Bangalore District Court
P.Thulasiram vs Karunakara Reddy Putta Reddy on 20 April, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.2920/2021
KABC020187942021
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
Dated : This the 20th day of April 2024
Present : SRI. YATHISHA.R.
B.A.L.,L.L.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.2920/2021
Petitioner: P.Thulasiram,
S/o P.Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 19 years,
R/o No.1713,
Tellagundlapalle,
Bommayyapalle post,
Vedurakuppa Mandal,
Chittoor Taluk and District,
Andhra Pradesh - 517 167.
(By Sri.D.Babu Rajendra,Adv)
Vs
Respondents : 1.Sri.Karunakara Reddy Putta Reddy,
S/o Venkataramana Reddy,
SCCH-14 2 MVC.2920/2021
R/o No.102, T.N.Palyam
Mangalam, Thirupathi,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh,
PIN - 517 501.
(Exparte)
2.The United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
Regional Office No.18,
Krishi Bhavan, 5th floor,
Opp.Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga road,
Bangalore 560 001.
(By Sri.R.S.Srikanta Reddy,Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.80,00,000/ for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 23022021 at about 8.00 p.m., the Petitioner was riding motor cycle bearing No.AP39CW6815 near Pandurangareddy's land on Thirupathi Devalampete road, SCCH-14 3 MVC.2920/2021 Chittor District. At that time, a Toyota Etios car bearing No.AP 03TV6314 driven by its driver came from same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to Ramadevi hospital, Thirupathi for first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to Apollo hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient.
Prior to the accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and he had completed his intermediate and planning to join B.SC. and also working as a supervisor at Balaji fertilizers Vedurukuppam and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ p.m. Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries causing permanent disablement.
The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car and therefore, both Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, SCCH-14 4 MVC.2920/2021 Respondent No.1 remained absent, hence placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared before the court through its counsel and filed objections to the main petition.
In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.2, it denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of car. Further it has denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident and the expenses incurred for the medical treatment. Further it contended that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of scooter by petitioner himself and he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. It is further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, among these and other grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following Issues. SCCH-14 5 MVC.2920/2021
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 23.02.2021 at about 8.00 p.m. near Pandurangareddy's land on ThirupaathiDavalampete road, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh in an accident arising due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing No.AP03TV6314?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If yes. How much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. In order to substantiate the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 7 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.7. He also got examined three witnesses as P.W.2 to PW.4 and got marked documents as per Ex.P8 to 14 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has not chosen to adduce any evidence.
6. The advocate for the respondent No.2 has relied on the SCCH-14 6 MVC.2920/2021 following decisions:
1. 2017 ACJ Kar 418 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs.Hemanth and others)
2. ILR 2013 Kar 4840 (R.Sharadamma and others Vs.T.Jayaprakash and others)
3. 2010(2) Kar.L.J 636 ( Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore Vs.Ashok Rao alias Ashok)
4. 2008 ACJ 2131 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Yudhuvir Singh and another)
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited, citation relied by the learned advocate for respondent No.2 and materials available on record, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No. 2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order for the following :
SCCH-14 7 MVC.2920/2021
REASONS
8. Issue No. 1 : It is the case of the Petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic accident that occurred on 23022021 at about 8.00 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the car bearing No.AP03TV6314.
9. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car bearing No.AP03TV6314.
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 12 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P12. P.W.1 has reiterated the Petition averments in his chiefaffidavit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are the True copies of FIR, complaint in Telugu language, Kannada translation copy and charge sheet. Ex.P.4 is the Discharge summary, Ex.P.5 is the Medical bills Ex.P.6 is the Wound certificate and Ex.P7 is the Spot sketch.
11. Upon going through Ex.P1 and 2 i.e., FIR and Complaint, same is evident that on the complaint lodged before SCCH-14 8 MVC.2920/2021 Vedurukuppan Police station, the SHO of the concerned Police Station has registered the case against the driver of car bearing No.AP03TV6314 for the offences punishable under Sec.337 of IPC. The document Ex.P.3 i.e., charge sheet discloses the fact that after thorough investigation IO has charge sheeted the driver of car bearing No.AP03TV6314 for the offences punishable under Secs. 338 of IPC.
12. Further, P.W.1 examined Administrative officer of Apollo hospital as P.W.2 and got marked authorisation letter and case sheet at Ex.P.8 and 9.
13. Further, P.W.1 examined Dr.Shivalingaiah as P.W.3 and got marked OP case file, CT scan films, Xrays, Uroplomentry and Ultra sound scan films with report at Ex.P.10 to 14. He also reiterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA.
14. Further, P.W.1 examined an eyewitness by name D.Venkatamanni Reddy as P.W.4. He also reiterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA. SCCH-14 9 MVC.2920/2021
15. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 cross examined the P.W.1. In the cross examination P.W.1 has denied the suggestions of the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the contentions of the Petitioner.
16. Further, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of petitioner. In addition to this, the IO after thorough investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of car bearing No.AP03TV6314. The said charge sheet admittedly remained unchallenged till date. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition and documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP03TV6314 and in the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in the 'Affirmative'.
17. Issue No. 2 : As the petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of SCCH-14 10 MVC.2920/2021 the driver of car bearing No.AP03TV6314, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
18. In the petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 19 years. He has not produced any document to prove his age. As per the medical records, the petitioner was aged 18 years. Hence, the age of the Petitioner, as on the date of accident was taken as 18 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.
19. Further, the petitioner has averred that he had completed his intermediate and was planning to joint B.Sc., and was also working as a supervisor at Balaji Fertilizers and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/p.m. In this regard, he has not produced any document to substantiate the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e., Rs.15,000/p.m. as the accident has been occurred in the year of 2021, for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
20. With this background, the quantum of compensation SCCH-14 11 MVC.2920/2021 to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
21. The petitioner has deposed that as per wound certificate at Ex. P.6, he has sustained following injuries.
1. Right kidney injury/multiple rib fracture.
2. Right Zygomatic complex fracture/pelvic fracture HeamothoraxS/P ICO right metacarpal fracture.
Further the doctor has opined injuries are grievous. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :
22. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/ under this head would be just and SCCH-14 12 MVC.2920/2021 reasonable.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
23. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 2402 2021 to 03032021. Further, P.W.3 Dr.Shivalingaiah.M has also reiterated the same in his evidence. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 8 days.
24. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the laid up period may be considered as two months. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/ under this head (@ Rs.15,000/ per month).
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
25. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and SCCH-14 13 MVC.2920/2021 during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/ towards attendants charges, Rs.6,000/ towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.6,000/ towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/ under this head.
V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENCES :
26. The Petitioner has deposed that he spent Rs.10,50,000/ towards medical expenses. The petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P.5 amounting to Rs.7,78,911.44/. I have perused the same carefully. Careful perusal of Ex.P.5 justifies the fact that petitioner has spent Rs.7,78,911/. Moreover, the medical bills are not disputed by the respondent No.2. They appears to be acceptable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.7,78,911/ which is rounded off to Rs.7,79,000/ as a compensation under this head.SCCH-14 14 MVC.2920/2021
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
27. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and due to the injury to the right kidney, right kidney was removed. He is still under treatment as an outpatient and he has not come to normal position and suffering from disability. Even in his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed to that effect.
28. Further, the Petitioner got examined administrative officer of Apollo hospital as P.W.2 and got marked authorisation letter and case sheet at Ex.P.8 and 9.
29. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Shivalingaiah.M as P.W.3 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and examination he made. Further, he got marked OP case file, CT scan films, Xrays, Uroplomentry and ultra sound scan films SCCH-14 15 MVC.2920/2021 with report at Ex.P.10 to 14. He assessed whole body disability at 15%.
30. In the crossexamination PW.3 has stated that he has not personally treated the petitioner earlier, but he has treated the petitioner recently during assessment of disability. He has denied the suggestion that he has given higher rate of disability to the Petitioner.
31. Hence, having regard to the medical records placed on hand and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and by considering the nature of his work, I am of the opinion that in respect of the disability assessed by PW.3 it would be just and proper to consider such disability at the rate of 15% and so also the physical disability assessed by the PW.3.
Witness also deposed that as a result of injury sustained by the petitioner, one of the kidneys of the petitioner has been removed. The suggestions made to the witness that in order to help the petitioner he has mentioned the rate of disability at the higher rate has been denied. Considering all these aspects, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and reasonable if SCCH-14 16 MVC.2920/2021 the disability of the Petitioner is considered at 15%.
32. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the multiplier applicable to the age of Petitioner is 18. With multiplier of 18, income of Rs.15.000/ per month and disability of the Petitioner with respect to his whole body at 15%, the loss of future income comes to 4,86,000/ (Rs.15.000/ x 12 = 1,80,000/, Rs.1.80,000/x 18 x 15/100 = 4,86,000/). Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,86,000/ under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
33. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 60,000/
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 18,000/ diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs.7,79,000/
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 30,000/ laid up period
6. Loss of Future income Rs. 4,86,000/ Total Rs.14,13,000/ SCCH-14 17 MVC.2920/2021 Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.14,13,000/ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
34. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of car bearing No.AP 03TV6314. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of car. The Policy is valid and in force at the time of accident. There is no dispute about the validity of the policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
35. ISSUE No. 3 : In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 and 2 U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.SCCH-14 18 MVC.2920/2021
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of Rs.14,13,000/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E payment after proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3 years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. SCCH-14 19 MVC.2920/2021
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 20th day of April 2024) [[ (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : P.Tulasiram P.W.2 : Selvakumar P.W.3 : Dr.Shivalingaiah.M P.W.4 : D.Venkatamani Reddy Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of complaint in Telugu
language
Ex.P.2(a) Its Kannada translation copy
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.4 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.5 : Medical bills (6 in nos.) along with
final bill
Ex.P.6 : Wound certificate
SCCH-14 20 MVC.2920/2021
Ex.P.7 : Spot sketch
Ex. P.8 : Authorisation letter
Ex. P.9 : Case sheet
Ex. P.10 : OP Case file
Ex. P.11 : CT scan films (2 in nos.along with
report)
Ex. P.12 : Xrays (2 in nos.)
Ex. P.13 : Uroplomentry
Ex. P.14 : Ultra sound scan films with
report
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
NIL Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
NIL
(YATHISHA.R)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Digitally COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
signed by
YATHISHA R BENGALURU.
YATHISHA
Date:
R 2024.04.25
13:04:08
+0530