Bangalore District Court
Shri Pradeepa vs M/S Arunachala Logistics Private on 1 January, 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 1st day of January 2016
M.V.C.No.5954/2013
Petitioner Shri Pradeepa,
Son of Arethimappa,
Aged about 27 years,
No.171, I Main,
Priyankanagar,
Seegehalli,
Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-49.
(Shri A.S.Girish, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents 1. M/s Arunachala Logistics Private
Limited,
Represented by its M.D. Opp. CVA
Complex, Near GPT Petrol Bunk,
Karapally (Vill). Rayakottai Bypass
Road, Hosur,
Tamil Nadu-635 109.
(Owner of Lorry bearing No.TN-70-
J-3103)
(Exparte)
2. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims HUB,
2 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013
No.9/2, Mahalakshmi Chambers,
M.G.Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(Insurer of Lorry bearing No.TN-
70-J-3103)
(Smt.L.B.Anasuyamma, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner being the injured in his claim petition has alleged that, on 9.9.2013 at about 9.15 p.m. was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 53-X-8096 from Budigere to Budigere cross slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, when he was reached in front of Baldwin School, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN- 3 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 70-J-3103 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations moving ahead of him and took his vehicle extreme right and applied sudden brake without giving any indication nor signal, due to which, he was proceeding behind the lorry by keeping safe distance not able to control his vehicle and dashed to the back portion of the lorry. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, due to the head injury he was referred to the NIMHANS, wherein CT scan was done, which reveals that he has sustained injuries as per the wound certificate and took the conservative treatment and discharged from the hospital with an advice to take follow-up treatment. So, he has spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical and incidental charges.4 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a cleaner by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Thereby, Avalahalli Police have registered the case against the driver of the lorry in their police station Crime No.286/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear nor file his written statement, as he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has appeared through its counsel and filed its written statement in which he has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and he 5 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 has denied about the issuance of the policy in respect of offending vehicle infavour of the respondent No.1 and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and he has denied that the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, the driver of the lorry has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without giving any indication nor signal has stopped the vehicle, as a result, the accident was occurred and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and he has alleged that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same and the respondent No.1 being the owner has entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving license. So, he has contravened the terms and conditions of the policy and he is not liable to 6 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 pay any compensation and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate, in a road traffic accident on 9.9.2013 at about 9.15 p.m. infront of Baldwin School, Mandoor, Budigere, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-J- 3103?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
6. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 and he has examined two more witnesses on his behalf as PW2 and 7 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 PW3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P10 and Ex.P11, Ex.P14 & Ex.P15. The respondent No.2 has examined its Assistant Manager as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R9.
7. Heard arguments on both side.
8. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order
for the following.
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached this court on the ground that, on 9.9.2013 at about 9.15 p.m. he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-53-X-8096 from Budigere to Budigere cross slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, when he was reached in 8 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 front of Baldwin School, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN-70-J-3103 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations has took the same towards extreme right side and applied sudden break without giving any indication or signal. So, he could not control his vehicle dashed behind the lorry. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, due to the head injury he was referred to the NIMHANS, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount. Thereby, he has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
10. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief examination as PW1, in which has stated that on 9.9.2013 at about 9.15 p.m. he was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-53-X-8096 from Budigere to Budigere cross slowly 9 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, when he was reached in front of Baldwin School, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TN- 70-J-3103 has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations has took the same towards extreme right side and applied sudden break without giving any indication or signal. So, he could not control his vehicle dashed behind the lorry. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, due to the head injury he was referred to the NIMHANS, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Thereby, the Avalahalli Police have registered the case against driver of the lorry in their police station Crime No.286/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 10 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 337 of IPC. The PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that as on the date of alleged accident he was alone proceeding in a bike from Budigere cross towards Mandur, soon after the accident he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, but he has denied that he has sustained only simple injuries in a road traffic accident and he was the riding the motor cycle under the influence of alcohol. So, on his own negligence the accident was occurred and he was not wearing helmet as on the date of accident and he has denied that he was fallen from the bike and sustained grievous injuries and falsely implicated the vehicle in order to get the compensation.
11. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Ex.P1 is the information filed by one Raghunandan, in which has stated that on 9.9.2013 after attending Ganesha function was proceeding 11 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 towards Mandur at about 9.15 p.m., when he was reached near Baldawin School, one lorry was came from Budigere towards Budigere cross and immediately he saw the vehicle which was coming from the Budigere cross, the driver of the said lorry has suddenly applied the break, as a result, the rider of the two wheeler was came on the back side of the lorry and hit the lorry behind and fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, himself and his friend Murthy were rushed to the spot and found that the rider has sustained head injuries. So, immediately they were shifted the injured through 108 ambulance as he was unconscious and got admitted to the Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, later on he was shifted to NIMHANS. Thereby delay was caused in lodging the complaint. The accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. So, based on the information the Avalahalli Police have registered the case against the driver of the 12 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 lorry in their police station Crime No.288/2013 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has cross-examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve the evidence of the PW1 and he has suggested the PW1 that he rode the motor cycle under the influence of alcohol, so on his own negligence the accident was occurred, for which he has denied the same. If at all, the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the petitioner, as he was riding the motor cycle under the influence of alcohol nothing is prevented to the respondent to examine the treated doctor to establish that the petitioner has rode the motor cycle under the influence of alcohol, on his own negligence the accident was occurred. If that is so, the matter would have different. Except suggestion of PW1 nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence and more over Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 are remained unchallenged. The respondent has not 13 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 examined the driver of the offending vehicle, who is the best witness to say about the accident that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. On the other hand, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are reflects that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Ex.P3 is the panchanama clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place towards eastern side of the road, though the learned counsel for the respondent has suggested the PW1 that the accident was occurred in the middle of the road, but whereas Ex.P3 reflects that the accident was occurred towards eastern side of the road. That itself is clear that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident said to have been taken 14 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 place on 9.9.2013. Ex.P6 is the final report filed by the I.O. clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, thereby he has charge sheeted against him. Ex.P7 to Ex.P15 are reflects that the petitioner has sustained injuries as shown in the wound certificate and got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment as inpatient for a period of seven days by spending an amount of Rs.5,864/- towards his treatment. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 though the respondent has examined the Assistant Manager as RW1 but his evidence will not help the respondent to disprove the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and 15 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that on 9.9.2013 at about 9.15 p.m. he was proceeding on his motor cycle by observing all the traffic rules and regulations, the driver of the lorry has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without giving any indication nor signal has suddenly applied the break, so, he could not control the vehicle dashed behind the lorry. Due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained following injuries;
Contusion injury over frontal region on scalp on the left Left black eye Nasal bleeding present along with swelling over the right side 16 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 CT Head reveals that Left frontal contusion, Acute SDH diffuse pheumocephalus and pheumoventricle with cerebral edema, Fracture of both orbital plates, left frontal bone, left lateral wall of orbit, left zygoma
13.So, immediately he was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, later on he was referred to Nimhans hospital and he took the conservative treatment and got discharged from the hospital on 18.9.2013 with an advise for follow-up treatment, still he is under treatment.
Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a cleaner by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries he could not attend his duty and he is suffering from pain and agony due to the head injury and fracture and he lost the total vision of his left eye and he is unable to see properly nor ride the vehicle and to do his day-to-day work as earlier 17 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 and unable to expose his right eye to sun. PW1 in his cross-examination has denied that he has sustained only simple injuries and he has created the medical bills placed it before the court with an intention to get the compensation and he has admitted that prior to the accident he was working in a private bus as a conductor, but he was not obtained license to do the cleaner work and he has denied that he has not sustained any injuries to his eye on account of accidental injuries and he has created Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 to get more compensation.
14. The PW2 being the Medical Record Technician of NIMHANS in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has got admitted to the NIMHANS and took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. PW2 in his cross-examination has pleaded ignorance about the treatment taken by the petitioner in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and he has denied that he has 18 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 created the records and placed it before the court with an intention to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
15.PW3 being the ophthalmic surgeon in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 9.9.2013 as he has sustained the following injuries;
Left eye optic nerve was damaged
16.So, he was examined at MINTO hospital on 15.6.2015 and the petitioner is having vision disability of 30%, it is permanent in nature. PW3 in his cross- examination has admitted that since four years he is working as a ophthalmic surgeon, on 15.6.2015 he has examined the petitioner and he has denied that the injuries sustained by the petitioner in respect of eye is simple in nature, but he has admitted that the petitioner has came to the hospital after two years from the date of accident and he has denied that the petitioner has not sustained any injuries in respect of eye in a road traffic 19 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 accident and he has denied that there is no nexus in between the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the alleged accident and he is not the competent person to say about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. Though the petitioner is not facing any difficulties for his eye, he has created the documents placed it before the court with an intention to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
17. The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained head injuries, so he got admitted to the Bowring hospital, later on he was referred to NIMHANS and took the treatment at MINTO hospital. PW3 being the Ophthalmic surgeon in his evidence has stated about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and his difficulties due to the accidental injuries. So, the evidence of PW3 corroborate the evidence of PW1. Ex.P4 is the wound 20 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 certificate reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
Contusion injury over frontal region on scalp on the left, Left black eye Nasal bleeding present along with swelling over the right side CT Head reveals that Left frontal contusion, Acute SDH diffuse pheumocephalus and pheumoventricle with cerebral edema, Fracture of both orbital plates, left frontal bone, left lateral wall of orbit, left zygoma
18. So, the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and the injury No.2 is simple in nature. Ex.P7 is the discharge summary issued by the NIMHANS in which it is clear that the petitioner has got admitted to the NIMHAS, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient till 18.9.2013 for a period of seven days. Ex.P8 are the 21 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 medical bills clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Ex.P9 to Ex.P15 are reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as inpatient for a period of seven days. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and the oral evidence of PW1 to PW3 reveals that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took the conservative treatment. Thus, considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and duration of treatment, 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 his evidence has stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as inpatient and outpatient. PW3 being the Ophthalmic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated 22 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and the treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient and outpatient and he has also stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So, considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW3 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 PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a cleaner by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries he could not do the work as before. But the reasons best known to him has not placed any materials nor examined the 23 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 person under whom he was working as a cleaner to show that prior to the accident he was working as a cleaner by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. 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 Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P4 and Ex.P7 are reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of seven days. So, he might have lost income for a period of three months. So, three months income comes to Rs.21,000/-. So Rs.21,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by 24 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 spending huge amount. But on record the petitioner has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.5,864/-. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills are created nor fabricated document to get the compensation. In the absence of the materials from the respondent side, it is clear that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are relating to the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.5,864/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained head injury. So, he is facing headache and giddiness and unable to concentrate his day-to-day work as earlier and he could not expose his right eye to sun nor lift weight due to the 25 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 accidental injuries as he has sustained permanent disability.
PW3 being the Ophthalmic surgeon at Minto hospital in his evidence has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. According to him, the petitioner is having vision disability of 30% and it is permanent in nature. But in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he has examined the petitioner after two years from the date of accident. So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and vision disability of the petitioner, it is just and necessary to consider the vision disability of 8% instead of 30%, it will meet the ends of justice. So, his income is already considered as Rs.7,000/- per month. Ex.P4 and Ex.P7 are reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident the petitioner age has been shown as 26 years and 36 years respectively. But whereas Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 are reflects that as on 26 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 28 years. The petitioner in his claim petition has shown his age as 27 years as on the date of the alleged accident.
So, the petitioner age is taken into consideration as 28 years as on the date of the alleged accident as shown in Ex.P14 and Ex.P15. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 17. So, the loss of future earning is works out as under;
Rs.7,000X12X17X8/100= Rs.1,14,240/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,14,240/- for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained head injury. So, he took the conservative treatment as inpatient for a period of seven days and after discharge he took the treatment 27 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 as outpatient, inspite of best treatment he could not come to normal position, still he is under treatment. The PW3 being the Ophthalmic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as treatment taken by him as inpatient and outpatient. So, considering the evidence of PW1 and PW3 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.
19. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 21,000-00 up period
3.Medical bills Rs. 5,864-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs.1,14,240-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 30,000-00 conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc. Total Rs.2,11,104-00 28 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013
20. The respondent No.2 being the insurer in its written statement has denied about the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle. But he has produced the policy copy marked as Ex.R9 in which it is clear that the policy was in existence from 23.1.2013 to 22.1.2014. The accident was occurred on 19.9.2013. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of alleged accident the policy was in existence.
21. The respondent No.2 has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. But the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not placed any materials nor examined the RTO or ARTO to substantiate its defence and moreover Ex.P6 is the final report filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all the driver of the 29 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So, nothing is placed on record to show as on the date of alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving license. So one thing is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving license and the policy was in existence.
22. The learned counsel for the respondent while canvassing his arguments has much argued that as on the date of alleged accident, the petitioner has rode the motor cycle under the influence of alcohol. So, on his own negligence the accident was occurred. So, the petitioner was also contributed for the cause of accident and the said counsel has drawn the court attention on 30 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 Ex.P3. On careful perusal of the Ex.P3 found that NIMHANS authorities were rounded off the column No.6 "history of alcohol consumption in the injured" but they have not stated whether consumption of the alcohol is yes or no or properly yes. Except rounded off the column No.6 they have not mentioned either 'yes' or 'no' or 'properly yes'. Even the respondent has not examined the author of Ex.R3 to show that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol and on his own negligence the accident was occurred. If that is so the matter would have different. So, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect holds no water.
23. The RW1 being the Assistant Manager has stated that there is a delay in lodging the complaint as the petitioner has falsely implicated the vehicle in order to get the compensation and he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident and he was violated the provision 31 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 of Motor Vehicles Act. But the respondent has utterly failed to establish through oral and documentary evidence that the petitioner while riding the motor cycle was under the influence of alcohol and he was not wearing helmet and he was falsely implicated the vehicle. Ex.P1 is reflects that the there is a one day delay in lodging the complaint, but it does not mean that the petitioner has falsely implicated the vehicle. Since, the informant has clearly explained why the delay was caused in lodging the complaint. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect holds no water. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till 32 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013 its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
24. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,11,104/-
together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order. 33 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of January 2016.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Shri Pradeepa 6.4.2015
34 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013
PW2 Shri Rajanna S.K. 6.6.2015
PW3 Shri Dr.Anuradha A. 5.11.2015
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 Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P7 Discharge summary Ex.P8 Medical bills Ex.P9 Prescriptions Ex.P10 Authorisation letter Ex.P11 Case sheet Ex.P12 Disability certificate Ex.p13 Outpatient record Ex.P14 OPD Ex.P15 Report
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Shri C.K.Surya Prakash List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 Authorisation letter
35 SCCH-8 MVC 5954/2013
Ex.R2 Receipt
Ex.R3 OP record
Ex.R4 Emergency case record
Ex.R5 IMV report
Ex.R6 Mahazar
Ex.R7 Notice
Ex.R8 Postal receipt
Ex.R9 Policy copy
(P.J. Somashekar),
XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT,
Bangalore.