Bangalore District Court
Since The Bus Belongs To Him Is No Way ... vs No.1 Through Rpad on 25 April, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 25th day of April, 2016.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),LL.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.4382/2013
C/w. M.V.C.No.4383/2013
Smt. Bhavani, ..... PETITIONER IN
W/o. Stanley, M.V.C.No.4382/2013
Aged about 28 years,
Plot No.5,
Opp: CPRI Sub Station,
1st Cross, Ashwathanagara,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. M.C.Mallikarjuna Swamy,
Adv.,)
V/s
1.ICICI Lombard General ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Insurance Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.4382/2013
Zenith House,
Keshavarao Kade Marg,
Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai - 400 034.
(Insurer)
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Tourism
Development Corporation,
SCCH-7 2 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
No.49, 2nd Floor,
West Entrance,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 01.
(Owner of Mini KSTDC Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984)
3. Mohammed Shafiulla,
S/o. Peer Sab,
KSTDC Driver,
New Gurappanapalya,
9th Cross, Jayanagara,
Bangalore.
(R-1 By Sri. A. N. Hegadi, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. B. L. Sanjeev, Adv.,)
(R-3 Deleted)
Mr. Stanley, ..... PETITIONER IN
M.V.C.No.4383/2013
S/o. Late Robert Holland,
Aged about 34 years,
Plot No.5,
Opp: CPRI Sub Station,
1st Cross, Ashwathnagar,
Bangalore - 94.
Mr. Stanley,
S/o. Late Robert Holland,
Aged about 34 years,
No.102, GCB Lay-out,
Devinagar,
RMV 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-94.
(By Sri. M.C.Mallikarjuna Swamy,
Adv.,)
SCCH-7 3 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
V/s
1.ICICI Lombard General ..... RESPONDENTS IN
Insurance Company Ltd., M.V.C.No.4383/2013
Zenith House,
Keshavarao Kade Marg,
Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai - 400 034.
(Insurer)
2. The Managing Director,
Karnataka State Tourism
Development Corporation,
No.49, 2nd Floor,
West Entrance,
Khanija Bhavan,
Race Course Road,
Bangalore - 01.
(Owner of Mini KSTDC Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984)
3. Mohammed Shafiulla,
S/o. Peer Sab,
KSTDC Driver,
New Gurappanapalya,
9th Cross, Jayanagara,
Bangalore.
(R-1 By Sri. A.N.Hegadi, Adv.,)
(R-2 By Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, Adv.,)
(R-3 Deleted)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 03.03.2015 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.4382/2013, M.V.C.No.4383/2014 is clubbed with the
SCCH-7 4 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
said M.V.C.No.4382/2013 and the common evidence is recorded
in the said case. Hence, M.V.C.No.4382/2013 and
M.V.C.No.4383/2013 are pending for consideration and disposal
before this Tribunal by passing a common judgment.
2. It is pertinent to note here that, initially, the Petitioners
in both the cases have filed these two petitions as against the
Respondents No.1 to 3 and as per the Order dated 22.08.2014
passed on Memo filed by the Learned Counsel appearing for both
the petitioners, the name of the Respondent No.3 is deleted from
the cause title of both the petitions. Hence, the petitions filed by
both the Petitioners are pending for consideration and disposal
only as against the Respondents No.1 and 2.
3. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- with current interest at the
rate of 18% p.a.
4. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.4382/2013 are as follows;
a) On 01.10.2011 at about 6-15 a.m., she along with her
husband Stanley and some other persons started from Bangalore
moving towards Shravanabelagola, in Mini Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984, which belongs to KSTDC. The
Bus was driven by the third Respondent was moving through
SCCH-7 5 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Nelamangala, with high speed and also negligently. When the Bus
moving on N.H.48, near Herur Mariyamma's Areca Nut Garden,
Kunigal Taluk, the driver of Mini Bus drove rashly and tried to
overtake a Car, which was moving in the same direction and
dashed the Car. The impact was such that, the Car was turtle and
fell in to the ditch and Mini Bus, in which, she and other
passengers were traveling also turtle by dashing the road divider.
As the Bus turtle, all the passengers of the Bus have sustained
grievous injuries and one of the passenger, by name, Lakshmi
Soujanya died on the spot. The inmates of the Car also sustained
bleeding injuries. All the passengers and she has sustained
grievous injuries have went in some other Car and took first aid at
Government Hospital, Kunigal.
b) She was immediately shifted to Bangalore Rajamahal
Vilas Hospital, wherein, the Doctors have taken X-ray and gave
treatment for the fracture of both clavicles. As per the advise of
the Doctors, she went home and took complete rest for six weeks.
But, she was not able to walk as usually for more than 3 to 4
months due to the injuries caused to both clavicles and due to
blunt injury over right back. Within a month, i.e., by the end of
October 2011, she suffered abortion due to radiation and
medication, as, she was carrying nearly two months at that time.
c) She was not attending the duties more than 10
months, hence, sustained loss of salary, which she was earning
earlier to the accident and at the same accident her husband also
sustained injuries grievously.
SCCH-7 6 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
d) She had spent Rupees 1,00,000/- towards her medical
expenses. But, as on this day, she is still suffering from pain in
both shoulders and unable to carry out her daily activities and the
Doctors have advised to take treatment for some more time.
e) The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of
the Bus driver. The jurisdictional Police have booked Criminal
case as against the said Respondent for the offences committed
under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
f) Both the insurer and insured are jointly liable to pay
compensation to her, who sustained grievous injuries and caused
disability to her. Her husband has to look after family, but, he also
sustained injuries from same accident. She has no other source of
income for her livelihood except salary.
g) She has not claimed any compensation under Section
140 before any other Authority. Hence, this petition.
5. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1 through RPAD, it was remained absent and
hence, it was placed as exparte on 07.08.2014. Later, the
Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its
Learned Counsel and as per the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed
on I.A.No.II, the exparte order is set-aside and the Respondent
No.1 is taken on file. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written
statement. Later, as per the Order dated 18.06.2015 passed on
SCCH-7 7 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
I.A.No.III, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is
taken on file.
6. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 24.09.2013. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 22.02.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. The
Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement.
7. As per the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed on Memo
filed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
name of the Respondent No.3 is deleted from the cause title of the
petition.
8. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) It does not admit that, they had issued a policy gto the
alleged Bus bearing No.KA-01-AA-5984 and the same is valid on
the date of accident.
b) The insured has not been furnished with the
particulars of the vehicle, including, permit as also the driving
licence of the person, who was driving a vehicle and the cause for
accident giving raise to the said claim petition. Without these
particulars, insurer finds it difficult to submit an effective
SCCH-7 8 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
statement of objections. Since, these particulars are not
immediately available the insurer is obliged to file this statement
and hence, the statement is filed with liberty to file elaborate
statement of objections on receipt of the material particulars and
information referred to above. The insurer does not admit having
insured the vehicle involved in the accident. The liability of the
insurer is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and
subject to there being a valid permit in respect of the insured
vehicle. The insurer's liability is subject to the validity of DL and
other documents referred to above.
c) It prays and reserves its right to amend its statement
of objections and also take over the defence of the insured in the
event of the owner does not contest the proceedings, if, the policy
is confirmed. As such, as enabled under Section 170 of M.V. Act,
1988, it may be permitted to contest the claim of the petition both
in regard to actionable negligence and the quantum of
compensation, if policy was valid on the date of accident. Besides,
the attempts of the insurer to defend insured and avail all the
defences are enabled by Condition No.2 in the Policy came to be
incorporated in the contract of indemnity by reason of the
observation of the Apex Court in Para 16 of AIR 1959 SC 1331.
d) It is learnt that, the accident occurred on account of
actionable negligence of the two vehicles, which are involved in the
accident. Another vehicle Car also negligently driving by its driver,
he swerved his right turn and came in the line of motion of the
said Bus. Both vehicles should be made a part to the proceedings.
SCCH-7 9 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
But, claimant failed to implead the owner and insurer of the Car,
it is a bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
e) The claim for award of compensation of Rupees
5,00,000/- is exaggerated and unrelated to the injuries suffered
by the claimant. The injuries are simple in nature. It is obvious
that, the claimant is trying to convert an unfortunate incident into
a windfall.
f) It seeks leave of the Hon'ble Court to file additional
statement of objections and produce documents, which may be
discovered by the insurer in the course of trial.
g) In the event of this Hon'ble Court passing an award for
compensation, the rate of interest shall not exceed 6% in view of
the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Geetha's Case and reiterated in Jagadisha's Case vide AIR 1972
SC 2466, ILR 1990 Kar 4384, ILR 2000 KAR 1098, ILR 2000 KAR
3809 and ILR 2001 KAR 493. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
9. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) The allegations made in the petition are false,
mischievous and mollified and the Petitioner is put to strict proof
of the same.
SCCH-7 10 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
b) The driver of the Mini Bus drove the vehicle carefully
and cautiously and by following the traffic rules and as such, he is
not responsible for that accident.
c) It is not liable to pay any compensation to the
Petitioner since the Bus belongs to him is no way responsible for
the accident. The averments in the claim petition that, the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of KSTDC Mini Bus is false and baseless and the Petitioner
is put to strict proof of the same. The Petitioner, with an ulterior
motive to make unlawful gain, has filed this petition by fabricating
a story.
d) The averments in the petition that, the Petitioner was
working as Executive Administrator in 'Swamy Transport Agency',
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore and was earning Rupees 15,000/- per
month is without any basis and such a plea is taken just to suit
his convenience and hence, the Petitioner is put to strict proof of
the same.
e) Without prejudice to the earlier contentions, the
Petitioner's claim for compensation of Rupees 5,00,000/- under
different heads is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary and
he made such a excessive claim for the reason that, there is no
Court fee payable on the petition.
f) The Petitioner has made the claim for a huge sum by
fabricating a story to suit his convenience and to make unlawful
SCCH-7 11 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
gain. Further, the Petitioner has filed the claim petition by
suppressing the true facts, which lead to the accident.
g) He reserves his right to file additional statement at a
later stage in the changed facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
10. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013 has filed the
said petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, praying to award
compensation of Rupees 2,50,000/- with current interest at the
rate of 18% p.a.
11. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in M.V.C.
No.4383/2014 are as follows;
a) On 01.10.2011 at about 6-15 a.m., he along with his
wife Bhavani and some other persons started from Bangalore
moving towards Shravanabelagola, in Mini Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984, which belongs to KSTDC. The
Bus was driven by the third Respondent was moving through
Nelamangala, with high speed and also negligently. When the Bus
moving on N.H.48, near Herur Mariyamma's Areca Nut Garden,
Kunigal Taluk, the driver of Mini bus drove rashly and tried to
overtake a Car, which was moving in the same direction and
dashed the Car. The impact was such that, the Car was turtle and
fell in to the ditch and Mini Bus also turtle by dashing the road
divider. As the Bus turtle, all the passengers of the Bus have
sustained grievous injuries and one of the passenger, by name,
SCCH-7 12 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Lakshmi Soujanya died on the spot. The inmates of the Car also
sustained bleeding injuries. All the passengers and he has
sustained grievous injuries have went in some other Car and took
first aid at Government Hospital, Kunigal.
b) Immediately shifted to Bangalore Rajamahal Vilas
Hospital, wherein, the Doctors have taken X-ray and gave
treatment for right elbow sprain and clavicle sprain. As per the
advise of the Doctors, he went home and took complete rest for
two months. But, he was not able to work as usually for more
than 6 months due to the injuries caused to right elbow sprain
and cervical sprain. He was not attending the duties more than 3
months, hence, sustained loss of salary, which he was earning
earlier to the accident and at the same accident, his wife also
sustained injuries grievously. His wife is also working and has to
lost her salary during that period.
c) He has spent Rupees 50,000/- towards her medical
expenses. But, as on this day, he is still suffering from headache
due to cervical sprain and unable to work and the Doctors have
advised to take treatment for some more time.
d) The accident was due to rash and negligent driving of
the Bus driver. The jurisdictional Police have booked Criminal
case as against the said Respondent for the offences committed
under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
e) Both the insurer and insured are jointly liable to pay
compensation to him, who sustained grievous injuries and caused
SCCH-7 13 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
disability to him. He has to look after his family, but, he has no
other source of income for his livelihood except salary. Hence, this
petition.
12. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.1 through RPAD, it was remained absent and
hence, it was placed as exparte on 07.08.2014. Later, the
Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through its
Learned Counsel and as per the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed
on I.A.No.II, the exparte order is set-aside and the Respondent
No.1 is taken on file. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient
opportunities, the Respondent No.1 had not filed the written
statement. Later, as per the Order dated 18.06.2015 passed on
I.A.No.III, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.1 is
taken on file.
13. Initially, though the notice was duly served on the
Respondent No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he was
placed as exparte on 24.09.2013. Later, the Respondent No.2 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and as
per the Order dated 22.02.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the exparte
order is set-aside and the Respondent No.2 is taken on file. The
Respondent No.2 has filed the written statement.
14. As per the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed on Memo
filed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the
name of the Respondent No.3 is deleted from the cause title of the
petition.
SCCH-7 14 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
15. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) It does not admit that, they had issued a policy to the
alleged Bus bearing No.KA-01-AA-5984 and the same is valid on
the date of accident.
b) The insured has not been furnished with the
particulars of the vehicle, including, permit as also the driving
licence of the person, who was driving a vehicle and the cause for
accident giving raise to the said claim petition. Without these
particulars, insurer finds it difficult to submit an effective
statement of objections. Since, these particulars are not
immediately available the insurer is obliged to file this statement
and hence, the statement is filed with liberty to file elaborate
statement of objections on receipt of the material particulars and
information referred to above. The insurer does not admit having
insured the vehicle involved in the accident. The liability of the
insurer is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and
subject to there being a valid permit in respect of the insured
vehicle. The insurer's liability is subject to the validity of DL and
other documents referred to above.
c) It prays and reserves its right to amend its statement
of objections and also take over the defence of the insured in the
event of the owner does not contest the proceedings, if, the policy
is confirmed. As such, as enabled under Section 170 of M.V. Act,
1988, it may be permitted to contest the claim of the petition both
SCCH-7 15 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
in regard to actionable negligence and the quantum of
compensation, if policy was valid on the date of accident. Besides,
the attempts of the insurer to defend insured and avail all the
defences are enabled by Condition No.2 in the Policy came to be
incorporated in the contract of indemnity by reason of the
observation of the Apex Court in Para 16 of AIR 1959 SC 1331.
d) It is learnt that, the accident occurred on account of
actionable negligence of the two vehicles, which are involved in the
accident. Another vehicle Car also negligently driving by its driver,
he swerved his right turn and came in the line of motion of the
said Bus. Both vehicles should be made a part to the proceedings.
But, claimant failed to implead the owner and insurer of the Car,
it is a bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
e) The claim for award of compensation of Rupees
2,50,000/- is exaggerated and unrelated to the injuries suffered
by the claimant. The injuries are simple in nature. It is obvious
that, the claimant is trying to convert an unfortunate incident into
a windfall.
f) It seeks leave of the Hon'ble Court to file additional
statement of objections and produce documents, which may be
discovered by the insurer in the course of trial.
g) In the event of this Hon'ble Court passing an award for
compensation, the rate of interest shall not exceed 6% in view of
the law declared by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Geetha's Case and reiterated in Jagadisha's Case vide AIR 1972
SCCH-7 16 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
SC 2466, ILR 1990 Kar 4384, ILR 2000 KAR 1098, ILR 2000 KAR
3809 and ILR 2001 KAR 493. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
16. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013, has further contended
as follows;
a) The allegations made in the petition are false,
mischievous and mollified and the Petitioner is put to strict proof
of the same.
b) The driver of the Mini Bus drove the vehicle carefully
and cautiously and by following the traffic rules and as such, he is
not responsible for that accident.
c) It is not liable to pay any compensation to the
Petitioner since the Bus belongs to him is no way responsible for
the accident. The averments in the claim petition that, the
accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of KSTDC Mini Bus is false and baseless and the Petitioner
is put to strict proof of the same. The Petitioner, with an ulterior
motive to make unlawful gain, has filed this petition by fabricating
a story.
d) The averments in the petition that, the Petitioner was
working as Executive Administrator in 'Swamy Transport Agency',
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore and was earning Rupees 15,000/- per
month is without any basis and such a plea is taken just to suit
SCCH-7 17 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
his convenience and hence, the Petitioner is put to strict proof of
the same.
e) Without prejudice to the earlier contentions, the
Petitioner's claim for compensation of Rupees 2,50,000/- under
different heads is highly excessive, exorbitant and arbitrary and
he made such a excessive claim for the reason that, there is no
Court fee payable on the petition.
f) The Petitioner has made the claim for a huge sum by
fabricating a story to suit his convenience and to make unlawful
gain. Further, the Petitioner has filed the claim petition by
suppressing the true facts, which lead to the accident.
g) He reserves his right to file additional statement at a
later stage in the changed facts and circumstances of the case.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
17. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.4382/2013
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Swaraz
Mazda - Mini Bus Bearing
Reg.No.KA-01-AA-5984 by its
driver and in the said accident, she
sustained injuries?
SCCH-7 18 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, how much
and from whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.4383/2013
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that,
the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the Swaraz
Mazda - Mini Bus Bearing
Reg.No.KA-01-AA-5984 by its driver
and in the said accident, he
sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order?
18. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4382/2013 herself has been examined as P.W.1 by filing
an affidavit as her examination-in-chief and has placed reliance
upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013
himself has been examined as P.W.2 by filing an affidavit as his
examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.15 to
Ex.P.19. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has examined
his driver, who is the Respondent No.3, as R.W.1 and R.W.2 by
filing the affidavits as his examination-in-chief and has placed
reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.12. On the other hand, the
Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on its behalf.
SCCH-7 19 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
19. Heard the arguments.
20. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
M.V.C.No.4382/2013
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 52,604/- with
interest at the rate of 8%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
M.V.C.No.4383/2013
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rupees
25,792/- with interest at
the rate of 8% p.a. from the
date of the petition till the
date of payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
SCCH-7 20 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
REASONS
21. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES :- The P.W.1, who
is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 has stated in her
examination-in-chief that, on 01.10.2011 at about 6 -15 a.m., she
along with her husband Stanley and some other persons started
from Bangalore moving towards Shravanabelagola, in Mini Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984, which belongs to KSTDC
and the Bus was driven by the Respondent No.3, who was moving
through Nelamangala, with high speed and also negligently and
when the Bus moving on N.H.48, near Herur Mariyamma's Areca
Nut Garden, Kunigal Taluk, the driver of Mini Bus drove rashly
and tried to overtake a Car, which was moving in the same
direction and dashed the Car. She has further stated that, the
impact was such that, the Car was turtle and fell in to the ditch
and Mini Bus, in which, she and other passengers were traveling
also turtle by dashing the road divider and as the Bus turtle all
the passengers of the Bus have sustained grievous injuries and
one of the passenger, by name, Lakshmi Soujanya died on the
spot. She has further stated that, the inmates of the Car also
sustained bleeding injuries and all the passengers and she has
sustained grievous injuries, have went in some other Car and took
first aid at Government Hospital, Kunigal. She has further stated
that, she was immediately shifted to Bangalore Rajamahal Vilas
Hospital, wherein, the Doctors have taken X-ray and gave
treatment for the fracture of both clavicles. She has further stated
that, in the same accident, her husband also sustained injuries
grievously. She has further stated that, the accident was due to
rash and negligent driving of the Bus driver and the jurisdictional
SCCH-7 21 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Police have booked Criminal Case as against the Respondent No.3
for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC.
22. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4383/2013 and also the husband of the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.8382/2013, has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1,
in his examination-in-chief. He has further stated that, he has
sustained grievous injury, has went in some other Car and took
first-aid at Government Hospital, Kunigal and immediately, he
was shifted to Bangalore Rajmahal Hospital, wherein, the Doctors
have taken X-ray and gave treatment for Right elbow sprain and
Cervical Sprain.
23. No doubt, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has
stated that, they were 11 persons were traveling in Mini Bus at the
time of accident and they left Bangalore at 6.50 a.m. and at the
time of accident, she was sleeping and she had not lodged a
complaint before the Police about the alleged accident. Further,
the R.W.1 and R.W.2, who was the driver of the Mini Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984, who is also the Respondent No.3
in the present petitions has stated in his examination-in-chief
that, he drove the Mini Bus carefully and cautiously and by
following the traffic rules and as such, he is not responsible for
that accident and the Petitioners have filed the claim petition by
suppressing the true facts, which lead to the said accident. The
R.W.1 and R.W.2 has produced Ex.R.6 Driving Licence relating to
him, which disclosed that, at the time of accident, the driver of the
offending Mini Bus was having a valid and effective driving licence
to drive such class of vehicle.
SCCH-7 22 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
24. But, only based on the said evidence of P.W.1, which is
elicited from her mouth by the Respondents No.1 and 2 during the
course of cross-examination and oral version of R.W.1 and R.W.2,
it cannot be thrown away the above said oral version of P.W.1 and
P.W.2, which has been stated by them in their examination-in-
chief, as, to corroborate the oral version of P.W.1, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4382/2013 has produced Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint,
Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Spot Hand
Sketch, Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.7 MVI Report, Ex.P.8 E-
Ticket dated 01.10.2011, Ex.P.9 Outpatient Slip, Ex.P.11
Radiological and Ultra Sound Reports and Ex.P.14 X-ray Films 3
in numbers and to corroborate the oral version of P.W.2, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013 has produced Ex.P.15 OPD
Slip, Ex.P.18 X-ray Films and Ex.P.19 Wound Certificate, which
clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the
Respondent No.3 in driving the offending Mini Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 in the commission of the said
road traffic accident and if he could have taken a little care at the
time of accident, he could have avoided the said road traffic
accident, wherein, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 had
sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013 had sustained one grievous
injury and one simple injury and they took treatment to the said
accidental injuries as an outpatient, which is clear from the
following discussion. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in her cross-
examination has clearly stated that, after the accident, she was
shifted to Kunigal Government Hospital and she had only taken
first-aid treatment in the said Hospital and thereafter, she had
SCCH-7 23 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
shifted to RMV Hospital and Dr. Swamy had treated her at RMV
Hospital. Further, the P.W.2 in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, in the alleged accident, he had not sustained any
fracture and he had only sustained simple injuries and as an
outpatient, he had taken treatment at RMV Hospital.
Furthermore, no questions or suggestions put to P.W.1 and P.W.2
during the course of their cross-examination by the Respondents
that, there was no negligence on the part of the Respondent No.3
in driving the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-
AA-5984.
25. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint
clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2012, who
is the husband of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 had
lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Kunigal Police Station as
against the driver of the Respondent No.3 by alleging that, on
01.10.2011 at about 8-15 a.m., he and his wife were traveling in
the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984
along with other passengers for tour purpose and the driver of the
said Bus drove it very high speed, rash and negligent manner near
Herur Mariyanna Arecnut Garden, Kunigal Taluk and tried to
overtake the Car, which was moving on the same direction and
dashed to the said Car and due to the said impact, the said Car
was turtle and fell into ditch and offending Mini Bus, wherein,
they were traveling was also turtle and dashed road divider and
they and other passengers, who were traveling in the offending
Mini Bus also sustained injuries and one of the passenger
Lakshmi Soujanya died on the accidental spot and the said
SCCH-7 24 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
accident caused due to the negligence act of driving of the
Respondent No.3 in driving the said offending Mini Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 and they were shifted to Kunigal
Government Hospital and as such, he prayed to take necessary
legal action as against the driver of the offending Mini Bus, i.e.,
the Respondent No.3 and based on Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said
Police have registered a criminal case as against the Respondent
No.3 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 337 and
304(A) of IPC under Crime No.318/2011. It is also clear from the
contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no
delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint by the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4383/2013 in respect of the said road traffic accident.
26. The contents of Ex.P.4 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.5 Spot
Hand Sketch and Ex.P.7 IMV Report further clearly disclosed that,
the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending
Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 by its driver,
i.e., Respondent No.3 and due to which, both the Petitioners were
traveling in the said Mini Bus had sustained injuries and if the
Respondent No.3 could have taken a little care while driving the
offending Mini Bus at the time of accident, he could have avoided
the said road traffic accident. The damages caused to both the
offending Mini Bus and Car, are clearly shown in Ex.P.7 IMV
Report, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the
said accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.7 IMV Report
that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical
defects of the said vehicles.
SCCH-7 25 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
27. The contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate disclosed
that, with alleged history of road traffic accident on 01.10.2011,
the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 was brought to Rajmahal
Vilas Hospital and she had taken first-aid treatment at Kunigal
Government Hospital and on examination, it is found that, she
had sustained undisplcaed fracture of lateral 1/3rd of both
clavicles and blunt injury over right back, i.e., one grievous injury
and one simple injury.
28. The contents of Ex.P.8 E-Ticket clearly disclosed that,
at the time of accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 was
traveling in the said offending Mini Bus.
29. The contents of Ex.P.9 Outpatient Slips clearly
disclosed that, as an outpatient, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4382/2013 took first-aid treatment to the said
accidental injuries at Kunigal Government Hospital.
30. The contents of Ex.P.19 Wound Certificate clearly
disclosed that, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013 was brought
to Rajmahal Vilas Hospital with alleged history of road traffic
accident on 01.10.2011 and he had first-aid treatment and MLC
procedure done at Kunigal Government Hospital and on
examination, it is found that, he had sustained right elbow sprain
and clavicle sprain, which are fresh and simple in nature.
31. From the above said medical evidence produced by
both the Petitioners, it is clearly disclosed that, in the said road
traffic accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 had
SCCH-7 26 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
sustained one simple injury and one grievous injury and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2014 had sustained one grievous
injury and one simple injury and they took treatment to the said
accidental injuries as an outpatient.
32. The contents of Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet further clearly
disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found
that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving
of the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984
by the Respondent No.3 itself, the said road traffic accident was
taken place on 01.10.2011 at 8.15 a.m., on N.H.48 New Bypass
Road, which dashed to the Car and all the inmates in the
offending Mini Bus and Car had sustained sever grievous injuries
and Lakshmi Soujanya died on the accidental spot itself and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 had sustained one simple
injury and one grievous injury and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4383/2013 had sustained one simple injury and both
the offending Mini Bus and Car were badly damaged in the said
road traffic accident and as such, after thorough investigation, the
Investigating Officer had filed a charge sheet as against the
Respondent No.3 for the offences punishable under Section 279,
337, 338 and 304(A). From this, it appears that, the entire
negligence is on the part of the Respondent No.3 in driving the
offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984.
33. From the above said material evidence, both oral and
documentary, it is clearly proved that, the entire negligence is on
the part of the Respondent No.3 in driving the offending Mini Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 and the said offending
SCCH-7 27 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 as well as the
Respondent No.3 are very much involved in the said road traffic
accident, wherein, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 had
sustained one simple injury and one grievous injury and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4383/2013 had sustained one simple
injury. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in both the cases in
the Affirmative.
34. ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH THE CASES :-
35. M.V.C.No.4382/2013 :- The P.W.1 has stated that, as
per the advise of the Doctors, she went home and took complete
rest for six weeks. She has further stated that, she was not able to
walk as usually for more than 3 to 4 months due to the injuries
caused to both clavicles and due to blunt injury over right back
and within a month, i.e., by the end of October 2011, she suffered
abortion due to radiation and medication, as, she was carrying
nearly two months at that time and she was not attending the
duties more than 10 months and hence, sustained loss of salary,
which she was earning earlier to the accident and at the same
accident, her husband also sustained injuries grievously. She has
further stated that, as on this day, she is still suffering from pain
in both shoulders and unable to carry out her daily activities and
the Doctors have advised to take treatment for some more time.
She has further stated that, as she was grievously injured in the
accident, still having pain in left leg.
SCCH-7 28 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
36. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.11 Radiological and
Ultra Sound Reports, Ex.P.13 Experience Certificate and Ex.P.14
X-ray Films 3 in numbers.
37. Based on the contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate,
this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion
that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained
undisplaced fracture of lateral 1/3rd of both clavicles and blunt
injury over right back, i.e., one grievous injury and one simple
injury and initially, she had taken first-aid treatment at
Government Hospital, Kunigal.
38. But, only based on the said oral version of P.W.1
coupled with the contents of the said medical documents, it
cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and
functional disability and as such, she is entitled for the
compensation under the different heads, as, though the Petitioner
had sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury in the
said road traffic accident, she had only taken treatment as an
outpatient and she was not admitted in the said Hospital to take
treatment to the said accidental injuries. Furthermore, the
Petitioner has not produced the Discharge Summary or Case
Sheet issued either by the Government Hospital, Kunigal or
Rajmahal Vilas Hospital. Even, the Petitioner has not examined
the treated Doctor. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the
disability certificate issued by the treated Doctor or the competent
Doctor. Further, the P.W.1 in her cross-examination has clearly
stated that, she had only taken first-aid treatment at Kunigal
SCCH-7 29 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Government Hospital and thereafter, she had shifted to Rajmahal
Vilas Hospital and she had not taken treatment in the said
Hospital by admitting as an inpatient and no surgery was
conducted. The Petitioner has not produced any authenticated
documents issued by her employer to consider her avocation and
income at the time of accident and also inability to continue the
job after the accident. In this regard, the P.W.1 has stated in her
cross-examination that, she has not produced any documents to
show that, after the accident, she was unable to attend her job for
more than 10 months. She has further stated that, she has no
hurdle to examine the author of Ex.P.13 Experience Certificate,
the Petitioner did not care to examine the author of Ex.P.13
Experience Certificate. Hence, the evidence adduced by the
Petitioner for difficulties and disability, which is arising out of the
accidental injuries, cannot be believed and accept. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the different
heads.
39. However, at the time of accident, the Petitioner had
sustained undisplaed fracture of lateral 1/3rd of both clavicles and
blunt injury over right back, i.e., one grievous injury and one
simple injury and as an outpatient, she took treatment to the said
accidental injuries. Further, while answering Issue No.1, this
Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that,
due to the negligence is on the part of the Respondent No.3 in
driving of the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-
AA-5984, the said road traffic accident was taken place, wherein,
the Petitioner had sustained one grievous injury and one simple
SCCH-7 30 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
injury. By considering these materials, this Tribunal feels that, it
is just, proper and necessary to consider the global compensation
of Rupees 50,000/-, which is fare and acceptable one. Hence, the
Petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rupees 50,000/-.
40. The P.W.1 has stated that, she had spent Rupees
1,00,000/- towards her medical expenses. In this regard, the
Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.12 Medical Bills, 11 in
numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 2,604-08. The Petitioner
had sustained undisplaced fracture of lateral 1/3rd of both
clavicles and blunt injury over right back, i.e., one grievous injury
and one simple injury and she had taken treatment at Rajmahal
Vilas Hospital, to the said accidental injuries. Considering the
nature of the injuries and line of treatment given to the Petitioner,
the possibility of spending the said amount for the medicines
cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award the said
actual medical expenses of Rupees 2,604-08, which is rounded off
Rupees 2,604/- to the Petitioner.
41. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 52,604/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till
payment.
42. M.V.C.No.4383/2013 :- The P.W.2 has stated that, as
per the advise of the Doctors, he went home and took complete
rest for two months. He has further stated that, he was not able to
work as usually for more than 6 months due to the injuries
SCCH-7 31 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
caused to right elbow sprain and cervical sprain and he was not
attending the duties more than 3 months and hence, sustained
loss of salary, which he was earning earlier to the accident and at
the same accident, his wife also sustained injuries grievously and
his wife is also working and has to lost has to her salary during
that period. He has further stated that, as on this day, he is still
suffering from headache due to clavicle sprain and unable to work
as usually and the Doctors have advised to take treatment for
some more time.
43. The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.15 OPD Slip and
Ex.P.18 X-ray Film.
44. Based on the contents of Ex.P.19 Wound Certificate,
this Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion
that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained
right elbow sprain and clavicle sprain, i.e., one simple injury and
initially, he had taken first-aid treatment at Government Hospital,
Kunigal.
45. But, only based on the said oral version of P.W.2
coupled with the contents of the said medical documents, it
cannot be believed and accept that, due to the said accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent physical and
functional disability and as such, he is entitled for the
compensation under the different heads, as, though the Petitioner
had sustained one simple injury, he had only taken treatment as
an outpatient and he has not admitted in the said Hospital to take
treatment to the said accidental injuries. Furthermore, the
SCCH-7 32 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Petitioner has not produced the Discharge Summary or Case
Sheet issued either by the Government Hospital, Kunigal or
Rajmahal Vilas Hospital. Even, the Petitioner has not examined
the treated Doctor. Further, the Petitioner has not produced the
disability certificate issued by the treated Doctor or the competent
Doctor. Further, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly
stated that, he had only sustained simple injury and as an
outpatient, he had taken treatment at RMV Hospital. The
Petitioner has not produced any authenticated documents issued
by her employer to consider his avocation and income at the time
of accident and also inability to continue the job after the
accident. In this regard, the P.W.2 has stated in his cross-
examination that, he has not produced any documents to show
that, after the accident, he had not attended by duty for more
than 6 months. Hence, the evidence adduced by the Petitioner for
difficulties and disability, which is arising out of the accidental
injuries, cannot be believed and accept. Hence, the Petitioner is
not entitled for any compensation under the different heads.
46. However, at the time of accident, the Petitioner had
sustained right elbow sprain and clavicle sprain, i.e., one simple
injury and as an outpatient, he took treatment to the said
accidental injuries. Further, while answering Issue No.1, this
Tribunal has already observed and come to the conclusion that,
due to the negligence on the part of the Respondent No.3 in
driving of the offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-
AA-5984, the said road traffic accident was taken place, wherein,
the Petitioner had sustained one simple injury. By considering
SCCH-7 33 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
these materials, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to consider the global compensation of Rupees 25,000/-
, which is fare and acceptable one. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled
for global compensation of Rupees 25,000/-.
47. The P.W.2 has stated that, he had spent Rupees
50,000/- towards his medical expenses. In this regard, the
Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.16 Medical Prescriptions 3 in
numbers and Ex.P.17 Medical Bills 4 in numbers, which is
amounting of Rupees 792/-. The Petitioner had sustained right
elbow sprain cervical sprain in the said road traffic accident,
which is simple in nature and he had taken treatment at
Rajmahal Vilas Hospital, to the said accidental injury. Considering
the nature of the injury and line of treatment given to the
Petitioner, the possibility of spending the said amount for the
medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award
the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 792/- to the
Petitioner.
48. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation
of Rupees 25,792/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till
payment.
49. The P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that, the Respondent
No.1 is the insurer and the Respondent No.2 is the insured and
hence, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
them.
SCCH-7 34 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
50. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the entire negligence is on the part of
the Respondent No.3 in driving the offending Mini Bus bearing
Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 and in the said accident, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 had sustained one simple
injury and one grievous injury and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.4383/2013 had sustained one simple injury. The
Petitioners in the cause title of the petitions have clearly
mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is an insurer and the
Respondent No.2 is a R.C. Owner of the offending Mini Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984. The R.W.1 and R.W.2
has stated that, the Mini Bus was insured with ICICI Lombard
Insurance Company having Policy No.3004/64176546/00/000
and the insurance was valid at the time of alleged accident. The
R.W.1 and R.W.2 has clearly stated that, he was working as a
driver in the Respondent No.2 Corporation. From this material
evidence, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the
Respondent No.1 was an insurer and the Respondent No.2 was a
registered owner and the Respondent No.3 was a driver of the
offending Mini Bus bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 and
its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident.
The R.W.1 and R.W.2 has produced Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.7 Insurance
Policy for the period from 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012, Ex.R.2 and
Ex.R.8 Insurance Policy for the period from 26.06.2012 to
25.06.2013, Ex.R.3 and Ex.R.9 Tax Card relating to vehicle
bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984, Ex.R.4 and Ex.R.10 Tax
Paid Receipt dated 06.07.2011, Ex.R.5 and Ex.R.11 Tax Paid
Receipt dated 10.10.2011 and Ex.R.6 and Ex.R.12 D.L. relating to
SCCH-7 35 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Mohammed Shareifull. There is no allegation leveled by the
Investigation Officer as against the driver of the offending Mini
Bus in Ex.P.3 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was
not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive such class
of offending vehicle. The violation of the terms and conditions of
the admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.2 is not
proved by the Respondent No.1. It is pertinent to note here that,
as per the Order dated 22.08.2014 passed on the memo filed the
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the name of the
Respondent No.3, who was a driver of the offending Mini Bus, was
deleted from the cause title of the petitions. Under such
circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being an insurer and the
Respondent No.2 being a R.C. Owner of the offending Mini Bus
bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984, are jointly and severally
liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to both the
Petitioners. Since the Respondent No.1 is an insurer, it shall
indemnify the Respondent No.2. Hence, Issue No.2 in
M.V.C.No.4382/2013 and M.V.C.No.4383/2013 are answered
accordingly.
51. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.4382/2013 :- For the
aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
SCCH-7 36 MVC.No.4382/2013C/w MVC No.4383/2013 The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 52,604/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, entire
amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.4383/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
73. ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.4383/2013 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
SCCH-7 37 MVC.No.4382/2013C/w MVC No.4383/2013 ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 25,792/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of
compensation and interest, entire
amount shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.4382/2013 SCCH-7 38 MVC.No.4382/2013 C/w MVC No.4383/2013 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.4383/2013.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 25th day of April, 2016.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Smt. Bhavani
P.W.2 : Sri. Stanley
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of Spot Hand Sketch
Ex.P.6 : True Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.7 : True Copy of M.V. Report
Ex.P.8 : E-ticket dated 01.10.2011
Ex.P.9 : Outpatient Slip
Ex.P.10 : Medical Prescriptions (4 in nos.)
Ex.P.11 : Radiological and Ultra Sound Reports
Ex.P.12 : Medical Bills (11 in nos.)
Ex.P.13 : Experience Certificate
Ex.P.14 : X-ray Films (3 in nos.)
SCCH-7 39 MVC.No.4382/2013
C/w MVC No.4383/2013
Ex.P.15 : OPD Slip
Ex.P.16 : Medical Prescriptions (3 in nos.) Ex.P.17 : Medical Bills (4 in nos.) Ex.P.18 : X-ray Film Ex.P.19 : True copy of Wound Certificate
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Mohammed Shafiulla R.W.2 : Mohammed Shafiulla
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
Ex.R.1 : True Copy of Insurance Company for the period from 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012 Ex.R.2 : True Copy of Insurance Company for the period from 26.06.2012 to 25.06.2013 Ex.R.3 : Notarised Xerox copy of Tax Card relating to vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 Ex.R.4 : Notarised Xerox copy of Tax Paid Receipt dated 06.07.2011 Ex.R.5 : Notarised Xerox copy of Tax Paid Receipt dated 10.10.2011 Ex.R.6 : Notarised Xerox copy of D.L. relating to Mohammed Shariefulla Ex.R.7 : Notarised Xerox copy of Insurance Policy for the period from 29.03.2011 to 28.03.2012 Ex.R.8 : Notarised Xerox copy of Insurance Policy for the period from 26.06.2012 to 25.06.2013 Ex.R.9 : Notarised Xerox copy of Tax Card relating to vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-01-AA-5984 Ex.R.10 : Notarised Xerox copy of Tax Paid Receipt dated 06.07.2011 Ex.R.11 : Notarised Xerox copy of Tax Paid SCCH-7 40 MVC.No.4382/2013 C/w MVC No.4383/2013 Receipt dated 10.10.2011 Ex.R.12 : Notarised Xerox copy of D.L. relating to Mohammed Shariefulla (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.