Bangalore District Court
Chaitra C vs Jagadish B.R on 4 January, 2024
KABC020190412020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
(SCCH24)
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated: This the 4th day of January 2024.
M.V.C. NO. 4570/2020 AND M.V.C. NO.4571/2020
PETITIONER/S: Sri.Doddaiah J
In MVC:4570/2020 S/o Jagappa,
Aged about 38 years,
B Doddahatti,
Byadanoor Post,
Pavagada, Tumkur Dist.,
Karnataka561 202.
As petitioner is in comatose
status, he is represented by
his wife, Smt.Shivamma K, as
a next friend to him.
SCCH24 2 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
PETITIONER/S: Kumari Chitra C
In MVC:4571/2020 S/o Chikka Chittappa,
Aged 15 years,
No.40, Ayappanagara,
K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru 560 048.
As petitioner is a minor, she
is represented by her father,
Chikka Chittappa,
S/o Eerappa,
Aged 47 years, as a natural
guardian.
Alternative Address:
B.Doddahatti village,
Pavagada Taluk,
Byandur,
Tumkur District561 202.
(By Sri R.Chandra Shekhar,
Advocate.)
V/S
RESPONDENT/S 1. Sri.Jagadish B.R,
In both the cases: Dead by his Lrs,
1(a) Smt.Shakunthala,
W/o Late, Jagadish B.R,
Aged 45 years,
1(b). Sri.Kishore J,
S/o Late Jagadish B.R,
Aged 23 years,
1(c) Sri.Nagaraju J,
S/o late, Jagadish B.R,
Aged 21 years,
SCCH24 3 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
No.135, Jakkasandra colony,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural Dist,
562123.
(Owner of the offending
vehicle)
2. Sri.Ravi Kumar,
S/o Nanjundaiah,
Aged 43 years,
No.67, Udukunte village,
Solur Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(Solvent Surety)
(R1 - By Sri T.Gururaju
R2 -By Sri T.Mohan
Advocates)
COMMONJUDGMENT
The petitioner in M.V.C. No.4570/2020 filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act
through his wife seeking compensation for the injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.4571/2020 filed claim
petition under Section 166 of Indian Motor Vehicles Act,
SCCH24 4 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
through his natural guardian, seeking compensation for the
injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
3. These two petitions have arisen out of same
accident. Petitioners and respondents are one and the same.
Therefore as per order on I.A.No.I, these two petitions have
been clubbed together for common evidence and common
disposal.
4. The case of the petitioners is as follows:
That on 13.07.2020 at 4.00 p.m., the petitioner in
M.V.C. No.4570/2020 was riding the bike bearing No.KA
50EC8264 and Chaitra who is the petitioner in MVC
No.4571/2020 was travelling as pillion rider from Bengaluru
side towards Tumkur side on BengaluruTumkur NH48
road and when they reached near Hanumanthapur gate , at
that time TATA Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA52A5184
driven by its driver came from opposite side in a high speed,
rash and negligently, in zigzag manner and hit to rear end of
petitioner's vehicle by driving towards the right side of the
road, as a result petitioners in both the cases sustained
injuries.
SCCH24 5 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
5. Immediately after the accident petitioner in MVC No.
4570/2020 was taken to Swasthya Hospital, Nelamangala
wherein admitted as an inpatient for 15 days and
underwent left frontotemporoparial craniotomy and
evacuation of depressed fracture and frontal contusion
under GA and as there was no consciousness even after
discharge from the hospital. Then he was shifted to Manipal
Hospitals wherein admitted as an inpatient from 30.07.2020
to 22.08.2020. He is still under comatose stage. The
petitioner is still under treatment an outpatient.
6. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy, was
aged 38 years and was sewage treatment plant contractor
and agriculturist and was earning Rs.4,00,000/ per
annum. The petitioner's wife submits that, petitioner has
suffered mental shock and agony, pain and sufferings,
disappointment, anguish, frustration, loss of physical
fitness, loss of amenities to life etc.,
7. Along with the petition , the petitioner has filed IA
no I under Order XXXII Rule 5 CPC to appoint the wife of
the petitioner as his next friend and permit the next friend
SCCH24 6 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
to represent the petitioner by adducing her evidence.
Accordingly he is represented by his wife as a next friend. It
is the case of the petitioner that he has suffered pain and
sufferings, permanent disability, loss of income, loss of
future income and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary
damages.
8. Immediately after the accident petitioner in MVC No.
4571/2020 was taken to Swasthya Hospital, Nelamangala
wherein admitted as an inpatient for one week and she is
still under treatment as an outpatient. So far the petitioner's
father has spent Rs.20, 000/ towards treatment and other
expenses. Petitioner was aged about 15 years, prior to the
accident, she was hale and healthy and was a student, due
to permanent disability she has suffered pain and
sufferings, permanent disability, loss of future income and
other pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages.
9. Respondent No.1 - Owner of the alleged offending
car has contended that he is a registered owner of the
offending vehicle and further contended that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the car and the driver
of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective
SCCH24 7 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
driving license as on the date o accident. Further it is
submitted that the claim of the petitioners made in the
petition is exorbitant and highly excessive. Contending thus
respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. Respondent no.2 has contended in the written
statement that he only stood as surety for release of the
offending vehicle TATA Ace bearing No.KA52A5185 in
Cr.No.246/2020 of Nelamangala Traffic police station and
the Hon'ble Civil Judge and JMFC court Nelamangala has
passed an order to indemnity for Rs.2, 50,000/ for vehicle
value only. It is further contended that as per Act, he is not
necessary party to adjudicate the matter. He is not the
owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Contending thus
respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed
application u/o XXII rule 3 of CPC with affidavit, stated that
the 1st respondent no.1 i.e., Jagadish B.R was died on 22
082021 and hence his LRs are brought on record as R.1(a)
to (c).
SCCH24 8 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
12. The Lrs of the respondent no.1 (a) to (c) appeared
through their counsel and filed written statement and have
denied the case of the petitioners as false and contended
that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner
in the claim petition is exorbitant, baseless and excessive.
They are contended that the respondent is a registered
owner of the TATA ACE bearing No.KA52A5184. They are
denied that the respondent vehicle dashed against the
petitioner and also denied the involvement of their vehicle in
the accident. They have further contended that at the
relevant point of time the rider of the aforesaid vehicle was
holding valid and effective driving license. It is further
contended that the 1st respondent was died on 22.08.2021;
the Lrs of the respondent no.1 are not liable to indemnify.
Contending thus respondent No.1 (a) to (c) has prayed to
dismiss the petition.
13. On the basis of the above pleadings the following
issues are framed in M.V.C.No. 4570/2020 .
ISSUES
1. Whether IA No I filed under Order 32
Rule 5 CPC deserves to be allowed?
SCCH24 9 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he
met with a motor vehicle accident on
13.07.2020 at about 4.00 p.m., on
BengaluruTumakuru NH48 road,
near Hanumanthapura gate,
Nelamangala, Bengaluru District and
sustained grievous injuries due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver
of Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA
52A5184?
3. Whether the petitioner proves that he
is entitled to the compensation
amount as claimed? If so from whom
and to what extent?
4. What order or Award?
14. On the basis of the above pleadings the following
issues are framed in M.V.C.No.4571/2020
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she met
with a motor vehicle accident on 13.07.2020
at about 4.00 p.m., on BengaluruTumakuru
NH48 road, near Hanumanthapura gate,
Nelamangala, Bengaluru District and
sustained grievous injuries due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of Tata Ace
vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA52A5184?
SCCH24 10 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is
entitled to the compensation amount as
claimed? if so from whom and to what
extent?
3. What Order or Award?
15. The petitioner in M.V.C.No.4570/2020, the wife/next
friend of the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and examined
two witnesses as PW.3 and Pw.4 and produced documents
as per Exs.P.1 to 21, 26 to 37.
16. The Petitioner in MVC No.4571/2020 in order to
prove his case, has examined her natural guardian/father
Mr.Chikka Chittappa as PW.2 and one witness as P.W.5 and
got marked Ex.P22 to Ex.P25, Ex.P.42 to 45 and Ex.P38
to 41 and closed the evidence on petitioner's side.
17. The respondent No. 2 has examined himself as
RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
18. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.
SCCH24 11 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
19. My findings on the above issues in
M.V.C.No.4570/2020 are as follows:
Issue No. 1 : Already decided in the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No. 3 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No. 4 : As per final Order.
for the following :
20. My findings on the above issues in
M.V.C.No.4571/2020 are as follows:
Issue No. 1 - In the Affirmative,
Issue No. 2 - Partly in the affirmative,
Issue No. 3 As per final Order,
for the following :
REASONS
21. Issue No.2 and 3 in M.V.C.NO.4570/2020 and
Issue no.1 and 2 M.V.C.No.4571/2020: As these issues
are interconnected they are taken up together for common
discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
The wife / next friend of petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4570/2020 is examined as PW.1 and the nautral
SCCH24 12 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
guardian / father of Petitioner in MVC No.4571/2020
namely Chittappa is examined as PW.2. They have
specifically stated in their chief examination that the TATA
ACE vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA52A5184 came from
opposite side in a high speed in a zig zag manner and hit to
the rear end of bike by driving towards the right side of the
road in which the petitioner/Doddaiah and
petitioner/Chitra were traveling and caused the accident.
22. The respondents no 1 and 2 have seriously
disputed the manner of accident one stated by the
petitioners and submitted that rash and negligent driving of
the two wheeler by the Pw1 himself is the sole cause for the
accident.
23. There is no serious dispute as to the involvement
of offending vehicle in the accident. In order to explain the
actionable negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle,
PW.1 and PW.2 have relied police records more particularly
the Police intimation, FIR with complaint, spot mahazar,
sketch, charge sheet and order sheet maintained in CC No.
246/2020 registered against the respondent No.1. On
perusal of the above said documents it reveals that on the
SCCH24 13 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
basis of the complaint lodged by PW.2, case was registered
against respondent no.1 before Nelamangala PS and after
investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondent
No.1.
24. If spot mahazar and sketch at ExP3 and Ex.P.4 is
perused, the width of the road at the spot of accident is
nearly 30 feet and the spot of accident is on the extreme left
edge of the road leads from Bangalore to Thumkur. It means
the original respondent no1 by driving his vehicle from
Thumkur towards Bangalore by taking his vehicle on the
extreme right side of the road hit against the vehicle of the
petitioners result of which this accident has occurred . The
scene of occurrence itself is sufficient to hold that the rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the original
respondent no1 itself is the sole cause for the accident,
hence only case was registered against the driver / owner of
the offending vehicle and after investigation filed charge
sheet against the respondent no1. It is during the course of
trial in criminal case, the original respondent no1 / accused
was died, hence the criminal case registered against the
accused was abated and accordingly case registered against
SCCH24 14 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
the accused / respondent no1 was closed. In the result
above issues are answered in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.3 in M.V.C.No.4570/2020:
The wife/next friend of the petitioner has given
evidence to the effect of petitioner/Doddaiah J sustained
grievous injuries. As observed earlier, petitioner has
produced medical documents which are at Ex.P7, 9 to 12.
On going through the medical documents it reveals that
soon after the accident the petitioner was shifted to
Swasthya Hospital, Bangalore, wherein admitted as an
inpatient from 13.07.2020 to 27.07.2020, then he was
shifted to Manipal Hospital wherein admitted as an
inpatient from 30.07.2020 to 22.08.2020. Again he was
admitted to Manipal Hospital, Bangalore from 21.10.2021 to
22.10.2021, in all for a period of 41 days. The petitioner has
sustained severe head injury. As per wound certificate the
petitioner has sustained one injury which is grievous in
nature.
26. Dr.Priyamvadha Kovai, Consultant Neurosurgeon
at Manipal Hospital, is examined as Pw3 and marked recent
examination report, OPD record, inpatient records, CT Brain
SCCH24 15 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
reports and xray reports as Ex.P.28 to 31. P.W.3 has
deposed that he assessed the neurological status of the
petitioner when he was brought to Manipal Hospital
emergency on 30.07.2020. His Glasgow coma scale (GCS)
was E4VTM3 with unequal sized pupils. There was no visual
tracking. The left side cranial flap was lax and he had a
tracheotomy which was blocked with secretions. NCCT
Brain was done on 30/7/2020 which showed a craniotomy
defect in the left frontotemporoparietal region. The Pw3 after
elaborately deposing about the nature of treatment given to
the petitioner in their hospital further deposed that even
after lapse of 2 years and four months the neurological
status of petitioner has not shown any improvement. It is
deposed that the Glasgow outcome score is 2 which
indicates a persistent vegetative state. The petitioner does
not have awareness of himself or to the surroundings and
that petitioner does not respondent to the verbal commands
and he is not conscious though he has eye opening. He
requires constant daily care and cannot be left unattended
at any time. It is further deposed by Pw3 the treated doctor
that chances of neurological improvements are unlikely as it
is more than 2 years since the time of the head injury . He is
completely dependent on others for his existence and his
SCCH24 16 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
functional disability is 100%. It is the categorical contention
taken by the respondents that if the petitioner was properly
treated in Swathsya Hospital and if the petitioner had taken
treatment from 27/7/2020 to 30/7/020 the injuries
sustained by the petitioner would not have been aggravated,
for which Pw3 deposed that since petitioner had severe
traumatic brain injury with low GCS score of less than 8 he
requires very prolonged rehabilitation therapy and that the
low GCS must have happened right at the time of the said
injury only and it was unlikely to happen after discharge
from Swasthya Hospital. It is deposed by Pw3 that the
petitioner even now also in vegetative condition. It is clearly
deposed by Pw3 that there is no chances of improvement in
the neuro rehabilitation condition of the patient because if
there is any chances of improvement his condition would
have been improved in all these years. It is deposed by Pw3
that as per Glasco outcome score, his score is 2 which
indicates a vegetative state of the patient.
27. It is relevant to state here that on 17/11/2023 the
petitioner was brought to the court in Stretchers to observe
the present condition of the petitioner. As this court has
observed the condition of the petitioner he is in vegetative
SCCH24 17 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
condition. The petitioner is in the similar state since from
the date of accident i.e from 13/7/2020 till this date. i,e
even after lapse of three years and there is no improvement
in the condition of the petitioner.
28. In a ruling reported in 2023 ACJ 490 between
Manjunath / Sunil and Another, the injured aged about 27
years suffered brain hemorrhage with damaged frontal and
temporal lobes affecting his memory. Tribunal in absence of
evidence of doctor regarding disability suffered by the
injured awarded certain sum towards medical expenses and
pain and agony. The injured was examined by a doctor
pursuant to an order of appellate court who opined that
insured's memory is decreasing he is unable to do any work
and assessed permanent disability at 50 percent. Appellant
court taking in to consideration the notional income of the
petitioner added 40 percent of income towards future
prospects adopted multiplier 18, considering that injured
cannot do any work assessed functional disability of 100
percent
29. When petitioner is not in a position to get up from
the bed and when since three years he is in lying condition
depending upon his family members to do all his day to day
SCCH24 18 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
work under, such circumstances the court has to consider
without any second thought the physical and functional
disability of the petitioner as 100%.
30. Hence considering the nature of injuries sustained,
period of treatment taken, this court is of the opinion that
petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads.
31. Towards pain and sufferings, petitioner shown to
have sustained grievous injury. Hence taking in to
consideration the nature of injury sustained by the
petitioner and time taken for treatment and sufferings
during the treatment it is reasonable to hold that petitioner
is entitled for sum of Rs.1,50,000/ towards pain and
suffering.
32. So far as medical expenses incurred by the Next
friend of the petitioner is concerned, Pw1 has produced 57
medical bills for Rs.9,00,852/ and two advance receipts at
Ex.P.16 and 17 . In the cross examination of PW.1 nothing
worth is elicited to disprove these bills but only suggestions
are put about creation of medical bills and said suggestion
has been denied by the Pw1. Hence this court inclines to
SCCH24 19 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
award compensation under the medical head to the tune of
Rs.9,00,000/.
33. It is stated that petitioner was 38 years and he
was sewage treatment plant contractor and agriculturist and
was earning Rs.4,00,000/ per annum. The petitioner has
produced IT returns for the assessment year 20192020
along with balance sheet as per Ex.P.15. It is only for the
financial year of 20192020 the income tax return is
produced but not three years so as to assess the average
monthly income of the petitioner . When petitioner has not
substantiated his monthly income with cogent materials,
this court considering the age of the petitioner, the year of
accident and place of residence of the petitioner considers
the income of the petitioner as Rs.14,500/ p.m.
34. When percentage of functional disability of
petitioner is taken as 100% and court proceeds to award
compensation under the head loss of future income by
considering the functional disability of petitioner at 100%
under such circumstances the question of awarding
compensation under the head loss of income during laid
down period does not arise .
SCCH24 20 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
35. From the evidence of Pw1 and as borne out by
medical records, petitioner has taken treatment for several
times. Further for 41 days of hospitalization requires an
attendant, was traveled to hospital for treatment. He has
taken nourishment and need further nourishment at this
age and incurred other incidental expenses therefore all
together incidental expenses is assessed at Rs.1,50,000/
taking in to consideration the cost of living and value of the
money during the year 2020 .
36. The petitioner has contended that he is aged
about 38 years as on the date of accident. Petitioner has
produced Ex.P13/Aadhar card and Ex.P.27/DL of the
petitioner which shows his date of birth as 01061982 that
means he was aged 38 years. Hence considering the Aadhar
card and DL this court has taken the age of the petitioner as
38 years.
37. So taking in to consideration the monthly income
of the petitioner having considered by this tribunal as
Rs.14,500/ p.m. To this amount future prospect of 40% will
have to be added which would result in the monthly income
SCCH24 21 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
of petitioner at Rs.20,300/. When the age of the petitioner
at the time of accident was 38 years, as per Sarla Varma's
case the multiplier applicable to the age group of 36 to 40 is
'15'. So by applying the multiplier '15' the future loss of
income due to disability comes to Rs.20,300 x12x100%x15 =
36,54,000/ Hence this Tribunal holds that the petitioner is
entitled for Rs.36,54,000/ towards future loss of income
due to disability.
38. The petitioner at his age of 38 years has suffered
grievous head injury and he is in vegetative condition and
not in a position to do any work and to enjoy the life . Hence
the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.1,00,000/ under the
head loss of amenities and discomfort.
39. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation
as follows:
Sl.No Heads Amount
1. Towards pain & sufferings Rs. 1,50,000/
2. Towards Conveyance, Attendant Rs. 1,50,000/
charges and nourishing food
3. Medical expenses Rs. 9,00,000/
4. Loss of Future Income Rs.36,54,000/
5 Loss of amenities and Rs. 1,00,000/
SCCH24 22 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
discomfort
Total Rs.49,54,000/
Therefore this court holds that petitioner is entitled for
Rs.49,54,000/ Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Four
Thousand only).
40. Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.4571/2020:
The petitioner has given evidence to the effect of his
daughter/minor petitioner sustained grievous injuries. As
observed earlier, petitioner has produced wound certificate
which is at Ex.P.22, it shows that petitioner has sustained
open CLW over the fore head around 5cm and open CLW
over the upper lip.
41. Mr.Lakshmikantha _Medical Record Officer at
Swathya Hospital, Nelamanagala is examined as PW.5 and
produced police intimation, MLC register, 2 case sheet and
xray film as per Ex.P.38 and 41.
42. The Petitioner, as on the date of accident,
admittedly was a minor. Therefore, she was not an earning
member. As per the decision of Hon'ble supreme court
reported in ILR 2014 Kar 4891 rendered in Master
SCCH24 23 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
Mallikarjun Vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance
having regard to relevant factors, precedents and approach
of various Hon'ble high courts with regard to the
compensation of the child victims, held that appropriate
compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual
expenditure for treatment, attendant etc., should be
Rs.1,00,000/ disability up to 10%, if the disability is above
10% and up to 30% to whole body 3 lakhs: up to 60% 4
lakhs: up to 90% 5 lakhs and above 90%, it should be 6
lakhs. In the present case the Petitioner has not lead the
evidence of the doctor to prove the disability. Wound
certificate as per Ex.P.22 the petitioner has sustained
simple cosmetic injuries. As per Ex. P22 the petitioner got
admitted to swasthya hospital on 13/7/2020 and got
discharged on 15/7/2020 for a period of 3 days as
impatient . Further the petitioner has produced the medical
bill for Rs 29,300/ . At the time of accident the petitioner
was aged about 15 years and student. As petitioner who is
lady of the age of 15 years has sustained simple cosmetic
injury, it definitely would have caused some amount of
disfiguration loss of amenities and discomfort. Hence
SCCH24 24 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
petitioner is entitled for a global compensation of
Rs,1,25,000/.
43. As regarding liability is concerned, the petitioners
have claimed compensation from the owner of the offending
vehicle so also from the respondent no 2 who stood as surety
for the respondent no1 in the criminal case registered in Cr.
No.246/2020 against the respondent no1. Admittedly
offending vehicle had no insurance coverage. If EX.P21 i.e
the order sheet in Cr. No 246/2020 on the file Civil Judge
and JMFC Court Nelamangala registered against the
respondent no 1 / accused for the offence punishable under
section 279 and 337 of IPC is perused, during the course of
investigation the offending vehicle was seized and reported to
the court in PF NO 23/2020. Accordingly the respondent
no1 / accused filed application under section 451 and 457
Cr.P.C for release of the offending vehicle. The Magistrate
court after taking in to consideration Karnataka MV Rules
232 G has ordered to release the vehicle in favor of the
respondent no1 subject to the condition that applicant /
respondent no1 executing indemnity bond for Rs.2,50,000/
with surety for like sum with bank guarantee, that applicant
SCCH24 25 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
shall furnish indemnity bond and surety bond which he
shall undertake with regard to the satisfaction of the award
of the clams tribunal in future, that the applicant shall
execute the affidavit of himself and obtain another affidavit
from the surety for security purpose in release of vehicle
with a condition that claimant and surety shall pay the
amount which the claim tribunal passes in future.
44. If notification in 232G(1) of Karnataka MV Rules 232
G is perused , it is held that " No court shall release a motor
vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death or bodily
injury or damage to property , when such vehicle is not
covered by the policy of insurance against the 3rd party risks
taken in the name of registered owner or when the registered
owner fails to furnish copy of such insurance policy despite
demand by investigation police officer unless and until the
registered owner furnishes sufficient security to the
satisfaction of the court to pay compensation that may be
awarded in a claim case arising out of such accident.
45. Where the motor vehicle is not covered by a policy
against third party risk or when registered owner of the
motor vehicle fails to furnish copy of such policy in
SCCH24 26 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
circumstances mentioned in sub rule (1) , the Motor vehicle
shall be sold off in public auction by the Magistrate having
jurisdiction over the area where accident occurred . On
expiry of three months of the vehicle being taken in
possession by the investigation police officer and proceeds
there of shall be deposited with the claim tribunal having
jurisdiction over the area in question, with in fifteen days for
the purpose of satisfying the compensation that may have
been awarded or may be awarded in a claim case arising out
of such accident.
46. If the aforesaid provision is perused, it is no where
provided that the surety is personally held liable for
compensation going to be awarded by the claim tribunal .
The bond executed by surety is limited to the extent of
release of the vehicle to the interim custody of the claimant
with an under taking that in case if the claimants failed to
comply the condition, the surety will be liable to pay the
bond amount.
47. Hence this court is of the opinion that respondent
no 2 is not at all a necessary party, he is no way related to
the accident in question. He is neither the owner nor the
SCCH24 27 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
driver of the offending vehicle. The mere fact that the
respondent no2 stood as surety for release of vehicle before
the Magistrate court it cannot be said that he is also liable to
compensate the petitioners. The respondent no1 being the
legal heirs of the deceased respondent no1 are liable to pay
compensation only to the extent of properties if any left
behind by the deceased respondent no1 and they are not
personally liable to pay the compensation. The remedy is left
open to the petitioners to recover the compensation from out
of the sale proceeds of the offending vehicle or if any other
property left behind by the deceased respondent no1.
Hence, the respondent no1 (a) to (C) are held liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioners to the extent of
properties left behind by the respondent no1. The
compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. In
the result Issue No. 3 are answered partly in the Affirmative.
48. Issue No.4 in MVC No.4570/2020 and Issue no 3
M.V.C.No.4571/2020 : In the light of findings given on
Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC No.4570/2020 and issue no 1 and
SCCH24 28 MVC 4570/2020 c/w
4571 of 2020
2 in MVC No.4571/2020, finding on this issue is as per the
following final order.
ORDER
The claim petitions filed by the petitioner in MVC No.4570/2020 and MVC No.4571/2020 are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner in MVC No.4570/2020 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.49,54,000/ Rupees Forty Nine Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
The Petitioner in MVC. No.4571/2020 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/ (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Five Thousand only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.
SCCH24 29 MVC 4570/2020 c/w 4571 of 2020 The respondent no 1(a) to (c) are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and are directed to deposit the compensation along with interest at 6% p.a within 2 months from the date of award.
On deposit of the said amount and interest, in MVC No.4570/2020, 50% of compensation payable to the petitioner shall be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank of the choice of petitioner for a period of 3 years and the remaining 50% shall be released to the petitioner through Epayment on proper identification.
The entire compensation amount and interest in MVC No.4571/202, is ordered to be deposited in the name of the minor Petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank till he attains the age of majority with liberty to withdraw periodical interest for the welfare of the minor petitioner.
SCCH24 30 MVC 4570/2020 c/w 4571 of 2020 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ each in MVC No.4570/2020 and 4571/2020 Keep the original Judgment in MVC No.4570/2020 and the copy in MVC No.4571/2020.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 4th day of January 2024 .) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of petitioners: Pw1 Smt. Shivamma K Pw2 Mr.Chikka Chittappa Pw3 Dr.Priyamvadha Kovai Pw4 Lakshmi Kanth L.C Pw5 Lakshmi Kanth L.C SCCH24 31 MVC 4570/2020 c/w 4571 of 2020 List of documents marked on behalf of petitioners: Ex.P1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P2 : True copy of FIS Ex.P3 : True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P4 : True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P5 : True copy of seizure Mahazar Ex.P6 : True copy of MVA report Ex.P7 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P8 : True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P9 : Discharge summary issued by Swastya Hospital (two pages) Ex.P10 : Discharge summary issued by Manipal Hospitals (seven pages) Ex.P11 : Another Discharge summary issued by Manipal Hospitals (four pages) Ex.P12 : Referral letter issued by Swastya Hospital (two pages) Ex.P13 : Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of petitioner and guardian of the petitioner (compared with originals and originals are returned) Ex.P14 : Notarized copy of Ration card of family of petitioner (compared with originals and originals are returned) Ex.P15 : IT return for the assessment year 201920 alongwith balance sheet (five pages) Ex.P16 : 57 medical bills for Rs.9,00,852/ Ex.P17 : Two advance receipts SCCH24 32 MVC 4570/2020 c/w 4571 of 2020 Ex.P.18 : Three outpatient records issued by Manipal Hospitals (six pages) Ex.P.19 : Two Hematology reports Ex.P.20 : Eight CT scan films Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of ordersheet in Cr.No.246/2020 alongwith PF, objections for releasing of the offending vehicle, Requisition for assessment of value of the offending vehicle alongwith valuation fixed report with letter (totally 13 pages) Ex.P.22 : True copy of wound certificate Ex.P.23 : Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of PW.2 and the petitioner (compared with originals and originals are returned) Ex.P.24 : Notarized copy of Ration card of family of petitioner (compared with originals and originals are returned) Ex.P.25 : Inpatient bill issued by Swastya Hospital for Rs.29,300/.
Ex.P26 : One Photo with CD Ex.P27 : Notarized copy of DL of petitioner
Sri.Doddaiah (compared with original and same is returned) Ex.P.28 : Recent examination report (OPD record) (two pages) Ex.P.29 : OPD record (23 pages) Ex.P.30 Two Inpatient record in three files Ex.P.31 : CTBrain reports and Xray reports Ex.P.32 : Authorization letter SCCH24 33 MVC 4570/2020 c/w 4571 of 2020 Ex.P.33 : Notarized copy of Police intimation Ex.P.34 : Notarized copy of MLC register Ex.P.35 & : 2 case sheet 36 Ex.P.37 : 6 xray film Ex.P.38 Copy of Police Intimation Ex.P.39 : copy of MLC register Ex.P.40 : 2 case sheet Ex.P.41 : one Xray Ex.P.42 : Notarized copy of lease agreement (Compared with original and returned to witness) Ex.P.43 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner (Compared with original and returned to witness) Ex.P.44 Notarized copy of study certificate2 in nos (Compared with original and returned to witness) Ex.P.45 Notarized copy of SSLC marks of petitioner (Compared with original and returned to witness) List of witnesses examined for respondents: RW.1 Mr.Ravi Kumar List of documents marked on behalf of respondents: Ex.R1 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of respondent no.1 (compared with original and returned to the witness) Ex.R2 Certified copy of order sheet in CC No.4965/2020 XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.