Bangalore District Court
Shubha Lakshmi.K. Alias Subbu Lakshmi vs National Ins Co Ltd on 20 January, 2025
SCCH-14 1 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
KABC020267232019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
Dated : This the 20th day of January, 2025
Present : SRI. D.RAMESH.
B.A.L., LL.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.4269/2021, MVC No.4270/2021,
MVC No.4271/2021 & No.4272/2021
Petitioners : 1. Sri Gopik Naik K
In MVC.4269/2021 S/o. Uday Kumar Naik
Aged about 29 years,
Residing at F-501,
HRC "Ibbani'
Opp; VIBGYOR HIGH
Jakkur,
Bengaluru-560064.
Permanent Address:
No.3/54, Nellikatte House
M.G. Road, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada 574201
SCCH-14 2 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
2. Sri Padmanabha Shetty
S/o. Sankappa Shetty
Aged about 61 years,
3. Smt. Roopa
W/o. Padmanabha Shetty
Aged about 47 years,
No.2 & 3 are residing at
Gerukatte, Kuntini,
Belthangadi
Dakshina Kannada-574217
Petitioners : 1. Sri Gopik Naik K
In MVC.4270/2021 S/o. Uday Kumar Naik
Aged about 29 years,
Residing at F-501, HRC
"Ibbani'
Opp; VIBGYOR HIGH
Jakkur,
Bengaluru-560064.
Permanent Address:
No.3/54, Nellikatte House
M.G. Road, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada 574201
Petitioners : Smt. Sneha A.S.
In MVC.4271/2021 W/o. Venugopala T.R.
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.3323/7
5th Cross, 'C' Block
Gayathrinagar
Bengaluru 560021
Permanent Address:
No.2-2, Anugraha Nilaya
Chika Mudnoor,
Puttur,
SCCH-14 3 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
Dakshina Kannada 574201
Smt. Shubha Lakshmi K @
Petitioners : Subbu Lakshmi
In MVC.4272/2021 W/o. A. Shankar Naik
Aged about 65 years,
R/at No.F-501,HRC "Ibbani'
Opp; VIBGYOR HIGH
Jakkur,
Bengaluru-560064.
Permanent Address:
No.2-2
Anugraha Nilaya,
Chicka Mudnoor
Puttur
Dakshina Kannada 574203
(By Smt. Anitha R. Naik,
Adv.)
V/s
1. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Respondent/s
Regional Office No.144
in all the cases Shubharam Complex No.144,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru-560001
(Insurer of the Goods Carrier
Eicher Bearing Reg. No.KA-13-B-
3967)
(Policy No.604900312010007662
Valid up to 19.01.2021 to
18.01.2022)
(By Sri. H.C. Betsur, Adv.)
2. Smt. Padma
W/o. A.V. Somashekar
Behind Court, Sampige Road,
SCCH-14 4 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
Channarayapatna,
Hassan 573116
(R C Owner of the Goods Carrier
Eicher bearing Reg. No.KA-13-B-
3967)
(Ex-parte)
:JUDGMENT:
Petition No.4269/2021 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- from the respondents on account of death of one Dhanusha K., W/o Gopik Naik K., in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 03.04.2021.
Petition No.4270/2021 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the respondents on account of injury sustained by the petitioner in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 03.04.2021.
Petition No.4271/2021 is preferred under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents on account of injury sustained by the petitioner in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 03.04.2021.
Petition No.4272/2021 is preferred under Section 166 of the SCCH-14 5 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents on account of injury sustained by the petitioner in a Road Traffic Accident occurred on 03.04.2021.
2. The cause of action for all the petitions was same. As such, the petition MVC No.4270/2021, MVC No.4271/2021 and MVC No.4272/2021 were clubbed in petition MVC No.4269/2021 for common trail and common disposal.
3. The substance of averments made in both the Petitions are as under:
That on 03.04.2021 at about 09.45 a.m. the deceased Dhanusha and Petitioners being an occupant of a Maruthi Suzuki Car bearing Reg. No.KA-21-M-8717 were proceeding on Kunigal-Nelamangala NH-75 Road, the driver of the said vehicle was driving the same very carefully and cautiously and when they reached near Maruru Hand Post, a driver of the Goods Carrier Eicher bearing Reg.No.KA-13-B-
3967 which was going in front of the petitioner's car put sudden break without any stop signal. Due to the sudden impact, petitioner's vehicle was hit to the rear side of the said canter vehicle.
Due to the said impact, the said Dhanusha sustained grievous SCCH-14 6 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 injuries to her face, chest and vital parts of the body and succumbed to the injuries and other occupants sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, the deceased Dhanusha was shifted to Nelamangala Govt. Hospital wherein, she was declared as dead.
Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner in MVC.4270/2021 was shifted to Ramaiah Harsha hospital wherein first aid treatment was given and thereafter he was shifted to Vikram hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient.
Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner in MVC.4271/2021 was shifted to Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and thereafter she was shifted to Vikram hospital, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient.
Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner in MVC.4272/2021 was shifted to Ramaiah Harsha hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and thereafter she was shifted to Vikram hospital, wherein she took treatment as an inpatient.
4. Prior to the date of accident, the deceased Dhanusha in MVC.4269/2021 was hale and healthy and she was working as HR SCCH-14 7 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Executive at Micro Talent Consultancy and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
5. Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner in MVC.No.4270/2021 was hale and healthy and working as Financial Associate III in HP company and was earning Rs.28,000/- per month.
6. Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner in MVC.No.4271/2021 was hale and healthy and was doing real estate business and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month.
7. Prior to the date of accident, the Petitioner in MVC.No.4272/2021 was hale and healthy and she was doing private tuition and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month.
8. The Petitioners of all the Petitions have contended that the accident has taken place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Goods Carrier Eicher bearing Reg.No.KA-13- B-3967 which is owned by the Respondent No.2 and insured with Respondent No.1. As such both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
9. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents in SCCH-14 8 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 all the petitions, Respondent No.1 appeared before the Court through its counsel and filed its detailed Objection Statement. The Respondent No.2 did not appear before the court and hence he was placed Exparte.
10. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.1 in respect of all petitions, it is contended that the alleged accident caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Car, the driver of the Car himself driving in a rash and negligent manner with out keeping distance, lost control over his vehicle and dashed behind the canter lorry. There is no fault on the part of the driver of Eicher vehicle. Further it is contended that the driver of Eicher vehicle was driving the same without possessing a valid and effective driving licence, FC and permit. However, to overcome their liabilities and to make unrich claim of compensation, this respondent has been made unnecessarily a party to the proceedings. The averments made in the petitions have been denied as false and baseless. It is further contended that the owner of the Eicher has not intimated the accident to this respondent and submitted the claim form and vehicle documents and DL. It is further contended that the SCCH-14 9 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 driver of lorry had no DL at the time of accident and no FC and permit to the said lorry. With all these contentions respondent No.1 prayed for dismissal of all the petitions against it.
11. Based on the pleadings and the materials made available on record by respective parties to the petitions, my learned- predecessor-in-office has framed following Issues in respect of each petition.
ISSUES IN MVC No.4269/2021
1. Whether the petitioners prove that Dhanusha K W/o Gopik Naik. K was died in the Road Traffic Accident which occurred on 03.04.2021 at about 9.45 a.m., on Kunigal-
Nelamangala NH-75 Road, near Maruru Handpost, Ramanagara, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Goods Carrier Eicher bearing Reg.
No.KA-13-B-3967 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioners further prove that they are the legal heirs of Dhanusha K?
SCCH-14 10 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
4. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.4270/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 03.04.2021 at about 9.45 a.m., on Kunigal-Nelamangala NH-75 Road, near Maruru Handpost, Ramanagara, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Goods Carrier Eicher bearing Reg. No.KA-13-B-3967 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
3. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.4271/2021 SCCH-14 11 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 03.04.2021 at about 9.45 a.m., on Kunigal-Nelamangala NH-75 Road, near Maruru Handpost, Ramanagara, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Goods Carrier Eicher bearing Reg. No.KA-13-B-3967 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
3. What Order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.4272/2021
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 03.04.2021 at about 9.45 a.m., on Kunigal-Nelamangala NH-75 Road, near Maruru Handpost, Ramanagara, due to the rash and negligent driving SCCH-14 12 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 of the Goods Carrier Eicher bearing Reg. No.KA-13-B-3967 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?
3. What Order or Award?
12. In order to prove their petitions, petitioner No.3 in MVC.4269/2021 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 18. Petitioner in MVC.4270/2021 got examined as PW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.P.19 to 31 and Ex.P.49 to 52. Petitioner in MVC 4271/2021 got examined as PW.3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.32 to 41. Petitioner in MVC 4272/2021 got examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.42 to 48. Petitioner in MVC 4270/2021 got examined Doctor as PW.5 and got marked a document at Ex.P.53. Petitioners in MVC 4270/2021 and 4272/2021 got examined a witness as PW.6 and got marked documents at Ex.P.54 to 57. Petitioners in MVC 4270/2021 to 4272/2021 got examined a witness as PW.7 and got marked documents at Ex.P.58 to 70. Petitioner in MVC 4270/2021 to SCCH-14 13 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 4272/2021 got examined a doctor as PW.8 and got marked documents at Ex.P.71 to 76 and closed their side evidence. The respondent No.1 got examined its Assistant Manager as RW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 and 2 and closed its side evidence.
13. Heard arguments of respective learned advocates. I have carefully considered the oral as well as documentary evidence made available by the respective parties. I have also carefully gone through the decisions referred by both counsel.
14. Having heard the respective learned advocates and upon consideration of the entire materials placed on hand and the citation relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner, I proceed to answer issues as hereunder:
15. My answer to the Issues in MVC.4269/2021 are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No. 4 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
16. My answer to the Issues in MVC.4270/2021 are as under:
SCCH-14 14 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
17. My answer to the Issues in MVC.4271/2021 are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
18. My answer to the Issues in MVC.4272/2021 are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order
for the following :
REASONS
19. Issue No.1 in MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021:- It is the case of the Petitioners that the Petitioners in MVC.No.4270/2021, MVC No.4271/2021 and MVC.No.4272/2021 had sustained injuries and Dhanusha succumbed to the injuries in the accident caused by the driver of the offending lorry.
SCCH-14 15 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
20. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry.
21. In order to prove the case of the Petitioners, Petitioner No.3 in MVC No.4269/2021 has been examined as P.W.1. Petitioners in MVC.4270 to 4272/2021 got examined themselves as PW.2 to PW.4 and also examined 4 witnesses as P.W.5 to PW.8 and got marked documents as per Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-76. Ex.P.1 and 2 are the true copies of FIR and complaint. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of charge sheet. Ex.P.4 is the true copy of spot panchanama with spot sketch. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of PM report of deceased Dhanusha. Ex.P.6 is the true copy of inquest panchanama of deceased Dhanusha. Ex.P.7 is the true copy of IMV report. Ex.P.8 and 9 are the Marriage Invitations. Ex.P.10 to 15 are the Marks cards of deceased Dhanusha. Ex.P.16 is the copy of Aadhar card of deceased Dhanusha. Ex.P.17 is the Ration card. Ex.P.18 is the Certificate of Marriage.
22. Ex.P.19 is the Wound Certificate which shows that SCCH-14 16 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Gopik Naik in MVC.4271/2021 sustained grievous injuries, Ex.P-20 is the Discharge summary, Ex.P.21 is the Dental Medical certificate, Ex.P.22 is the prescriptions, Ex.P.23 is the medical bills, Ex.P.24 is the leave certificate, Ex.P.25 is the X- ray, Ex.P.26 is referral letter, Ex.P.27 is Driving licence. Ex.P- 28 is the Discharge summary, Ex.P.29 is certificate dated 8.9.2023, Ex.P.30 is medical bills, Ex.P.31 is X-ray. Ex.P.32 is the Wound Certificate which shows that Sneha in MVC.4271/2021 sustained grievous injuries, Ex.P-33 is the Discharge summaries, Ex.P.34 is the Medical bills, Ex.P.35 is service charges bill, Ex.P.36 is the prescriptions, Ex.P.37 is the X-ray, Ex.P.38 is notarised copy of degree certificate, Ex.P.39 is service letter, Ex.P.40 is photographs and Ex.P.41 is CD. Ex.P.42 is the Wound Certificate which shows that Shubhalakshmi in MVC.4272/2021 sustained grievous injuries, Ex.P-43 is Referral/transfer letter, Ex.P.44 are the Discharge summaries,Ex.P.45 is the medical bills, Ex.P.46 is service charges bill. Ex.P.47 is prescriptions and Ex.P.48 is the SCCH-14 17 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 X-ray, Ex.P.49 is Examination summary of Chaitanya Dental clinic. Ex.P.50 Is treatment summary, Ex.P.51 is Medical bill and Ex.P.52 is X-ray. Ex.P.53. i.e., recent examination sheet. Ex.P.54 is authorisation letter, Ex.P.55 is list of records of Gopik Naik and Shubhalakshmi, Ex.P.56 is inpatient records of Gopik Naik and Ex.P.57 is Inpatient record of Shubhalakshmi. Ex.P.58 is Authorization Letter, Ex.P.59 is case sheet of Gopik Naik, Ex.P60 and 61 are case sheets of Mrs. Sneha (two in nos.) Ex.P.62 is case sheet of Shubhalakshmi, Ex.P.63 is Attested medical bill of Mr.Gopik Naik, Ex.P.64 is Attested medical bill of Mrs.Sneha, Ex.P.65 is Attested medical bill of Mrs.Subbalakshmi, Ex.P.66 is True copy of police intimation, Ex.P.67 is True copy of MLC extract of Mr.Gopik Naik Ex.P.68 is True copy of MLC of Mrs.Sneha Ex.P.69 is True copy of MLC of Mrs.Subbalakshmi, Ex.P.70 is X-rays (9 in numbers), Ex.P.71 is OPD card of Gopik Naik, Ex.P.72 is X-ray of Gopik Naik, Ex.P.73 is OPD card of Sneha, Ex.P.74 is X-rays 2 in nos. of Sneha, Ex.P.75 is OPD card of Subbalakshmi and Ex.P.76 is SCCH-14 18 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 X-rays 2 in nos.of Subbalakshmi.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that due to the negligence of the offending vehicle goods carrier bearing No.KA-13-B-3967, the accident has occurred. Even the charge sheet is also filed against the driver of the said vehicle, she further argued that no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi car bearing No.KA-21-M- 8717. In support of her arguments she has relied on the following judgments:
1. 2023 ACJ 624 between Mamta and others Vs. Bhav Singh and another.
"Negligence-Contributory Negligence- Dumper - 'A' dashed against dumper 'B' moving in front when driver of dumper 'B' suddenly stopped the vehicle without any signal resulting in death of driver of dumper 'A'- Tribunal and High Court held that both drivers were equally negligent in causing the accident- FIR was lodged against driver of dumper 'B' - No evidence led to show that driver of dumper 'A' contributed to the accident-Whether accident occurred due to sole negligence of driver of dumper 'B'- Held:yes."
2. 2022 ACJ 2546 between United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Vandana Tripathi and SCCH-14 19 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 others.
"Negligence - Hitting from behind -Car hitting truck from behind resulting in death of a passenger travelling in car-Tribunal held that truck driver was solely negligent-Contention that car dashed against the truck from behind and car driver had the last opportunity to avoid the accident therefore, truck driver cannot be held solely negligent-As per FIR truck driver abruptly applied the brake- Truck with 10 wheels abruptly took left turn and applied brake therefore car driver hardly any opportunity to avoid the accident-Whether Tribunal was justified in holding the truck driver solely negligent for the accident-Held:yes."
24. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that there was contributory negligence on part of the petitioner in MVC.4269/2021 who had not maintained safe distance from the goods carrier, therefore, there is negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi car. In support of his argument he relied following judgments.
1.(2018)6 SCC 765 between Nishan Singh and others VS. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., "The Tribunal analysed the entire evidence on record and answered the issue as to whether the SCCH-14 20 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 truck was being driven in rash and negligent manner against the appellants. The Tribunal instead held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Maruti car. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the truck driver and the insurer of the truck were not liable to pay compensation as claimed. The Tribunal noted the issue of contributory negligence but, having regard to the facts of the present case and particularly because the owner and the driver of the maruti car were not made parties, it held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal also noted that the maruti car was purchased by Manjeet Singh about 11½ years before the accident but the same was not transferred in his name nor was it insured. Taking an overall view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 10th December, 2014.
6. The appellants carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court summarily dismissed the appeal by reiterating the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the evidence clearly indicated that the driver of the maruti car himself was negligent in driving his vehicle and had failed to keep sufficient distance between the two vehicles running in the same direction. Furthermore, the maruti car driver, owner and concerned insurance company were not made parties to the claim petition. The High Court, thus, declined to interfere in the first appeal.
7. The appellants have assailed the SCCH-14 21 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 aforementioned decisions in this appeal. According to the appellants, the finding recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, that the driver of the maruti car had not maintained safe distance from the truck running ahead of the maruti car in the same direction, is untenable. The appellants have also assailed the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court that the maruti car was driven in a rash and negligent manner. It is urged that the fact that the maruti car was not registered in the name of Manjeet Singh or that the documents pertaining to the maruti car and even the valid driving licence of the driver of maruti car was not brought on record, cannot denude the appellants to receive compensation due to contributory negligence of the truck driver. Further, the Tribunal committed manifest error in recording the finding on the issue of contributory negligence against the appellants without framing any issue in that behalf. It is urged that the findings recorded by the Tribunal to absolve the truck driver, on the ground that the truck was not driven rashly and negligently, is perverse and untenable in law. Moreover, the Tribunal has completely glossed over the efficacy of the chargesheet filed by the police against respondent No.3 truck driver after due investigation. The appellants have also reiterated their claim regarding compensation, on the assertion that deceased Balvinder Kaur was earning around Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) per month and after her death, her family was facing grave hardship. According to the appellants, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had dealt with the matter in a hypertechnical SCCH-14 22 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 manner and did not appreciate the evidence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
8. The respondents, on the other hand, have supported the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, that the accident occurred not because of rash and negligent driving of the truck but was on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the maruti car. On that finding, contends learned counsel for the respondents, no liability can be fastened on the respondents. He submitted that the analysis of the evidence on record by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court does not warrant any interference. The respondents have supported the conclusions recorded by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court for dismissing the claim petition.
9. We have heard Mr. Vijay Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. K.K. Bhat, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. The moot question is whether the Tribunal committed any error in answering issue No.1 against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. The Tribunal, while answering the said issue No.1, analysed the evidence, both oral and documentary, including the chargesheet filed by the appellants and observed thus:
"20. In site plan paper No.6C/6 which is filed on record, the breadth of the road in question appears to be 14 feet and about 7 steps SCCH-14 23 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Kachcha Lekh appears at the both sides of the road. This fact is remarkable that the said accident is not of front accident but the accident occurred as a result of collision of the Maruti Car on the rear part of the truck in question by the driver of the car in question and the same fact is also mentioned in the evidence of the petitioners. PW 2 Manjeet Singh driver of the car in question as stated in his cross examination that he was driving the car behind the truck at the distance of about 1015 feet. Despite there being the breadth of the road 14 feet Pucca, the driver of the car in question kept the vehicle only at the distance of 1015 feet from the truck which doesn't appear in accordance with traffic rules. He should have driven the vehicle maintaining the proper distance in order to escape from each circumstance but he has admitted in his cross examination as PW2 that, "he knows that he should maintain proper distance from the heavy vehicle". Under such circumstance if the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle, must maintain the proper distance if the proper distance is not maintain then the whole negligence shall be determined on the part of rear vehicle in regard to the occurrence of accident in question. In addition no evidence in regard to the seizing of truck in question on the place of occurrence and taking into police custody the vehicles from the place of occurrence and getting done their technical survey is not available on place of occurrence.
21. By the facts mentioned in the petition and by the evidence of PW1 and PW2 it doesn't appear reliable that rash SCCH-14 24 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 and negligent driving in the accident in question was on the part of the driver of the truck in question and for this purpose only by registering of F.I.R. of said accident and submitting of chargesheet against the driver of the truck in question, the driver of the truck in question cannot be held guilty for the said accident, whereas by the evidence of the petitioner on record this fact comes forward that the accident occurred as the driver of the car in question was not driving the car in question in accordance with traffic rules i.e. the accident occurred as the vehicle was not being driven maintaining proper distance from the truck and it appears clearly that the speed of the car would have been fast whereby the car in question collided with the rear part of the truck in question being uncontrolled and said accident took place. Under such circumstance there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of truck bearing No.U.P. 32 Z2397 regarding the accident in question but the same is determined on the part of Manjeet Singh driver of Maruti Car bearing No.U.P.02 D5292.
22. On the basis of the aforesaid interpretation it appears that the said accident didn't occur on 28.11.2010 at about 6:45 p.m. at village Kunda KashipurJashpur Road under area of P.S. Kunda district Udham Singh Nagar by the driver of the truck bearing No. U.P.32 Z- 2397 due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and by applying sudden break but it occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Car bearing No. U.P.02 D5292 in question by Manjeet Singh driver, wherein SCCH-14 25 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Balvinder Kaur who was sitting in the car sustained serious injuries and expired during her treatment on account of serious injuries." The finding so recorded by the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court, by observing that the evidence was clearly indicative of the fact that the maruti car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, which was the cause for accident of this nature and resulting in death of one of the passengers in the maruti car. The maruti car was driven by none other than PW2 Manjeet Singh. In his evidence, he has admitted that the subject truck was running ahead of the maruti car for quite some time about one kilometre and at the time of accident, the distance between the truck and maruti car was only 10 15 feet. He has also admitted that the law mandates maintaining sufficient distance between two vehicles running in the same direction. It is also not in dispute that the road on which the two vehicles were moving was only about 14 feet wide. It is unfathomable that on such a narrow road, the subject truck would move at a high speed as alleged. In any case, the maruti car which was following the truck was expected to maintain a safe distance, as envisaged in Regulation 23 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, which reads thus:
"23. Distance from vehicles in front. The driver of a motor vehicle moving behind another vehicle shall keep at a sufficient distance from that other vehicle to avoid collision if the vehicle in front should suddenly slow down or stop." The expression 'sufficient distance' has not been defined in the Regulations or elsewhere. The thumb rule of sufficient SCCH-14 26 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 distance is at least a safe distance of two to three seconds gap in ideal conditions to avert collision and to allow the following driver time to respond. The distance of 10-15 feet between the truck and maruti car was certainly not a safe distance for which the driver of the maruti car must take the blame. It must necessarily follow that the finding on the issue under consideration ought to be against the claimants."
2. Civil Appeal No.3317-3318/2009 (arising out of SLP (c) No's.27792-27793/2008 between Raja Ram and others Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and others.
"The question of contributory negligence arises when there has been some act on omission on the claimants part, which has materially contributed to the damage caused, and is of such a nature that it may properly be described as negligence. Negligence ordinarily means breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the expression 'contributory negligence', it does not mean breach of any duty. It only 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 this own wrong."
25. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, the evidence on record considered. Upon going through the police documents, i.e., Ex.P1 and 2 FIR with Complaint show that on SCCH-14 27 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 the complaint lodged by one Nithin Kumar, Kudur police have registered FIR against the driver of the goods carrier bearing No.KA-13-B-3967 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338, and 304A of IPC. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of Charge- sheet, which discloses that after completion of the investigation IO has filed charge sheet against the driver of the goods vehicle bearing No.KA-13-B-3967 for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A of IPC. Ex.P.4 is the Spot Panchanama along with rough sketch, they show that the accident has occurred on National Highway measuring. They further show that the goods vehicle bearing No.KA-13-B-3967 was proceeding in front and the Maruthi car bearing No.KA-21- M-8717 was proceeding behind the said goods vehicle. When the driver of goods vehicle applied brake, Maruthi car has dashed the said goods vehicle from behind. Ex.P.5 is the PM report shows that cause of death is due to haemorrage, shock, folly chin and chest injury causing damage to the vital organ lungs as a result of road traffic accident, Ex.P.6 is the Inquest SCCH-14 28 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 report which shows that inquest has been conducted in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.7 is the IMV Report, which shows that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has opined that the accident was not due to any of the mechanical defects of the vehicles. It further shows that the goods vehicle bearing No.KA-13-B-3967 was damaged, rear body dented, register number plate damaged. The car bearing No.KA-21-M-8717 was damaged to head light and indicator damaged, radiator damaged, both side fender's damaged, engine damaged, wind screen glass damaged, top body damaged all door's and window glasses were damaged. The said aspect made it clear that the car has hit the goods vehicle from behind.
26. Ex.P.19 is the Wound Certificate of Gopik Naik shows that he has sustained fracture of left humerus, fracture of left scapula. Ex.P.20 is Discharge summary of Gopik Naik discloses that he was treated as inpatient in Vikram hospital and he underwent open reduction internal fixation of left SCCH-14 29 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 middle 1/3rd humerus with locking plate under GA. Ex.P.21 is the Dental Medical certificate issued by Chaitanya Dental Clinic regarding injuries to teeth.
27. Ex.P.32 is the Wound Certificate of the Sneha which discloses that she sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P-33 is the Discharge summary which shows that she was treated as inpatient.
28. Ex.P.42 is the Wound Certificate of Shubhalakshmi which shows that she sustained simple and grievous injuries. Ex.P.44 are the Discharge summaries which shows that she underwent open reduction with bicolumnar plate fixation to left distal numbers, open reduction with plate fixation to right olecranon process and proximal ulna, closed reduction with supracondylar nail fixation to right femur done under GA.
29. Further, Petitioners in MVC No.4270/2021 got examined Dr.N.Chaitanya Babu as PW.5 and got marked document as per Ex.P.53. i.e., recent examination sheet. SCCH-14 30 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
30. Further, Petitioners in MVC No.4270/2021 to 4272/2021 got examined three witnesses as PW.6 to PW.8 and got marked document as per Ex.P.54 to 76.
31. Admittedly, the complaint is lodged against the driver of goods vehicle contending that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of goods vehicle, the accident has occurred. After investigation IO has also filed charge sheet alleging that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of goods vehicle.
32. At this juncture, it is profitable to refer the judgment reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 Mataji Bewa and others Vs. Hemanth Jena and another, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that contents of charge sheet cannot be treated as evidence in claim proceedings; Tribunal must rely upon the evidence led before it. Keeping the aforesaid principle in mind, the evidence lead before Tribunal is considered. PW.1 is mother of the deceased by name Dhanusha.K was not an eye witness to the SCCH-14 31 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 incident. Therefore, her evidence is not deciding factor for negligence. PW.2 who is the petitioner No.1 in MVC.4269/2021 and petitioner in MVC.4270/2021 was the driver of Maruthi car bearing No.KA-21-M-8717. He deposed in lieu of examination in chief by way of affidavit and further affidavits, wherein he deposed the nature of accident as narrated in the petition as well as police records. But in his cross examination dated 06.01.2024, he admits that the car which was driven by him belongs to his uncle Radhakrishna. He further admits that at the time of accident 4 people including him were travelling in the said car from Putur to Bangalore. He further admits that at the time of accident, his car was at 50 to 60 k.m. speed per hour. He denies that he was driving the car at 100 k.m. speed per hour. He specifically admits that there was hump at 10 ft. away from the place of accident. He specifically admits that width of the road was 60 ft. He further admits that normally vehicles move slowly where humps are situated. He further states that lorry was moving with high speed and suddenly SCCH-14 32 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 stopped the said lorry. Therefore, he lost his control over his car and hit the lorry. He further admits that in the sketch and mahazar no mention about the tyre prints at the spot. His specific admission is that he was driving his car behind the lorry at a distance of about 10 ft.
33. PW.3 Sneha who is the petitioner in MVC.4271/2021 was also sitting in the car at the time of accident deposed in her chief examination about the nature of accident as narrated in the police records. But in her cross examination she clearly admits that the car was running at 60-70 kms. speed per hour. She further admits that the car was driven by its driver behind the goods vehicle at a distance of about 10 ft. She further admits that there was sufficient space both the sides of the goods vehicle.
34. PW.4 Shubhalakshmi who is petitioner in MVC.4272/2021 was also sitting in the car at the time of accident deposed in her chief examination about the nature of SCCH-14 33 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 accident as narrated in the police records. But in her cross examination she also admits that the car was running at 50-60 kms. speed per hour. She also admits that the width of the road was 60 ft. and the said road was National Highway. She also categorically admits that the car was going behind the lorry at a distance of about 10 ft.
35. Upon careful perusal of the oral evidence of the driver and inmates of the car and sketch and mahazar, it is clear that the place of accident was National Highway and the lorry was going in the middle of the road and the car was also going behind the said lorry. It is also clear that there was sufficient space at both the sides of lorry. There is no evidence about other vehicles also moving simultaneously at both sides of these vehicles. Therefore, it appears that the driver of car had opportunity to drive his car any of either side of the lorry. However he was driving his car behind the lorry. Further as per the admission of driver and inmates of the car, the distance SCCH-14 34 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 between both vehicles was only at 10 ft. Despite there being the width of the road 60 ft, the driver of car in question kept his car only at a distance of 10 ft. from the lorry which does not as per the traffic rules. He should have driven the vehicle maintaining proper distance in the road in order to escape from each circumstances. But he has not maintained safe distance from the lorry. Under such circumstances, the vehicle which is running behind the heavy vehicle must maintain proper distance. If proper distance is not maintained then also negligence is on the part of the driver of the vehicle which was moving behind the heavy vehicle. Therefore, it is crystal clear that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the car also for the accident. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Mamtha (supra) it was held that no evidence led to show that the driver of dumper 'A' contributed to the accident. But in the case on hand as discussed above the evidence led before this Tribunal prove the negligence of the driver of the car also. Hence the judgment relied by the SCCH-14 35 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 learned counsel for petitioner would not helps the case of petitioners.
36. In the another judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner Vandana Tripati referred (supra) it is held that car hit a truck from behind would not be higher negligence on the part of the driver of the car. In the case on hand also car hit the truck from behind. This Tribunal opined that higher negligence on the part of the driver of the truck and there is contributory negligent on the part of the driver of the car also.
37. In case of Nishan Singh (supra) and Raj Rani (supra) also a car has hit the lorry from behind without maintaining the safe distance. In Nishan Singh case claim of petitioner was dismissed. In Raj Rani case contributory negligent attributed 50% to each vehicles. In the case on hand also the car has hit the lorry from behind without maintaining the safe distance. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, this Tribunal is of considered opinion that the driver of the lorry SCCH-14 36 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 attributed 70% of the negligence towards the said accident and at the same time the driver of the car also attributed 30% of the negligence towards the said accident.
38. Further the Dhanusha was succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident and the Petitioners in MVC No.4270/2021 to MVC.4272/2021 have sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in MVC No.4269/2021 to 4270/2021 "Partly in the Affirmative".
Issue No. 2 and 3 in MVC.4269/2021:
39. Both these issues are taken together for common discussion as they are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition of the facts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2022 ACJ 1535 in between Saroja Vs Parvathy & others. Wherein Hon'ble High court of Madras held as follows;
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 168(1) - Award - Apportionment of -Civil Court directed SCCH-14 37 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 issuance of legal heirship certificate to parents of the deceased and her mother in law holding that all of them are legal heirs of the deceased and are entitled to accident claim amount-Tribunal relying on the judgment of Civil court apportioned the award equally amongst mother,father and mother-in-law of the deceased- As per Section 175, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any question relating to claim for compensation-Whether apportionment of award based on the judgment of Civil Court is erroneous-Held: yes; moreover, legal heirship certificate is not the basis for making claim under Motor Vehicles Act."
40. As per the above authority, legal heirship certificate to parents of the deceased is not required for the claim petition. It is stated in the Petition that the Petitioner No.1 is the husband, Petitioner No.2 is the father and petitioner No.3 is mother of the deceased Dhanusha. They contended that though the deceased was given in marriage to petitioner No.1, the petitioner No.2 and 3 being her parents were depending upon the income of deceased. In order to prove the relationship, PW.1 has produced her Aadhar card of the deceased and ration card at Ex.P.16 and 17. Upon going through the same, they prove the relationship of the deceased with the petitioners. SCCH-14 38 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Hence, the petitioners have proved that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Dhanusha.
41. In the petition, the age of the deceased was shown as 24 years and her avocation is shown as HR Executive and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. PW.1 has not produced any document to prove the occupation of deceased. She also not produced any documents to prove the income of the deceased. In the absence of any other documentary evidence before the Court to prove the income of the deceased, it is proper to take the notional income of the deceased Dhanusha as Rs.15,000/- as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, as the said accident has been occurred in the year 2021.
42. Further, the Petitioners stated the age of the deceased Dhanusha was 24 years at the time of the accident. PW.1 has produced Aadhar card at Ex.P.16 which shows the date of birth of the deceased was 05.02.1997. The alleged SCCH-14 39 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 accident was occurred on 03-04-2021. That means, as on the date of accident, the age of the deceased Dhanusha was 24 years.
43. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioners are entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF CONSORTIUM, COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF ESTATE, COMPENSATION TOWARDS FUNERAL EXPENSES:
44. The deceased has left behind her, her husband and parents. Hence, the Petitioner No.1 to 3 are considered as dependents. At this juncture, I would like to go through principles laid down in the decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that : "Loss of estate has to SCCH-14 40 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 be compensated by awarding Rupees 14,500/-, loss of consortium should be Rupees 40,000/- and funeral expenses should be Rupees 15,000/-".The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% in every three years." As this Court has already observed that the he Petitioner No.1 is the husband and Petitioner No.2 and 3 are parents of the deceased Dhanusha, the Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rupees 44,000/- each towards loss of consortium and Rupees 16,500/- towards loss of estate and Rupees 16,500/- towards funeral expenses.
II. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF LOVE AND AFFECTION,
45. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and he lost his wife's love and care and Petitioner No.2 and 3 are the parents of deceased Dhanusha and they lost their daughter's love and care in their old age. Bearing in mind the relationship of the Petitioners with the deceased, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just SCCH-14 41 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 and reasonable.
III. COMPENSATION TOWARDS TRANSPORTATION OF DEAD BODY:
46. The injured was died in the Nelamanaga Government hospital and the residence of the petitioners is at Gerukatte, Belthangadi. Hence, there is some distance between both the places. Therefore, the petitioners might have spent some amount towards transportation of body of the deceased. But there is no evidence to show the exact amount which they have spent. Hence, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
IV. COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF DEPENDANCY:
47. It is pertinent to note here that as per the detailed discussion as made supra, the income of the deceased was taken at Rs.15,000/- p.m. SCCH-14 42 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 At this juncture, I would like to go through the decision reported in :
1) 2018 ACJ 740, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India At New Delhi in between Manuswamy and others V/s.
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Trans. Corpn. Ltd, wherein it is held as under:
"Quantum fatal accident Principle of assessment Future prospects Deceased aged : 21, contract worker in a company - High Court did not consider future prospects while computing compensation - Whether claimants are entitled to compensation after addition of 40 per cent of income of the deceased towards future prospects "
- Held : - yes.
2) 2018 ACJ 5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, at New Delhi in between Hem Raj Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., and others wherein it is held as under :
"Quantum Fatal accident - Principles
of assessment Future prospects Deceased
aged 40 Upholding objections of insurance
company that principle of addition on
account of future prospects is not applicable
SCCH-14 43 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
where income of the deceased is
determined by guesswork, High Court
disallowed the addition of 50 per cent made by the Tribunal for future prospects while computing compensation - Whether addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in absence of proof of income Held: Yes: there cannot be distinction where there is evidence of income and where minimum income is determined on guesswork : executing Court directed to respondent compute entitlement of claimants by adding 40 per cent of income for future prospect and make corresponding deduction towards personal expenses".
The decision reported in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590/2014 (National Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "In case self employed or person on fixed salary the addition should be 40% below the age of 40 SCCH-14 44 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 years". In this Petition, the deceased was aged 24 years at the time of accident. Hence, towards future prospects 40% of the income has to be added. So, 40% of Rs.15,000/- comes to Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, the income of the deceased comes to Rs.21,000/- p.m. (Rs.15,000/- + Rs.6,000/-). Further, as per the principles laid down in decision reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another) the multiplier applicable is 18. In Sarla Verma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that where the number of dependent of family members is 2 to 3, 1/3rd of the income of the deceased may be deducted towards her personal and living expenses.
After deducting 1/3rd towards her personal expenses in Rs.21,000/- it comes to Rs.14,000/- (21,000.00 - 7,000) and multiplier applied is 18 which comes to Rs.30,24,000/-(14,000 x 12 x 18 = Rs.30,24,000/-). Thus, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.30,24,000/- towards loss of SCCH-14 45 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 dependency.
48. TOTAL QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONERS ARE ENTITLED:
1. Loss of consortium Rs. 1,32,000/-
2. Loss of Love and Affection Rs. 50,000/-
3. Loss of Estate Rs. 16,500/-
4. Funeral Expenses Rs. 16,500/-
5. Expenses of transportation Rs. 10,000/-
of dead body
6. Loss of Dependency Rs.30,24,000/-
Total Rs.32,49,000/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.32,4,000/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
49. Issue No.2 in MVC.4270/2021( Gopik Naik.K) :-As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry by its driver, the SCCH-14 46 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
50. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 29 years. The Petitioner has produced driving licence at Ex.P.27 to prove his age. As per driving licence, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 04.09.1991. The accident took place on 03.04.2021. Hence, the age of the petitioner as 30 years is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of quantum of compensation.
51. Further, the Petitioner has averred that he was working as Financial Associate III at HP and was earning Rs.28,000/- per month. In this regard, he has produced Ex.P.24 leave certificate to show that he was on leave from 05.04.2021 to 11.05.2021. However, he has not examined the author of the document. No supportive documents are furnished to show that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was earning Rs.28,000/-p.m. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Since the accident has been occurred in the year 2021, notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. is taken for the purpose of assessment of SCCH-14 47 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 compensation.
52. With this background, the quantum of compensation 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:
53. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P-19 and other medical records reveal that in the accident the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1.Fracture right humerus
2. Fracture of left scapula
3. Multiple abrasion face and limbs and chin.
The Doctor has opined that injury No.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injury No.3 is simple in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES: SCCH-14 48 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
54. 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 reasonable.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
55. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 03.04.2021 to 08.04.2021 at Vikram and from 04.09.2023 to 08.09.2023 at Tejaswini hospital. Further, P.W.5 Dr.N.Chaitanya Babu and Dr.Chidananda K.J.C as PW.8 have also reiterated the same in their evidence. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 11 days.
56. It assumes importance to note that the PW.2 in his cross-examination para 18, he admitted that at the laid up period he was on leave and in the said period he had drawn SCCH-14 49 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 salary from his company. Hence he had no loss during the laid up period. Such being the case, this Tribunal is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to get the compensation in this head.
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
57. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and 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 EXPENSES : SCCH-14 50 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
58. The Petitioner has deposed that he has spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses. In order to prove this fact, he has produced 16 medical bills i.e., Ex.P.23 amounting to Rs.51,501/-. But Sl.No.15 at Ex.P.23 disclose that the said receipt belongs to one Shubhalakshmi. But the name of the petitioner herein in this case is Gopik Naik. Even the PW.1 in his cross examination at para 17 admitted that Sl.No.15 does not belong to him. The said bill amounting Rs.1,925/-. Hence, he is not entitled to the said amount. If the said amount is deducted from Rs.51,501/- it would be Rs.49,576/-. 19 medical bills at Ex.P.30 amounting to Rs.27,671/-, 4 medical bills at Ex.P.51 amounting to Rs.74,500/- which is totally amounting to Rs.1,51,747/-. I have gone through the medical bills. Since there is no serious dispute about the bills, they are accepted. Hence, by rounding off the same, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,51,800/- as a compensation under this head.
SCCH-14 51 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
59. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is not able to lift heavy things from his left hand, cannot rotate, cannot sleep on left side and with great difficult he is too doing table work in computer, cannot eat hard food, suffering from severe head ache and feels giddiness.
60. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.N.Chaitanya Babu, Dental surgeon as P.W.5 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. Further, he got marked Ex.P.53 i.e., recent examination sheet. He assessed permanent disability to whole body disability at 19%.
61. In the cross-examination, PW.5 has admitted that pain in respect of teeth will be unbearable. SCCH-14 52 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
62. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Chidanand.K.J.C, Orthopedic surgeon as P.W.8 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. Further, he got marked Ex.P.71 and 72 i.e., OPD card and X-ray. He assessed permanent disability from left upper limb at 46% and to whole body disability at 15%.
63. In the cross-examination, PW.8 has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner and he came for assessment of disability after three years of accident. He has admitted that petitioner underwent surgery in Vikram hospital and he has not treated the petitioner.
64. The PW.2 in his cross examination para 20, admitted that still he is continuing his job in the same company and now he is drawing the salary of Rs.28,000/ p.m. and nature of work is table work. If this factor is taken into consideration, it is clear that the result of accident has no impact on the earning of SCCH-14 53 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 the petitioner from her avocation. This factor also justifies that as a result of accident PW.2 has not sustained any financial loss. At this juncture it is profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2010 Kar 2439 Subash Vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager & ors. Wherein, it held as follows;
Re-Point 1: As rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Insured, the Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation towards loss of future income, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, when in fact, the claimant has been continues in the service, then, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any loss of future income under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
65. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 50.000/-SCCH-14 54 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/-
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 18,000/-
diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs.1,51,800/-
5. Loss of income during the NIL laid up period
6. Loss of Future income NIL Total Rs.2,59,800/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.2,59,800/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
66. Issue No.2 in MVC.4271/2021(Sneha) :-As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
67. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown her age as 44 years. The Petitioner has not produced any document to prove her age. As per the medical documents the age of the petitioner is shown 44 years. Hence, the age of the petitioner is taken as 44 years is to be taken for the purpose of assessment of quantum of SCCH-14 55 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 compensation.
68. Further, the Petitioner has averred that she was doing real estate business and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month. In this regard, she has not produced any document to prove her avocation and income. No supportive documents are furnished to show that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that, notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority. Since the accident has been occurred in the year 2021, notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. is taken for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
69. With this background, the quantum of compensation 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:
70. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P-32 and other medical records reveal that in the accident the petitioner has sustained SCCH-14 56 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 following injuries:
1.Fracture right humerus
2. Fracture of left femur(basic cervical shaft)
3. Left blockage
4. Abrasion fall
5. Fracture of left IV. V, VI and VII ribs The Doctor has opined that injury No.1, 2 and 5 are grievous in nature and injury No.3 and 4 are simple in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/-
under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES:
71. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
SCCH-14 57 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
72. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in her evidence that she was admitted as an inpatient from 03.04.2021 to 12.04.2021 at Vikram and from 05.09.2021 to 09.09.2021 Vikram hospital. Further, Dr.Chidananda K.J.C examined as PW.8 has also reiterated the same in his evidence. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 15 days.
73. Further, since she underwent surgery she might have taken at least two months for recovery. 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 :
74. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and SCCH-14 58 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 during the laid up period, the Petitioner had engaged an attendant and spent Rs.25,000/- for service charges. In this regard, he has produced Service charges bill at Ex.P.35 and also she might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for her conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- 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.37,000/- under this head. V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES :
75. The Petitioner has deposed that she has spent more than Rs.6,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses. In order to prove this fact, she has produced 42 medical bills i.e., Ex.P.34 amounting to Rs.1,78,424/-. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that Sl.No.4, 21 and 25 do not have GST number, therefore the said bills cannot be considerable. I SCCH-14 59 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 have gone through the medical bills. There is no dispute about other bills except above said 3 bills. Ofcourse the above said 3 bills do not have GST number. Mere non mentioning of GST number alone not a ground for denying the claim amount found in the said bills. Hence, the bills are accepted. Hence, by rounding off the same, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,78,424/- which is rounded off to Rs.1,78,500/- as a compensation under this head.
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
76. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she has suffered permanent disablement and she is not able to lift heavy things from her hand, cannot rotate, severe pain on injured part, limping due to the injuries to left leg, there is scar on face, forehead and right hand and left leg.
SCCH-14 60 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
77. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Chidanand.K.J.C, Orthopedic surgeon as P.W.8 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. Further, he got marked Ex.P.73 and 74 i.e., OPD card and X-ray. He assessed permanent physical disability from right upper limb at 10% and lower limb at 13% and to whole body disability at 22%.
78. In the cross-examination, PW.8 has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner and he assessed the disability after three years of accident. He has admitted that petitioner was stable at the time of discharge. He further admitted that Femur fracture is mal united. There is wasting of muscles but not shortening of limbs.
79. Upon careful consideration of the assessment of disability made by PW.8 keeping in mind the fact that PW.3 personally appeared before this court and deposed, also keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained by PW.3 and SCCH-14 61 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 the treatment which she has taken, Tribunal is of the view that the disability assessed appears to be at the higher rate. Hence, having regard to the medical records placed on record and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and by considering the nature of his work, I am of the opinion that considering the disability of the Petitioner with respect to the whole body at 15% would be just and proper.
80. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the multiplier applicable to the Petitioner is 14. With multiplier of 14, 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 Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 14 x 15/100 =Rs.3,78,000/-). Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
81. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for SCCH-14 62 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 70,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 37,000/-
diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs.1,78,500/-
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 30,000/-
laid up period
6. Loss of Future income Rs.3,78,000/-
Total Rs.7,43,500/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of Rs.7,43,500/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
82. Issue No.2 in MVC.4272/2021 (Shubhalakshmi):-As the Petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending lorry by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
83. In the Petition, the Petitioner has shown her age as 65 years. The Petitioner has not produced any document to prove her age. As per the medical records, the age of the petitioner is shown SCCH-14 63 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 as 65 years. Hence, the age of the petitioner is taken as 65 years for the purpose of assessment of quantum of compensation.
84. Further, the Petitioner has averred that she was taking private tuition and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, she has not produced any document to prove her avocation and income. No supportive documents are furnished to show that as on the date of accident, the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence, this Court is of the opinion that, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, since the accident has been occurred in the year 2021, the notional income of Rs.15,000/- p.m. is taken for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
85. With this background, the quantum of compensation 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:
86. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P-42 and other medical SCCH-14 64 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 records reveal that in the accident the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1.Sutured wound forehead
2. Right black eye.
3. Sutured wound right maxilla
4. Sutured wound right upper eyelid.
5. Fracture right II, III, IV & V ribs with right lung contusion.
6. Fracture right scapula
7. Fracture right femur
8. Fracture right humerus
9. Displaced fracture (upper part) right ulna.
10.Fracture right spheniod with right temporal EDH
11. Right temporal and basifrontal brain contusions
12. Left frontal brain bleed - frontal lobe.
The Doctor has opined that injury No.1 to 4 are simple in nature and injury No.5 to 12 are grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES: SCCH-14 65 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
87. Bearing in mind the nature of the 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.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
88. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in her evidence that she was admitted as an inpatient from 03.04.2021 to 14.04.2021 at Vikram and from 12.12.2022 to 19.12.2021 at Tejaswini and from 14.04.2021 to 30.04.2021 at Sukino Healthcare Solutions private ltd.,. Further, Dr.Chidananda K.J.C exammined as PW.8 has also reiterated the same in his evidence. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 36 days.
89. Further, considering the age of petitioner and injuries sustained by her, she might have taken at least four months for recovery. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by SCCH-14 66 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the laid up period may be considered as four months. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under this head (@ Rs.15,000/- per month).
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
90. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner had engaged an attendant and also she might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for her 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 EXPENSES : SCCH-14 67 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
91. The Petitioner has deposed that she has spent more than Rs.12,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other expenses. In order to prove this fact, she has produced 33 medical bills i.e., Ex.P.45 amounting to Rs.7,57,939/- and 3 bills for a sum of Rs.1,78,000/- at Ex.P.46. In total it would be Rs.9,35,939/ Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that Sl.No.15 do not have GST number, therefore the said bills cannot be considerable. I have gone through the medical bills. There is no dispute about other bills except above said one bill. Ofcourse the above said bill does not have GST number. Mere non mentioning of GST number alone not a ground for denying the claim amount found in the said bills. Hence, the bills are accepted. Hence, by rounding off the same, the petitioner is entitled for I have gone through the medical bills. Except above said dispute, no serious dispute on medical bills. Hence, the bills are accepted. Hence, by rounding off the same, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.9,36,000/- as a compensation under this head.
SCCH-14 68 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
92. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, she has suffered permanent disablement and she cannot continue in her teaching profession and is suffering earning capacity and loss of income. She is suffering severe head ache and feels giddiness. Till today she cannot walk and completely bed ridden.
93. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Chidanand.K.J.C, Orthopedic surgeon as P.W.8 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. Further, he got marked Ex.P.75 and 76 i.e., OPD card and X-ray. He assessed permanent physical disability from upper and lower limb at 90% and to whole body disability at 26%.
94. In the cross-examination, PW.8 has admitted that he SCCH-14 69 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 has not treated the petitioner and he has assessed the disability after three years of accident. He has admitted that petitioner was stable at the time of discharge. Femur fracture is mal united. There is wasting of muscles but not shortening of limbs.
95. Upon careful consideration of the assessment of disability made by PW.8 keeping in mind the fact that PW.4 personally appeared before this court and deposed, also keeping in mind the nature of injuries sustained by PW.4 and the treatment which he has taken, Tribunal is of the view that the disability assessed appears to be at the higher rate. Hence, having regard to the medical records placed on record and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and by considering the nature of his work, I am of the opinion that considering the disability of the Petitioner with respect to the whole body at 20% would be just and proper.
96. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the SCCH-14 70 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 multiplier applicable to the Petitioner is 7. With multiplier of 7, income of Rs.15,000/- per month and disability of the Petitioner with respect to his whole body at 20%, the loss of future income comes to Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 x 7 x 20/100 =Rs.2,52,000/-). Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,52,000/- under this head.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
97. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 1,00.000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 60,000/-
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 18,000/-
diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs. 9,36,000/-
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 60,000/-
laid up period
6. Loss of Future income Rs. 2,52,000/-
Total Rs.14,26,000/-
Thus, totally the Petitioners are awarded compensation of SCCH-14 71 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Rs.14,26,000/- with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the Petition till the date of realization.
98. Regarding Liability in all the cases : As already discussed above, in this case the driver of the offending Eicher vehicle bearing No.KA-13-B-3967 has attributed 70% of the negligence towards accident and the driver of car has attributed 30% of the negligence towards accident. Therefore, Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay 70% of compensation to the respective petitioners as awarded. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in MVC.4269/2021 affirmative and Issue No.3 in MVC 4269/2021 partly affirmative, Issue No.2 in MVC.4270/2021, 4271/2021 and 4272/2021 as "Partly in the Affirmative".
99. Issue No.4 in MVC.4269/2021 and issue No.3 in MVC.4270/2021, 4271/2021 and 4272/2021 : In view of my findings on respective Issues of all the petitions, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-14 72 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
ORDER IN MVC.4269/2021 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioners against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioners are entitled for 70% of compensation amount of Rs.32,44,000/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
However, Respondent No.1 being the insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount as stated supra with interest at the rate of 6% p.a within 60 days from the date of this award.
Compensation amount awarded to the Petitioners are apportioned among them are as shown below:
1) 50% to the Petitioner No.1.SCCH-14 73 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
2) 25% each to the Petitioner No.2 and 3.
After being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner No.1 to 3, 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner No.1 to 3 by way of E- payment and after their proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner No.1 to 3 in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of their choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
Draw decree accordingly.
ORDER IN MVC.4270/2021 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for 70% of compensation amount of Rs.2,59,800/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the SCCH-14 74 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 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 being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E- payment and after his proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of his choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
Draw decree accordingly.
ORDER IN MVC.4271/2021 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner SCCH-14 75 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for 70% of compensation amount of Rs.7,43,500/- along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 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 being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E- payment and after her proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of SCCH-14 76 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of her choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
Draw decree accordingly.
ORDER IN MVC.4272/2021 The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for 70% of compensation amount of Rs.14,26,000/-
along with cost and simple interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of the Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioners.
The Respondent No.1 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.
SCCH-14 77 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021After being deposit of the Award amount and interest by the Respondent No.1, out of the amount awarded to the Petitioner 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E- payment and after her proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in the name of Petitioner in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of her choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- .
Draw decree accordingly.
Keep the Original Judgment in
MVC.4269/2021 and the copy of the
Judgment is kept in MVC.4270/2021,
MVC.4271/2021 and MVC.4272/2021.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 20th day of January, 2025) (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
SCCH-14 78 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Smt. Roopa P.W.2 : Sri Gopik Naik P.W.3 : Smt. Sneha A.S., P.W.4 : Smt. Shubbalakshmi K.@ Subbulakshmi P.W.5 : Dr. N. Chaitanya Babu P.W.6 : Sri Rakesh Kumar Shetty P.W.7 : Smt. Maragadam P.W.8 : Dr. Chidanand K.J.C Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Mahazar with Sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of PM report
Ex.P6 True copy of Inquest report
Ex.P7 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P8 Marriage Invitation covers and card
&9
Ex.P10 Marks cards
to 15
Ex.P16 Notarized copy of Aadhar card
SCCH-14 79 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021
Ex.P17 Notarized copy of Ration card
Ex.P18 Notarized copy of Marriage Certificate Ex.P19 Wound certificate Ex.P20 Discharge summary Ex.P21 Dental Medical Certificate Ex.P22 Prescriptions Ex.P23 16 Medical bills Ex.P24 Leave Certificate Ex.P25 X-ray Ex.P26 Referral letter Ex.P27 Notarized copy of DL Ex.P28 Discharge summary (2 in nos.) Ex.P29 Certificate dated 08.09.2023 Ex.P30 Medical bills (19 in nos. for sum of Rs.27,671/-
Ex.P31 X-ray (5 in nos.) Ex.P32 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P33 Discharge summaries (2 in numbers) Ex.P34 Medical bills (42 in numbers for sum of Rs.1,78,424/-) Ex.P35 Service Charges bill for sum of Rs.25,000/- Ex.P36 Prescriptions (3 in numbers) Ex.P37 X-ray (1) Ex.P38 Notarized copy of Degree Certificate SCCH-14 80 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Ex.P39 Service letter dated 22.05.2013 Ex.P40 Photographs (6 in numbers) Ex.P41 CD Ex.P42 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P43 Referral/Transfer letter dated 03.04.2021 Ex.P44 Discharge summaries (3 in numbers) Ex.P45 Medical bills (33 in numbers for sum of Rs.7,57,939/-) Ex.P46 Bills for sum of Rs.99,000/- of service charges of Sukhino Heath Care Solutions Center (3 in numbers for sum of Rs.1,78,000/-) Ex.P47 Prescriptions (8 in numbers) Ex.P48 X-rays (4 in numbers) Ex.P49 Examination summary of Chaithanya Dental clinic dated 10.03.2023 Ex.P50 Treatment summary dated 16.02.2024 Ex.P51 Medical bill (4 in numbers for sum of Rs.74,500/-) Ex.P52 X-rays (2 in numbers) Ex.P53 Recent examination sheet Ex.P54 Authorization Letter Ex.P55 List of records (2 in numbers pertaining to patient Mr.Gopik Naik and Mrs.Shubha Lakshmi SCCH-14 81 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Ex.P56 Inpatient records of Gopik Naik(2 in numbers) along with attested copy of medical bills Ex.P57 Inpatient record of Mrs.Shubha Lakshmi along with attested copy of medical bills Ex.P58 Authorization Letter Ex.P59 Case sheet of Gopik Naik Ex.P60 Case sheets of Mrs.Sneha (2 in numbers) & Ex.P61 Ex.P62 Case sheet of Mrs.Subbalakshmi Ex.P63 Attested medical bill of Mr.Gopik Naik Ex.P64 Attested medical bill of Mrs.Sneha Ex.P65 Attested medical bill of Mrs.Subbalakshmi Ex.P66 True copy of police intimation Ex.P67 True copy of MLC extract of Mr.Gopik Naik (Compared with the original, original is returned to the witness) Ex.P68 True copy of MLC of Mrs.Sneha(Compared with the original, original is returned to the witness) Ex.P69 True copy of MLC of Mrs.Subbalakshmi(Compared with the original, original is returned to the witness) Ex.P70 X-rays (9 in numbers) SCCH-14 82 MVC.4269/2021 to 4272/2021 Ex.P.71 OPD card of Gopik Naik Ex.P.72 X-ray of Gopik Naik Ex.P.73 OPD card of Sneha Ex.P.74 X-rays 2 in nos.of Sneha Ex.P.75 OPD card of Subbalakshmi Ex.P.76 X-rays 2 in nos.of Subbalakshmi Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Himendra Kartanil Simha M.N. Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R1 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.2 : Copy of Policy (D.RAMESH) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.