4,00,000; up
to 90 per cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per
cent, it should be Rs.6,00,000; for permanent
disability up to 10 per cent, it should be
Rs.1,00,000, unless there are exceptional
circumstances to take a different yardstick.
Quantum - Injury - Leg - Fracture of tibia
in right leg - Injured hospitalised for 58 days,
underwent operation in which plate and screw
were affixed - Fracture was mal-united resulting
in shortening of right lower limb by 1.5 cm and
injured is limping; limitation of right knee
movement by 30 per cent and right ankle
movement by 20 per cent; weakness of muscle
power around right knee and right ankle -
Injured boy aged 12, suffered disability of 34 per
cent of right lower limb and 18 per cent to whole
body - Tribunal awarded Rs.63,500 which was
164 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

enhanced in appeal to Rs.1,09,500 - Apex Court
allowed Rs.3,00,000 towards pain and suffering,
mental and physical shock, hardship,
inconvenience, discomfort, loss of amenities in
life due to permanent disability; Rs.225,000 for
discomfort, inconvenience and loss of income to
parents; Rs.25,000 for medical and incidental
expenses; and Rs.25,000 for future medical
expenses - Award of Rs.1,09,500 enhanced to
Rs.3,75,000.

On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the

said decision the claimant being the minor aged about 12

years has met with an accident and he filed the claim

petition for seeking compensation, so the Tribunal has

awarded the compensation of Rs.63,500/-. So, the

claimant has approached the Hon'ble High Court and the

Hon'ble High Court enhanced the compensation of

Rs.1,09,500/- aggrieved by the said award and judgment

the claimant filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme

Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held, it is

unfortunate that both the Tribunal and the High Court
165 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

have not properly appreciated the medical evidence

available in the case. The age of the child and deformities

on his body resulting in disability have not been duly

taken note of, while assessing non pecuniary damages,

the damages for mental and physical shock, pain and

suffering already suffered and that are likely to be

suffered, any future damages for the loss of amenities in

life like difficulty in running, participation in active

sports, etc., damages on account of inconvenience,

hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration, etc.,

have to be addressed especially in the case of a child

victim. For a child, the best part of his life is yet to come.

While considering the claim by a victim child, it would be

unfair and improper to follow the structured formula as

per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for

reasons more than one. The main stress in the formula

is on pecuniary damages. For children there is no

income. The only indication in the Second Schedule for

non-earning persons is to take the notional income as

Rs.15,000/- per year. A child cannot be equated to such
166 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

a non-earning person. Therefore, the compensation is to

be worked out under the non-pecuniary heads in

addition to the actual amounts incurred for treatment

done and/or to be done. So, if the disability is above 10

per cent and up to 30 per cent to the whole body,

Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 per cent, Rs.4,00,000; up to 90 per

cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per cent, it should be

Rs.6,00,000. For permanent disability up to 10 per cent,

it should be Rs.1,00,000, unless there are exceptional

circumstances to take a different yardstick.

In the instant case the petitioner has sustained

whole body disability to an extent of 6%. So, by virtue of

the above said decision the petitioner is entitled for loss

of income of Rs.1,00,000/-. So, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded

for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, special diet

and attendant charges.

PW6 being the natural guardian in his evidence has

stated that his daughter has sustained the grievous
167 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient and

underwent surgery and after discharge still she is under

treatment. PW9 being the treated doctor and orthopaedic

surgeon in his evidence has stated about the treatment

taken by the petitioner as inpatient and outpatient. So

considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and

duration of treatment it is just and necessary to grant

Rs.30,000/- for the above head.

f) Future medical expenses:

The PW6 being the natural guardian of the

petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated that his

daughter has sustained grievous injuries and underwent

surgery and implants are in situ. So, one more surgery is

required for removal of implants in situ. The PW9 being

the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that

one more surgery is required for removal of implants

which may costs of Rs.55,000/-. So, considering the

injuries sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of

the PW6 and PW9, it is just and necessary to grant
168 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of

justice. So, Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.

118. Thus the total award stands as follows:

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000-00
2. Inconvenience caused to Rs. 14,000-00

the parents during laid up

period

3. Medical bills Rs.1,18,702-00

4.Estimated Loss of Rs.1,00,000-00
future earning

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 30,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment,
attendant charges
etc.

6.Future medication Rs. 15,000-00

Total Rs.3,17,702-00

119. Issue No.2 in MVC 2493/2015:

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. she

was occupant of the tempo traveler along with others

proceeding from Savadatti to Bengaluru in a tempo
169 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

traveler bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332, the

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules

and regulations dashed behind the lorry, as a result, the

driver has parked on the road negligently without putting

any signal nor indicator or keeping any signal reflectors.

Thereby, she has sustained the following injuries;

1)Fracture shaft of left femur

2)Chest compression test positive

3)Deep CLW over dorsal aspect of left foot

120. So, immediately she was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid

treatment and later on she was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah

hospital and underwent closed reduction and internal

fixation with IMIL and she was discharged from the

hospital with an advise for follow-up treatment and due

to severe injuries again she got admitted to the very

hospital on 13.5.2015 and took the treatment till

16.5.2015 as the injured had infected operated wound,
170 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

wound debridement was done and treated conservatively

and discharged with an advise for follow-up treatment.

121. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy

working as a tailor by getting monthly income of

Rs.8,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries she became

permanently disabled and she is getting pain at her left

leg, she is unable to walk, unable to stand for long time,

not able to climb stairs, not able to fold her left leg and

not able to bear weight on his left leg and she is limping

while walking and she became bed ridden, so she has

appointed maid servant for her house keeping work and

one more surgery is required for removal of implants and

correction of surgery which may costs of Rs.50,000/-.

PW7 in her cross-examination has admitted that soon

after the accident she took the first aid treatment at Sira

Government hospital, later on she was shifted to

M.S.Ramaiah hospital and took the treatment as

inpatient for a period of 13 days and underwent surgery

and she has denied that she has not sustained any

injuries as stated in her affidavit and she has created the
171 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

medical bills and placed it before the court in order to get

the compensation and she has got reimbursed the

amount which was spent for her treatment out of her

husband reimbursement facility and she has admitted

that she has not produced any documents to show that

prior to the accident she was working as a tailor by

getting monthly income of Rs.8,000/-.

122. PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his

evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an

accident said to have been taken place on 14.4.2015, as

she has sustained the following injuries;

1) Fracture shaft left femur
2) Open wound over left foot 3x2 cms

123. So, she was underwent closed reduction and

internal fixation with IMIL and took the treatment as

inpatient for a period of 7 days and she had developed

blurring of vision, Ophthalmologies opined that she had

PED in her right eye and PED with CSR in her left eye.

She was treated with Nepalact eye drops. She had

persistent soakage of her wound for which regular
172 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

dressing was done and she was discharged with an

advise for follow-up treatment and recently he has

examined the petitioner and found the following

difficulties;

Pain in left hip, thigh and knee joint
and also decrease ROM complains of
inability to squat sit crossed legged
difficulty in climbing stairs and kneel ,

124. So, the petitioner has sustained total

permanent disability of 36% for her left lower limb and

one more surgery is required for removal of implants it

may costs of Rs.55,000/-. PW9 in his cross-examination

has admitted that petitioner has took the treatment as

inpatient for a period of five days and he has denied that

the petitioner is not facing any difficulties due to the

accidental injuries, but he has admitted that the fracture

is united and he has denied that he has stated more

disability in order to help the petitioner to get more

compensation.
173 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

125. The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture shaft of left

femur and open wound over left foot. So, she was

underwent surgery, but inspite of best treatment, she

could not come to the normal position, still she is facing

difficulties. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about

the complaints and disability of the petitioner as well as

surgery which was underwent by the petitioner in

connection of the injuries sustained by her in a road

traffic accident. So, the evidence of the PW9 corroborate

the evidence of the PW7. Ex.P63 is the wound certificate

issued by the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore clearly

reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following

injuries;

1)Chest compression positive

2)Swelling, tenderness and crepitus between

mid 1/3rd and distal 1/3rd of the left thigh

3) 3x2 cms deep wound over dorsal aspect of left

foot.
174 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

X-ray reveals fracture shaft of the left femur

126. So, the above said injuries are grievous in

nature. Ex.P64 is the discharge summary clearly reflects

that the petitioner soon after the accident has got

admitted to the M.S.Ramaiah Hospital on 14.4.2015 and

took the treatment till 27.4.2015 as she has sustained

the following injuries;

Fracture shaft left femur

127. So, she was underwent closed reduction

internal fixation with IMIl in respect of left femur mid

shaft fracture. Ex.P65 is clearly reflects that the

petitioner again got admitted on 13.5.2015 and took the

treatment till 16.5.2015 due to infection and operated

wound over left hip, so she was underwent wound

debridement on 14.5.2015 with discharged with an

advise for follow-up treatment. Ex.P67 is reflects that the

petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the

injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Ex.P130 to 134 are reflects that the petitioner has paid

treatment charges to the M.S.Ramaiah hospital. So,
175 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, it is just and necessary to grant just

compensation to the petitioner in the following heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained Fracture shaft left

femur. Thereby, she was underwent closed reduction and

internal fixation and took the treatment as an inpatient

for a period of 14 days, due to infected wound in

operation again she got admitted to the M.S.Ramaiah

hospital and took the treatment as inpatient and

underwent wound debridement. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated

about the treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient

and outpatient. So, considering the evidence of the PW7

and PW9 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as

well as the duration of treatment he would have

sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and

necessary to award compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the
176 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence,

Rs.60,000/- is awarded for the above head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that prior to the accident she was hale and

healthy working as a tailor by getting monthly income of

Rs.8,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries she became

permanently disabled. But in her cross-examination has

categorically admitted that she has not produced any

documents to show that prior to the accident she was

working as a tailor by getting monthly income of

Rs.8,000/-. So, in the absence of the materials on

record, it is very difficult to believe the income of the

petitioner as alleged in the claim petition. So, considering

the age of the petitioner, present life condition and skill of

the petitioner it is just and necessary to grant notional

monthly income of Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of

justice. Ex.P63 is the wound certificate reflects that the

petitioner has sustained two grievous injuries, Ex.P64 &

Ex.P65 are reflects that the petitioner has sustained
177 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

fracture soft left femur and underwent closed reduction

and internal fixation and took the treatment as inpatient

for a period of 18 days. So, considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, she might have lost

income for a period of four months. So, four months

income comes to Rs.28,000/-. So, Rs.28,000/- is granted

for the above head.

c) Medical expenses

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that she has sustained fracture soft of left femur,

so she was underwent surgery and took the treatment as

inpatient for a period of 18 days and even after discharge

she took the treatment as outpatient by spending huge

amount. She has produced the medical bills worth of

Rs.1,76,152/- marked as Ex.P67. Though the learned

counsel for the respondents have disputed the medical

bills produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on

record to show that the medical bills produced by the

petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the

compensation. So, in the absence of the materials on
178 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

record, it is clear that the petitioner has took the

treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by her

in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.1,76,172/-is

granted for the above head.

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture shaft of left

femur and underwent surgery inspite of best treatment

she could not come to normal position still she is facing

difficulties. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and

treated doctor in his evidence has clearly stated about

the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the

accident. According to him, the petitioner has sustained

disability to an extent of 36% for her left lower limb. But

in his cross-examination has admitted that fracture is

united. So, considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, it is just and necessary to consider

whole body disability to an extent of 13% it will meet the

ends of justice. Ex.P63, Ex.P64, Ex.P65 and Ex.P67 are
179 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

reflects that as on the date of alleged accident the

petitioner was aged about 35 years. Therefore, her age is

taken into consideration as 35 years as on the date of the

alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298

the multiplier applicable is 16. So, the loss of future

earning is works out as under;

Rs.7,000X12X16X13/100=Rs.1,74,720/-.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,74,720/-

for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture shaft of left

femur and underwent surgery and took the treatment as

an inpatient for a period of 18 days, even after the

discharge, she took the treatment as an outpatient, still

she is under treatment. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic

Surgeon and treated doctor in his evidence has clearly
180 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an

inpatient and outpatient as well as complaints and

disability of the petitioner after the accident. So,

considering the evidence of PW7 and PW9 and duration

of treatment as well as the complaints and disability of

the petitioner after the accident, it is just and necessary

to grant Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will meet the

ends of justice. So, Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above

head.

f) Future medical expenses:

The PW7 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture shaft of left

femur and underwent surgery and implants are in situ.

So, one more surgery is required for removal of implants

in situ. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his

evidence has stated that one more surgery is required for

removal of implants. So, considering the injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of the PW7

and PW9, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/-
181 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So,

Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.

128. Thus the total award stands as follows:

1.Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 28,000-00
up period

3.Medical bills Rs.1,76,152-00

4.Loss of future earning Rs.1,74,720-00

5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00

Total Rs.4,93,872-00

129. Issue No.2 in MVC 2494/2015:

The PW8 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that on 14.4.2015 at about 6.30 a.m. she

was occupant of the tempo traveler along with others

proceeding from Savadatti to Bengaluru in a tempo

traveler bearing registration No.KA-02-AA-1332, the

driver of the tempo traveler has drove the same in a rash
182 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules

and regulations dashed behind the lorry, as the lorry

driver has parked the lorry on the road negligently

without putting any signal nor indicator nor keeping any

signal reflectors. Thereby, she has sustained the

following injuries;

1)Fracture anterior wall of right maxillary sinus

2) Right forehead CLW exposed

130. So, immediately she was shifted to

Government Hospital, Sira, wherein she took the first aid

treatment and later on she was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah

hospital and took the conservative treatment and

discharged from the hospital with an advise for follow-up

treatment. So, she has spent Rs.40,000/- towards her

treatment and incidental charges.

131. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy,

aged about 55 years, being a house wife. Due to the

accidental injuries she became permanently disabled and

she is getting frequent headache and vomiting sensation

due to deep lacerated wound on her forehead, there is no
183 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

healing of the skin and she has gone dressing regularly

and unable to concentrate on her work, her memory has

been reduced. So, doctor advised skin grafting over

forehead which costs of Rs.50,000/-. PW8 in her cross-

examination has admitted that soon after the accident

she took the first aid treatment at Sira Government

hospital, later on she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah

hospital and took the treatment as inpatient for a period

of 3 days and she has denied that she has created the

medical bills and placed it before the court in order to get

the compensation and she has denied that she has not

underwent any surgery and she is not facing any

difficulties due to the accidental injuries. PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that the

petitioner has met with an accident said to have been

taken place on 14.4.2015, as she has sustained the

following injuries;

1) Fracture anterior wall of right maxillary
sinus
184 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

2)8x 5 cms CLW over right side of forehead
with bleeding and nasal bleeding
3)Right sub-conjunctivalhemorrhage of her
right eye and right peri-orbital edema

132. So, she took the conservative treatment and

discharged with an advise for follow-up treatment as she

was admitted to the hospital on 14.4.2015 OMFS

surgeons operated upon her and did exploration,

debridement and suturing of the upper eye lid and infra-

orbital region of left eye and left side of face under local

anesthesia. Her black eye was treated conservatively and

discharged on 16.4.2015. So, the petitioner has

sustained permanent disability of about 8%. So, one

more surgery is required for removal of implants which

may costs of Rs.45,000/-. PW9 in his cross-examination

has admitted that petitioner is aged about 55 years and

guidelines is not revealed about the disability in respect

of maxilla fracture and he has denied that he has stated

more disability in order to help the petitioner to get more
185 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

compensation and he has admitted that there is scar

marks and not implants in situ.

133. PW10 being the Executive Corporate of

M.S.Ramaiah hospital in his evidence has stated that

hospital has charged Rs.14,271/- towards her treatment

and BSNL has paid the said amount.

134. PW8 in her evidence has clearly stated that she

has sustained fracture anterior wall of right maxillary

sinus and she took the conservative treatment. Inspite of

best treatment she could not come to normal position,

still she is facing difficulties. The PW9 being the

Orthopaedic Surgeon and treated doctor in his evidence

has clearly stated that the petitioner has took the

conservative treatment and he has also admitted that in

the guidelines the assessment of disability is not

mentioned in respect of fracture of maxilla. So, the

evidence of the PW9 corroborate the evidence of the PW8.

Ex.P73 is the wound certificate issued by the
186 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects that the

petitioner has sustained the following injuries;

1)6x5 cms CLW over the right sided forehead

with bleeding and B/d

2)Fracture of anterior aspect of the right

maxillary sinus

135. So, the above injury is grievous in nature.

Ex.P74 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the

petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the

M.S.Ramaiah Hospital on 14.4.2015 and took the

treatment till 16.4.2015 as she has sustained the

following injury;

Fracture anterior wall of right maxillary sinus

136. So, she was underwent suturing and took the

conservative treatment. Ex.P76 is reflects that the

petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the

injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Ex.P123 is reflects that the hospital authorities have

charged for treatment of the petitioner of Rs.14,271/-

and BSNL has paid Rs.12,744/- and the petitioner has
187 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

paid the balance amount. So, considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, it is just and necessary

to grant just compensation to the petitioner in the

following heads;

a)Pain and suffering.

The PW8 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture anterior

wall of right maxillary sinus. Thereby, she took the

conservative treatment. Inspite of best treatment she

could not come to normal position, still she is facing

difficulties. The PW9 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in

his evidence has clearly stated about the treatment taken

by the petitioner as inpatient and outpatient. So

considering the evidence of the PW8 and PW9 and the

injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the

duration of treatment she would have sustained pain and

agony for which, it is just and necessary to award

compensation of Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will
188 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.40,000/- is awarded

for the above head.

b) Loss of income during laid up period:

The PW8 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that prior to the accident she was hale and

healthy being a house wife and took the treatment as

inpatient and outpatient. Due to the accidental injuries

she could not do the work as earlier. Ex.P73 is reflects

that the petitioner has sustained two grievous injuries

and Ex.P74 is reflects that the petitioner has took the

treatment as inpatient for a period of 3 days. Though, she

has not stated her income either in the claim petition or

in the affidavit. But she has admitted that she is a house

wife. So, considering the age of the petitioner, present life

condition and skill of the petitioner it is just and

necessary to grant notional monthly income of

Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. So, one thing

is clear that the petitioner has took the treatment for a

period of three days. So, she might have lost income for

a period of two months. So, two months income comes to
189 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

Rs.14,000/-. So, Rs.14,000/- is granted for the above

head.

c) Medical expenses

The PW8 being the injured in her evidence has

stated that she has sustained fracture anterior wall of

right maxillary sinus and took the conservative treatment

by spending huge amount. But on record she has

produced the medical bills as per Ex.P76 worth of

Rs.2,167/-. PW10 has clearly stated that the hospital

has charged Rs.14,271/- out of the said amount BSNL

has paid Rs.12,744/- and balance amount has been paid

by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the

respondents have disputed the medical bills produced by

the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show

that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are

created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation.

So, in the absence of the materials on record, it is clear

that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection

of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.

Therefore, Rs.2,167/- is granted for the above head.
190 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

d) Loss of future earning:

The PW8 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture anterior

wall of right maxillary sinus and took the conservative

treatment and suturing was done and except the said

treatment has not at all underwent surgery. The PW9

being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated the petitioner has sustained

fracture anterior wall of right maxillary sinus and took

the conservative treatment and suturing was done. In his

cross-examination has categorically admitted that in the

guidelines the assessment of disability is not mentioned

in respect of fracture of maxilla. So, admitted facts need

not be proved in view of S.58 of Indian Evidence act.

Thus, no amount is awarded for the above head.

e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and

nourishment, attendant charges:

The PW8 being the injured in her evidence has

clearly stated that she has sustained fracture anterior
191 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

wall of right maxillary sinus and took the conservative

treatment, inspite of best treatment she could not come

to normal position, still she is under treatment. The PW9

being the Orthopaedic Surgeon and treated doctor in his

evidence has clearly stated about the treatment taken by

the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So,

considering the evidence of PW8 and PW9 and duration

of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant

Rs.30,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of

justice. So, Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.

137. Thus, the total award stands as follows:

1.Pain and suffering Rs.40,000-00

2.Loss of income during laid Rs.14,000-00
up period

3.Medical bills Rs. 2,167-00

4.Loss of future earning NIL

5.Loss of amenities, Rs.30,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.

Total Rs.86,167-00
192 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

138. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the

tempo traveler has taken up the contention that as on

the date of alleged accident the driver of the tempo

traveler was not holding valid and effective driving

licence. So, the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay the

compensation.

139. The respondent No.3 being the insurer of the

lorry has taken up the contention that as on the date of

alleged accident the driver was not holding valid and

effective driving licence. So, the 4th respondent has

entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding

valid and effective driving licence. Thereby, he is not

liable to pay the compensation. Though the respondent

Nos. 1 & 3 have examined the Legal Manager of the

respondent No.1 as RW2 and Legal Manager of the

respondent No.3 as RW3, but nothing is placed on record

to show that as on the date of alleged accident the

offending vehicle drivers were not holding valid and

effective driving licence and the respondent Nos.2 & 4
193 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

have entrusted the vehicle to the persons who were not

holding valid and effective driving licence nor placed any

materials to substantiate their defence. Though the

respondent No.3 has examined the driver of the lorry as

RW1, but nothing is elicited from the RW1 that as on the

date of alleged accident he was not holding

valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending

vehicle. If that is so, the matter would have different.

So, one thing is clear from the oral and documentary

evidence that either the respondent No.1 nor the

respondent No.3 have not placed any materials to show

that both the vehicle drivers were not holding valid and

effective driving licence and the respondent Nos. 2 & 4

are contravened the terms and conditions of the policy

and more over they have not examined any authority i.e.,

RTO or ARTO to show that as on the date of the alleged

accident the offending vehicle drivers were not holding

valid and effective driving licence and moreover Ex.P7 is

the final report filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that

the offending vehicle drivers were not holding valid and
194 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged

accident. If at all, the drivers of the offending vehicle were

not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O.,

would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle

drivers for the offence punishable under Section 181 of

MV Act. So, on record there is no material to show that

the offending vehicle drivers were not holding valid and

effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged

accident.

140. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the

tempo traveler in its written statement has admitted

about the issuance of the policy infavour of the second

respondent in respect of offending vehicle and the policy

was valid from 11.7.2014 to 10.7.2015. The accident was

occurred on 14.4.2015. So, as on the date of alleged

accident the policy was in existence. So, Ex.R1 is the

policy copy clearly reflects that as on the date of alleged

accident the policy was in existence.
195 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

141. The respondent No.3 being the insurer of the

lorry in its written statement has admitted about the

issuance of the policy infavour of the respondent No.4 in

respect of offending vehicle. But he has not stated the

validity of the policy, whereas the petitioners in their

claim petition in the cause title have shown the policy

number and its validity from 4.1.2015 to 3.1.2016. But

the reasons best known to the respondent No.3 has not

disputed the policy number nor its validity and the

accident was occurred on 14.4.2015. So, as on the date

of alleged accident the policy was in existence. Moreover,

Ex.R3 is the policy copy reflects that as on the date of

alleged accident the policy was in existence. So, one

thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident,

the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle

drivers were holding valid and effective driving license.

142. It is an admitted fact that two vehicles are

involved in the accident. While answering the issue No.1

this Tribunal is already discussed about the negligence of
196 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015
to 2494/2015

both the vehicle drivers as 60% and 40%. Therefore, the

respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to

pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance

policy the respondent Nos.1 & 3 are liable to pay the

compensation to the petitioners with interest at the rate

of 8% p.a. in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court reported in 2012 KLJ 292 from the date of

petitions till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2

in all the claim petitions is answered as partly in the

affirmative.

143. Issue No.3 in all the claim petitions.

In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 in both

claim petitions, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The claim petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC.Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 u/s 166 of the M.V. Act are allowed in part with costs.

The compensation in all the cases has been awarded as mentioned here under:

197 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Compensation Sl. MVC Awarded No. Number (in Rupees) 1 2485/2015 Rs. 2,77,981-00 2 2486/2015 Rs. 82,119-00 3 2487/2015 Rs. 3,50,932-00 4 2488/2015 Rs. 90,937-00 5 2489/2015 Rs. 7,56,508-00 6 2490/2015 Rs. 1,41,277-00 7 2491/2015 Rs. 2,53,720-00 8 2492/2015 Rs. 3,17,702-00 9 2493/2015 Rs. 4,93,872-00 10 2494/2015 Rs. 86,167-00 Interest is granted at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petitions till the date of payment/bank deposit, in all the claim petitions.

In all the claim petitions, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to an extent of 60% and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to an extent of 40%. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.1 being the insurer of the tempo traveler 198 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 shall pay the compensation amount to an extent of 60% and respondent No.3 being the insurer of the lorry shall pay the compensation amount to an extent of 40% with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petitions till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.

On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest in MVC 2485/2015, 2487/2015, 2491/2015 and 2493/2015, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioners in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to them by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.

On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest in MVC 2486/2015, 2494/2015 and considering the age of the petitioner in MVC 2490/2015, 199 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 the entire amount shall be released to them by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification.

On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest in MVC 2488/2015, 2489/2015 and 2492/2015, the medical expenses shall be released to the natural guardian of the petitioners and remaining amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioners in any nationalised or scheduled bank till they attains age of majority. After attaining the majority the entire amount shall be directly paid to the petitioners without any further proceedings on age proof. The natural guardians are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.

The expenses to be incurred for future medication in MVC Nos.2485/2015, 2487/2015, 2489/2015, 2491/2015, 2492/2015 and 2493/2015 shall not carry any interest.

200 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Advocate fee is fixed in each of the petition at Rs.1,000/-.

The original judgment copy shall be kept in MVC 2485/2015 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC 2486/2015 to 2494/2015.

Draw award accordingly.

(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of March 2016) (P.J. Somashekar) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Member-M.A.C.T., Bangalore.

ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:

PW1       Smt. Manasa
PW2       Sri Shivalingaiah K.V.
PW3       Smt. Prabhavathi C.
PW4       Smt. Shobha D.T.
PW5       Smt. Muniyakkayamma
PW6       Sri Ravi Kumar A.
 201                  (SCCH-8)               MVC Nos.2485/2015
                                                 to 2494/2015



PW7       Smt. Lakshmi C.
PW8       Smt. Rajamma K.V.
PW9       Dr. Harshad M. Shah
PW10      Sri Ashwini Kumar
PW11      Smt. Indramma

List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:

Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of FIR Ex.P3 True copy of Panchanama Ex.P4 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P5 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P6 True copy of IMV report Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 Discharge summary Ex.P9 2 Medical bills amounting to Rs.2,581/- Ex.P10 Notarized attested true copy of SSLC marks card Ex.P11 Notarized attested true copy of Election ID Card Ex.P12 Notarized attested true copy of BBM Marks card Ex.P13 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P14 Discharge summary Ex.P15 2 Medical bills amounting to Rs.2,119/- Ex.P16 Notarized attested true copy of Election ID Card Ex.P17 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar 202 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Card Ex.P18 8 Pay slips Ex.P19 Notarized attested true copy of ID Card Ex.P20 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P21 Discharge summary Ex.P22 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P23 Notarized attested true copy of Election ID Card Ex.P24 3 Medical bills amounting to Rs.1,500/-

Ex.P25 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P26 Discharge summary Ex.P27 School document Ex.P28 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P29 Notarized attested true copy of School ID Card Ex.P30 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P31 3 Medical bills amounting to Rs.13,937/- Ex.P32 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P33 Discharge summary Ex.P34 School document Ex.P35 Notarized attested true copy of School ID Card Ex.P36 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P37 11 Medical bills amounting to Rs.1,48,508/-

Ex.P38 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P39 Discharge summary 203 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Ex.P40 Notarized attested true copy of Election ID Card Ex.P41 6 Medical bills amounting to Rs.41,807/- Ex.P42 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P43 Discharge summary Ex.P44 Notarized attested true copy of Election ID Card Ex.P45 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P46 Notarized attested true copy of Transfer certificate Ex.P47 Notarized attested true copy of Driving license Ex.P48 Notarized attested true copy of Appointment order Ex.P49 Notarized attested true copy of ID Card Ex.P50 Notarized attested true copy of 7 Pay slips Ex.P51 Earned leave sanction letter Ex.P52 Commuted leave sanction letter Ex.P53 Notarized attested true copy of Bank pass book Ex.P54 15 Medical bills amounting to Rs.1,20,566/-

Ex.P55 Lab reports Ex.P56 3 X-ray films Ex.P57 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P58 Discharge summary Ex.P59 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P60 School document Ex.P61 Notarized attested true copy of School ID Card 204 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Ex.P62 3 Medical bills amounting to Rs.1,18,702/-

Ex.P63 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P64 Discharge summary Ex.P65 Discharge summary Ex.P66 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P67 11 Medical bills amounting to Rs.1,76,152/-

Ex.P68 One medical prescription Ex.P69 Document issued by the M.S. Ramaiah Hospital Ex.P70 Document issued by the Narayana Nethralaya Ex.P71 MLC relating to Narayana Nethralaya Ex.P72 2 Eye scans issued by the Narayana Nethralaya Ex.P73 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P74 Discharge summary Ex.P75 Notarized attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P76 6 Medical bills amounting to Rs.2,167/- Ex.P77 6 BBM Marks cards Ex.P78 True copy of Syndicate bank account statement Ex.P79 True copy of Syndicate bank account statement Ex.P80 8 Physiotherapy bills amounting to Rs.44,300/-

Ex.P81 2 Photos with CD Ex.P82 Document issued by the Dr. Jayanth Sundhar Ex.P83 3 Photos 205 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Ex.P84 Document relating to implant removal and future medication in respect of (Lakshmi, Manasa, Prabhavathi, Ravikumar, Bhargavi and Rajamma) Ex.P85 Outpatient record Ex.P86 Inpatient record Ex.P87 One x-ray film Ex.P88 Outpatient record Ex.P89 Inpatient record Ex.P90 3 x-ray films, 7 MRI Scan films and one scan report Ex.P91 Outpatient record Ex.P92 Inpatient record Ex.P93 9 x-ray films, 8 CT Scan films and 3 scan report Ex.P94 Outpatient record Ex.P95 Inpatient record Ex.P96 1 x-ray film and 2 CT Scan films Ex.P97 Outpatient record Ex.P98 Inpatient record Ex.P99 5 x-ray films, 2 US scan reports and 2 CT Scan films Ex.P100 Outpatient record Ex.P101 Inpatient record Ex.P102 5 x-ray films Ex.P103 Outpatient record Ex.P104 Inpatient record Ex.P105 4 x-ray films and 1 US scan report Ex.P106 Outpatient record 206 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Ex.P107 Inpatient record Ex.P108 2 x-ray films, 5 CT Scan films and 1 US scan report Ex.P109 Outpatient record Ex.P110 Inpatient record Ex.P111 2 x-ray films Ex.P112 Outpatient record Ex.P113 Inpatient record Ex.P114 1 x-ray film and 7 CT Scan films Ex.P115 Authorization letter Ex.P116 Bill summary Ex.P117 Bill amount Rs.45,970/- (ITC Company has paid Rs.43,250/- and rest of Rs.2,720/- has been paid by the injured) Ex.P118 Receipt Ex.P119 Discharge summary Ex.P120 Bill amount of Rs.11,757/- Ex.P121 Receipt Ex.P122 Discharge summary Ex.P123 Bill amount of Rs.14,271/- (Company has paid Rs.12,744 remaining amount paid by the petitioner) Ex.P124 Receipt Ex.P125 Discharge summary Ex.P126 Bill amount of Rs.2,56,876/- (Company has paid Rs.2,01,824/- remaining amount paid by the injured) Ex.P127 Receipt Ex.P128 Discharge summary 207 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Ex.P129 Bill amount of Rs.1,33,383/- Ex.P130 Receipt Ex.P131 Discharge summary Ex.P132 Bill amount of Rs.37,121/- Ex.P133 Receipt Ex.P134 Receipt Ex.P135 Discharge summary Ex.P136 Bill amount of Rs.1,41,702/- Ex.P137 Receipt Ex.P138 Receipt Ex.P139 Receipt Ex.P140 Receipt Ex.P141 Receipt Ex.P142 Discharge summary Ex.P143 Bill amount of Rs.1,15,703/- Ex.P144 Receipt Ex.P145 Receipt Ex.P146 Discharge summary Ex.P147 Bill amount of Rs.1,14,866/- Ex.P148 Receipt Ex.P149 Discharge summary Ex.P150 Bill amount of Rs.49,504/- Ex.P151 Receipt Ex.P152 Discharge summary Ex.P153 Bill amount of Rs.1,22,496/- Ex.P154 Receipt 208 (SCCH-8) MVC Nos.2485/2015 to 2494/2015 Ex.P155 Discharge summary List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:

RW1       Shri Doddegowda
RW2       Shri Karthik
RW3       Shri Yellappa B.P.

List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:

Ex.R1     Policy copy
Ex.R2     Policy copy




                                 (P.J. Somashekar),

XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

In Mvc Kum.Manasa vs In All 1. Reliance General Insurance on 31 March, 2016