Bangalore District Court
Sri.K.H.Venugopal vs Sri.P.Gurumoorthy on 20 March, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 20th DAY OF MARCH 2015.
PRESENT :
SMT.B.PUSHPANJALI, B.A., LL.M.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.3976 of 2013.
PETITIONER: Sri.K.H.Venugopal, 37 years,
S/o Haridass Rao,
R/a No.4, Grace Ground Floor,
15th B Cross, Muthyalanagara,
Bengaluru-560 054.
Permanent address:
5-129(D) Sri Hari,
76, Badagubettu House,
Jagannatha Nagara, Bailur,
Udupi-576101.
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.P.Gurumoorthy,
S/o Pandurangan,
R/a 479, Ramanathapuram,
Mel Karipur, Chengam Taluk,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tamil Nadu-606 706.
2. HDFC ERGO Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.14, 2nd Floor, H.M.Genevo
House, Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru-560 052.
-o0o-
SCCH.13 2 MVC.3976/2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are that on 3.5.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., when he was inspecting the Compressor room in Ammapalayam village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, at that time, the driver of JCB bearing No.TN 25 AB 8158 driven the same at high speed and in a rash & negligent manner, dashed against the new construction concrete wall and due to the impact, the cement solid block wall collapsed on the petitioner's left leg and he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Govt.Hospital, after first aid, he was shifted to CMC Hospital, Vellore wherein, he took treatment and he has spent huge amount towards his treatment and nourishment, besides there is a loss of earnings during the medical treatment and loss of future earnings. Therefore, the instant petition. SCCH.13 3 MVC.3976/2013
3. In response to the notices, the 1st respondent did not appear before the court, hence he was placed exparte. 2nd respondent placed its appearance through the counsel and filed the written statement with the following contentions:-
Respondent is disputing that the accident was on account of rash and negligence of the offending vehicle by its driver. It has contended that the accident occurred due to negligence of petitioner. It disputed the physical impairment suffered on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident. It has also disputed the age, income of the petitioner, reduction of his working capacity and amount spent towards medical treatment. It has admitted that the bus in question belongs to its Corporation. It is also contended that the compensation claimed in the petition is exorbitant, therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 3.5.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., when he was SCCH.13 4 MVC.3976/2013 inspecting the Compressor room in Ammapalayam village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, at that time, the driver of JCB bearing No.TN 25 AB 8158 driven the same at high speed and in a rash & negligent manner, dashed against the new construction concrete wall and due to the impact, the cement solid block wall collapsed on the petitioner's left leg and he sustained grievous injuries as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so to what extent & from whom?
3. What order ?
5. In order to prove the petition claim, the petitioner and three witnesses were examined as PW.1 to 4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.26. 2nd Respondent has examined its Asst.Manager as RW.1 and got marked document as Ex.R.1.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative. Issue No.2: In the affirmative.SCCH.13 5 MVC.3976/2013
Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 :- It is the case of the petitioner that he has sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 3.5.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., when he was inspecting the Compressor room in Ammapalayam village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, at that time, the driver of JCB bearing No.TN 25 AB 8158 driven the same at high speed and in a rash & negligent manner, dashed against the new construction concrete wall and due to the impact, the cement solid block wall collapsed on the petitioner's left leg causing grievous injuries. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of his oral evidence, he par with the petition averments. He has stated that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and in the said accident, he had sustained grievous injuries as referred in the wound certificate. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination to discard his evidence. SCCH.13 6 MVC.3976/2013 Besides, he disowns the suggestion that the accident was not on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
9. 2nd respondent who is the insurer of the JCB bearing No.TN 25 AB 8158 has disputed the liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. The injuries sustained by the petitioner was not on account of road traffic accident by the offending vehicle but it was due to fall of the wall on the leg of the petitioner, therefore, 2 nd respondent has requested to dismiss the claim petition. On careful perusal of the records, it reveal that in order to substantiate its specific defence, it has examined the Asst.Manager of the company as RW.1 who filed affidavit reasserting the written statement averments. Though he has disputed the cause of the accident, he admits that the complaint was filed against its insured JCB driver and charge sheet was also filed against its vehicle.
10. Since 2nd respondent has disputed the involvement of the vehicle in the accident as well as the history of injuries, let us ascertain from the records about the history of injuries. No doubt there SCCH.13 7 MVC.3976/2013 is a delay of 7 days in filing the complaint. On careful perusal of the records, it reveal that the petitioner was not resident of the place where the accident was occurred. Since he was a consultant for low temperature application and industrial refrigeration projects, by avocation, he had been to the place of accident to comply the agreed project. The medical records reveal that soon after the accident he was taken to Thurvannamalai Govt.Hospital and then shifted to Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore. In the said hospital, he was diagnosed as crush injury to left lower limb at upper 1/3 rd and middle 1/3rd junction, compound comminuted fracture left leg with vascular compromise and left below knee amputation was done under SA in the said hospital, he was discharged on 25.5.2013. So, from the date of the accident, he was in the hospital for 22 days, that means, he was temporarily paralyzed to move about and lodge the complaint personally. Since the petitioner has sustained severe crush injuries to the left lower limb resulting in below knee amputation, he cannot be expected to file a complaint personally on the day of accident itself. Only option available to the SCCH.13 8 MVC.3976/2013 petitioner was to file the complaint through somebody. The complaint ought to have been filed by the site workers or the concerned police on receipt of MLC intimation, but it was not done. As could be seen from the records it reveal that concerned Police have been to the hospital on 10.5.2013 and recorded the statement of the petitioner and based upon the same, FIR was registered. No explanation is forth coming whether the concerned Hospital have sent intimation to the police immediately and why a delayed statement is recorded in the statement. The delay in filing the complaint is not a sole ground to suspect the involvement of the vehicle and the cause of the accident. A careful perusal of the wound certificate marked at Ex.P.15, it reveal that this wound certificate was issued at Vellore Hospital wherein the history of injury was recorded as 'heavy wall collapsed due to JCB hit the wall and wall fell on the left leg of the patient.' The entries forthcoming from the wound certificate clinchingly evidenced that the history of injuries is not only due to fall of heavy wall but on account of the hitting the wall by the JCB. The attention of this Tribunal is drawn towards the SCCH.13 9 MVC.3976/2013 criminal case records in Cr. No. 75/2013 marked at Ex.P.16 to P.26. On careful perusal of the same it reveal that the driver of the JCB pleaded guilty and paid fine amount. Besides, after investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver of the JCB. So, the earliest entry forthcoming from the medical records with that of the documents referred above clinchingly evidenced that the history of injury is due to heavy wall collapsed on account of the JCB vehicle hit the wall. So, it is not only evidenced the involvement of the offending vehicle but also the history of injuries. So, in order to replace these documents with that of evidence of PW.1, except the self-serving testimony of RW.1, absolutely no material is placed before the court. The RW1 has spoken something for which he had no personal knowledge. The 2nd Respondent has not examined JCB operator or Eye witnesses to the accident, because they are better persons to speak about the accident. However the 2nd Respondent is not taken any pain. So, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this Tribunal can not believe the assertion of the 2nd respondent that the JCB vehicle was not at all involved in the accident SCCH.13 10 MVC.3976/2013 and injuries are due to compound wall falling on the left leg.
11. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced the translated copies of documents, FIR at Ex.P.1, which reveals that a case has been registered against its driver on account of his rash and negligent driving of the JCB. Ex.P.20 mahazar, which reveals that during the course of the investigation, the concerned IO have confirmed the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, filed charge sheet as per Ex.P19. Ex.P.15 is the true copy of the wound certificate, which reveals that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident. Therefore the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents convince the Tribunal in holding that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and in the said accident, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Consequently, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
12. Issue No.2 :- It is needless to say that the age, income, nature of injuries, its impact on the SCCH.13 11 MVC.3976/2013 working capacity of the claimant and medical expenses incurred towards his treatment are the considering factors to ascertain the quantum of compensation.
In the petition, it is contended that the petitioner was aged about 37 years. He has not produced any documents in proof of his age. Therefore, In the absence of any material with regard to age, this tribunal could believe the age of the petitioner as 37 years as on the date of the accident.
13. Now, coming to the income of the petitioner, in the petition, it is contended that the petitioner was the Investor and Active Partner at Techno corp India Leading engineers and consultants for low temperature application/industrial refrigeration projects earning Rs.1,00,000/-. In order to substantiate his avocation and income, he has produced partnership deed marked at Ex.P.7 and Form.No.16(A) & returns marked Ex.P.4, P.7 & P.8. On careful perusal of the Form.16(A) it reveal that it is for the period from 1.11.2012 to 31.3.2013. He has not produced the IT returns for the whole financial year. SCCH.13 12 MVC.3976/2013 No doubt partnership marked at Ex.P.7 discloses that he is also one of the partner to carry on the business of Industrial Project Consultancy, execution, installation, service of total plant for food processing industry, low temperature refrigeration systems, trading of all types of machinery import and export of machinery for the industry under the name and style of M/s Technocorp (India). But this partnership deed do not reflect the actual income of the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the age and year in which the accident had occurred, this Tribunal feels to take the income of the petitioner of Rs.6,000/- p.m..
14. Injury, Pain & suffering:- According to the petitioner, he had sustained grievous injuries in the accident, therefore he has under gone treatment, during which he had suffered injury, pain and suffering. On looking to Ex.P.15 Wound Certificate, it reveal that the petitioner had sustained crush injury over left limb at upper 1/3rd and mid 1/3rd junction, compound comminuted fracture left leg with vascular compromise. He was immediately shifted to SCCH.13 13 MVC.3976/2013 Govt.Hospital, Thiruvannamalai and thereafter to CMC, Vellore wherein he was treated as inpatient from 4.5.2013 till 25.5.2013 during which period left below knee amputation and stump revision and stump closure was done. He was discharged with advice of regular follow-up treatment. The petitioner has also examined Dr.K.Vignesh, Orthopedic Surgeon, CMC Hospital, Vellore as PW.4 who has stated about the injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone in the hospital and he has assessed the disability suffered by him due to accidental injuries to the extent of 70%.
15. Hence, having regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and nature and period of treatment undergone by him, this tribunal could believe that the petitioner herein has under gone treatment, during which he had suffered injury, pain and suffering. Therefore, this Tribunal feel that it is just and proper to provide Rs.80,000/- towards the injury, pain and suffering, which is the just and fair compensation.
SCCH.13 14 MVC.3976/2013
16. Loss of earnings during the medical treatment:- On account of the injuries the petitioner took treatment as an inpatient for 21 days and he was advised follow-up treatment. Hence, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained and duration of treatment, this Tribunal feels that atleast 4 months time would have been taken for recovery. Therefore this Tribunal feel to provide Rs.24,000/- under the head loss of earning during treatment period, which is just and fair compensation.
17. Medical expenses:- So far as the medical expenses is concerned, the petitioner has produced 14 medical bills at Ex.P.9 to the tune of Rs.2,86,798/- and two advance receipts at Ex.P.10. On careful perusal of these bills, it reveal that all medical bills are supported by authorised medical prescriptions. Though PW.1 was subjected to cross- examination as regards the bills and prescriptions are concerned, nothing worth is elicited. In the light of the medical bills and prescriptions, if we had a look once again as regards the nature of the injuries, discharge summaries, it shows that petitioner took SCCH.13 15 MVC.3976/2013 treatment as an inpatient for 21 days. Definitely for the injuries as referred in the foregoing paras, he had spent huge amount for operation and other requirements. Therefore this Tribunal could not convinced that the bills are exonerated. Hence, this Tribunal feels to provide Rs.2,86,798/- towards the medical expenses, which is the just and fair compensation.
18. Loss of future earnings :- Now I have to ascertain the reduction of the working capacity on account of the accident, perhaps permanent disability coming in the way of his future earnings. While the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of his oral evidence he has stated that due to amputation, he can not carry out day to day work properly, therefore, his earning capacity has been reduced and he was removed from the partnership firm. He has produced the notarised copy of Disability certificate issued by government and disability identity card marked at Ex.P.5 and P.6. Besides, he has also examined PW.4 Dr. K.Vignesh, Orthopaedic Surgeon, CMC Hospital, Vellore, who has subjected the petitioner to his SCCH.13 16 MVC.3976/2013 examination in ascertaining his physical impairment has come up with the evidence that due to below knee amputation left leg and problems and difficulties faced by the petitioner, he has opined that petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 70% to the whole body.
19. The 2nd respondent has taken a specific contention that after the accident, petitioner has continued his business as a partner in Techno Corp and only for a false claim, Ex.P.8 Reconstituion of partnership deed, is created. On careful perusal of Ex.P.8, it reveal that though it is an unregistered document, but on account of non participation due to accidental injuries, other partners are reconstituted the firm, excluding the petitioner. Whether they have complied mandatory requirement of the partnership prior to termination of partner, is not is not subject matter before this Tribunal for adjudication. Only point for consideration is whether the petitioner has continued his avocation after the accident and whether the physical impairment had a direct impact on his earnings. The reconstituted partnership deed clinchingly evidenced that he was removed from the SCCH.13 17 MVC.3976/2013 partnership. In order to show that it is only created for the purpose of this case, the 2 nd respondent has not taken any pains to examine the existing partners to prove its specific assertion.
20. A careful perusal of the records it reveal that, the PW.2 who assessed the disability has given the physical impairment at 75% to the left lower limb. The petitioner has also produced the certificate for the persons with disability 'issued by Medical Superintendent, CMO at Ex.P-5 and disability Identity card at Ex.P-6. These two documents reveal that, the concerned authority has given the physical impairment at 70%. However the disability to the whole body is not assessed by either Ex.P-5, P-6 authority or by PW.2. As the petitioner is a business man by vocation, definitely as he sustained below knee amputation, the physical impairment definitely had direct impact on his earnings. Therefore taking into consideration of difficulties facing by the petitioner, resulting amputation below knee, age and avocation, this tribunal feels to take the physical impairment of the petitioner at 35% to the whole body. As I have already taken the income of the SCCH.13 18 MVC.3976/2013 petitioner at Rs.6,000/- p.m., and his age as 37 years, loss of future earnings has to be assessed. Taking note of the multiplier which is directed to be used by the Tribunals as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) the multiplier suggested to the age group 36 - 40 years would be 15, the loss of future earnings can be assessed as follows:
Rs.6,000 x 12 x 15 x 35%= Rs.3,78,000/-
21. Loss of amenities:- On looking to the wound certificate and disability certificate, the petitioner had sustained crush injury left foot and distal leg resulting in below knee amputation of left leg and he is facing problems and difficulties to do any work Therefore, this tribunal has no hesitation to award Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of amenities. The said amount is awarded keeping in mind regarding the age the petitioner at 37 years, he had a long future and loss of enjoyment in his future life.
22. Conveyance, Nourishment food and attendant charges :- Petitioner has undergone SCCH.13 19 MVC.3976/2013 treatment as inpatient in CMC Hospital, Vellore for more than 21 days and he has taken regular follow-up treatment atleast for another two months. The petitioner has examined one Harish as PW.3 who has deposed that he is working as Maid servant with the petitioner since October 2013 and he is getting salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. The petitioner has produced boarding pass and Train Ticket to show that he travelled from Chennai to Bengaluru and Bengaluru to Mangalore along with copy of Spice jet. It is come in the evidence of the petitioner that he is the native of Udupi but residing in Bengaluru. Since he travelled from Chennai to Bengaluru inturn to his native, he is entitle for the flight charges of Rs. 13,195/- + 460/- towards the train fair. Though there is no definite evidence on the record regarding the amount spent towards the nourishment, food and attending charges, having regard to the duration of the treatment, this tribunal feel to provide Rs.21,000/- (Rs.1000 per day x 21 days). So, this tribunal feels to award Rs.34,655/- in total, which is the just and fair compensation. SCCH.13 20 MVC.3976/2013
23. Expenses towards purchase of Prosthetic : It is the case of the petitioner that the doctor has advised to go for artificial limb on account of below knee amputation of left leg. He has produced the quotation marked at Ex.P.3. A careful perusal of the same it reveal that, it is issued by KARE prosthetics and Orthotics company. As per this quotation for artificial limb of wave comfort foot is Rs. 1,52,731/-, of Index foot is Rs. 1,80,384/-, and of Element DS foot is Rs. 284710/- which included accessories. Since the petitioner had amputation below knee for his day today needs and comforts he requires artificial limb. Similarly it requires frequent replacements artificial limb. Therefore taking into consideration of the quotation at Ex.P-3 this tribunal feels to award Rs. 2,00,000/- for purchase of prosthetic. It is made clear that the above amount will not carry any future interest.
Hence, the following calculation:-
SCCH.13 21 MVC.3976/2013
1. Injury pain & sufferings. Rs. 80,000/-
2. Loss of earnings during 24,000/-
Medical treatment.
3. Medical Expenses. 2,86,798/-
4. Loss of future earnings. 3,78,000/-
5. Loss of amenities 50,000/-
6. Conveyance, Nourishment, 34,655/-
Food and attending
charges.
7. Future medical expense: 2,00,000/-
Total Rs.10,53,453/-
Hence, this tribunal that feel it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.10,53,453/- which is the just and fair compensation.
23. So far as interest is concerned, as per Sec.171 of Motor Vehicle Act tribunal is empowered to grant interest from date of claim at simple interest at such rate as it deems reasonable. The Division Bench ruling of the Karnataka High Court in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. Geeta and the Division Bench ruling in P.Rama Devi Vs. C.B. Sai Krishna and others are of the view that the rate of interest to be awarded should be at the rate of 6%. In AIR 1994 Karn.8, it was observed that "
Compensation is an amount paid in advance for any loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of earnings.SCCH.13 22 MVC.3976/2013
It is not a debt. Therefore, the interest to be awarded under Section 110-CCC of the Motor Vehicles Act could only be at 6% per annum." Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the petition till deposit of the entire compensation amount.
24. The petitioner has led cogent evidence and had proved beyond probability that the accident had occurred due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the JCB bearing No.TN 35 AB 8158. The fact that the offending vehicle was insured with 2 nd respondent and policy was in force on the date of accident is not in dispute. The driver holding valid DL is also not in dispute. Hence, respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, in view of subsistence of insurance company, 2 nd respondent shall deposit the compensation awarded within 30 days from the date of this Order with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till deposit. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 accordingly. SCCH.13 23 MVC.3976/2013
25. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,53,453/-the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till realisation. (Future medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- will not carry interest.) The 2nd respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
Petitioner has spent huge amount towards medical expenses and for purchase of prosthesis and therefore, on deposit of the entire compensation amount, 2,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised bank of his choice for a period of 3 years. However, he is at liberty to SCCH.13 24 MVC.3976/2013 draw the periodical interest. Remaining amount shall be paid to him through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.300/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed & pronounced in open court on 20 th March 2015.) (B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : K.H.Venugopal PW.2 : K.RSomashekar, PW.3 : Harish.S. PW.4 : Dr.Vignesh.K.
List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P.1 : CC of FIR Ex.P.2 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.3 : Computerised quotation given by KARE Ex.P.4 : Form No.16(A) and returns Ex.P.5 : NC of Disability certificate issued by
Government (compared with original and SCCH.13 25 MVC.3976/2013 returned back to the witness) Ex.P.6 : NC of disability Identity card (compared with original and returned back to the witness) Ex.P.7 : NC of partnership deed (compared with original and returned back to the witness) Ex.P.8 : NC of reconstitution of partnership deed (compared with original and returned back to the witness) Ex.P.9 : 14 Medical Bills, 3 travel and lodging receipt for Rs. 2,86,798/-
Ex.P.10 : 2 advance receipts
Ex.P.11 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P.12 : Attested copy of OP record (1 - 10
pages)
Ex.P.13 : Attested copy of IP record (1-170
pages)
Ex.P.14 : 3 Photos with CD
Ex.P.15 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.16 : Copy of order in Cr No. 75/2013
Ex.P.17 : IMV Report
Ex.P.18 : Copy of case diary
Ex.P.19 : Final report with translated copy
Ex.P.20 : Observation Mahazar with translated
copy
Ex.P.21 : Deposition of petitioner with translated
copy
Ex.P.22 : Statement of Dharma Dorai with
translated copy
Ex.P.23 : Statement of Chinnakulandla with
translated copy
Ex.P.24 : Statement of Rashid with translated
copy
Ex.P.25 : Statement of Gurumurthy with
translated copy
Ex.P.26 : Statement of RTO with translated copy
List of witnesses & documents for respondents :SCCH.13 26 MVC.3976/2013
RW.1 : JayashekaraV.R.
Ex.R.1 : Policy
(B.PUSHPANJALI)
II Addl.Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
SCCH.13 27 MVC.3976/2013
AWARD
SCCH.NO:13
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.3976 of 2013.
PETITIONER: Sri.K.H.Venugopal, 37 years, S/o Haridass Rao, R/a No.4, Grace Ground Floor, 15th B Cross, Muthyalanagara, Bengaluru-560 054.
Permanent address:
5-129(D) Sri Hari, 76, Badagubettu House, Jagannatha Nagara, Bailur, Udupi-576101.
vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.P.Gurumoorthy, S/o Pandurangan, R/a 479, Ramanathapuram, Mel Karipur, Chengam Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District, Tamil Nadu-606 706.
2. HDFC ERGO Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd., No.14, 2nd Floor, H.M.Genevo House, Cunningham Road, Bengaluru-560 052.
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
SCCH.13 28 MVC.3976/2013
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.B.Pushpanjali, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,53,453/-the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till realisation. (Future medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- will not carry interest.) The 2nd respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
Petitioner has spent huge amount towards medical expenses and for purchase of prosthesis and therefore, on deposit of the entire compensation amount, 2,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised bank of his choice for a period of 3 years. However, he is at liberty to draw the periodical interest. Remaining amount shall be paid to him through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.300/-.SCCH.13 29 MVC.3976/2013
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this ___the .......... day of ................2015.) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
COST OF PETITION
By the
Petitioner/s Respondents
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on Petition 10-00
Court fee paid on Powers
Court fee paid on I.A.
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 30 MVC.3976/2013
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.10,53,453/-the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till realisation. (Future medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- will not carry interest.) The 2nd respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
Petitioner has spent huge amount towards medical expenses and for purchase of prosthesis and therefore, on deposit of the entire compensation amount, 2,50,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised bank of his choice for a period of 3 years. However, he is at liberty to draw the periodical interest. Remaining amount shall be paid to him through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.300/-. Draw award accordingly.
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH.13 31 MVC.3976/2013 SCCH.13 32 MVC.3976/2013
EFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-13) DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2014 M.V.C.No.3976/2013 PETITIONER/S : Sri.K.H.Venugopal vs. RESPONDENT/S: Sri.P.Gurumoorthy & another ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident occurred on 3.5.2013 at about 12.45 p.m., when he was inspecting the Compressor room in Ammapalayam village, Chengam Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, at that time, the driver of JCB bearing No.TN 25 AB 8158 driven the same at high speed and in a rash & negligent manner, dashed against the new construction concrete wall and due to the impact, the cement solid block wall collapsed on the petitioner's left leg and he sustained grievous injuries as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what extent?
3. What order or award ?
(B.Pushpanjali) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.