Bangalore District Court
In Mvc Smt.Nagajyothi G vs Bajaj Allianz General on 25 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH17)
On this the 25th day of March 2022
Present: V.NAGAMANI
B.A.L., LL.B., LL.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.1920/2019 & 1921/2019
Petitioner in MVC Smt.Nagajyothi G,
1920/2019 Wife of Shivakumara S.,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.7, Shri
Manjunatha Nilaya, 1st Floor,
II Cross, Sapthagiri Layout,
Munnekolala,
Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru560 037.
And also at No.232,
4th Main, Sarakki,
J.P. Nagar, 1st Phase,
2 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
Bengaluru560 078.
(By Pleader Sri Girimallaiah)
Petitioner in MVC Smt. Rajalakshmi,
1921/2019 Wife of Late Subramanya Shetty,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.7, Shri
Manjunatha Nilaya,
1st Floor,
II Cross, Sapthagiri Layout,
Munnekolala,
Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru560 037.
(By Pleader Sri Girimallaiah)
V/s
Respondents 1. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th floor,
No.1/2, 59th 'C' Cross, 4th 'M'
Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru560 010.
(By pleader Shri Gururaj Sulur)
2. M/S. YSG Cabs & Logistics
Pvt. Ltd.,
M.M.R. Plaza, 1st floor,
Jakkasandra, Koramangala 1st
Block, Above DCB Bank,
Next to Kotak Mahindra,
Kithanahalli,
3 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
Bengaluru562 130.
(R.C. Owner of car bearing
No.KA03AD9416)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the petitions filed by the petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/ and Rs.12,00,000/ respectively, along with interest, due to the injuries sustained by them, in a road traffic accident.
2. These two petitions are arising out of the same accident. Hence, these petitions are clubbed and taken together for common discussion, for the sake of convenience and to avoid the repetition.
*Facts of the case in nutshell *
3. Facts leading to the case of the petitioners forthcoming in the petition averments that, on the fateful date of the alleged accident, on 24.1.2019 at about 3.00 4 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 p.m., the petitioners were travelling in a car bearing registration No.KA51AA7682. The driver of the said car was driving the said vehicle, on the left side of Mahadevapura ring road, Opp. EMC Square, from South to North carefully and cautiously. At that time, another car bearing No.KA03AD9416, came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the car bearing No.KA51AA7682, in which the petitioners were travelling. Due to this tremendous impact, the petitioners were fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
4. It is stated that, immediately after the accident, petitioner of MVC 1920/2019 was taken to Baptist Hospital, wherein she took the first aid treatment. Then she was shifted to Sanjaygandhi hospital, wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient. It is stated that, she has spent huge amount towards medical, conveyance and 5 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 nourishment charges etc., Till today she is under treatment as an outpatient.
5. It is stated that, immediately after the accident, petitioner of MVC 1921/2019 was taken to Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru. Wherein, she took the treatment as an outpatient. In this regard, she has spent huge amount towards medical, conveyance and nourishment charges etc.,
6. It is stated that, prior to the accident the petitioner in MVC 1920/2019 was hale and healthy, aged about 27 years, working as a Data Entry operator and was getting an income of Rs.15,000/ per month. On account of the injuries sustained by her, in the accident, she shall not involve in any physical strain work. Since the injuries sustained by her are permanent in nature.
7. It is stated that, prior to the accident, the petitioner of MVC 1921/2019, was hale and healthy, 6 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 aged about 50 years, coolie and earning Rs.15,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries, she cannot work as earlier.
8. It is alleged in the petitions that, the accident had taken place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Therefore, the respondent No.1 being the insurer and the respondent No.2 being the owner of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners have filed both the petitions claiming compensation in the case on hand.
9. After registration of the case, as usual notices were issued to the respondents. In response to the notices, respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement, in answer to the case of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has not appeared before the court, and remained absent and placed exparte, as per the order of this court.
7 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
10. In the written statement of the respondent No.1 has not seriously disputed the accident, and also, the injuries, sustained by the petitioners. But denied the allegation of the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the involvement of the offending vehicle, in the accident. Further contended that at the time of accident offending car No.KA03AD9416 was moving in correct side of the road in a slow manner, at that time the driver of the car bearing No.KA51AA7682 applied sudden break, without giving any signal and the alleged accident was taken place due to the sole negligence of the driver of the car bearing No.KA51AA7682. Further contended that neither the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have complied the mandatory provisions of section 134(c) & section 158(6) of M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars. But, admitted the issuance of the policy in respect of car bearing No.KA03 AD9416 and it is valid as on the date of the accident. And 8 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 contended that, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle, as on the date of the accident. It is another contention that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, without any basis. With all these grounds, sought for to dismiss the case against respondent No.1.
11. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties for final determination of this case, following issues were framed:
ISSUES IN MVC 1920/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA 51A7682 on 24.1.2019 at about 3.00 a.m. with in the limits of Mahadevapura ring road, Bengaluru in an actionable negligence?
9 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
3. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC 1921/2019
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA 51A7682 on 24.1.2019 at about 3.00 a.m. with in the limits of Mahadevapura ring road, Bengaluru in an actionable negligence ?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and fom whom?
3. What order or award?
10 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
12. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioners, by name Nagajyothi G. and Rajalakshmi, during the course of their evidence, placed their respective affidavit evidence, in lieu of examinationinchief, who examined as PW1 and PW2 in the case on hand. At the time of their evidence, 15 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Added to this, placed the evidence of the Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy, who examined as PW3. At the time of his evidence, 4 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.P17 to Ex.P20.
13. On the other hand, to prove the defence forthcoming in the objection, the respondent No.1, has not adduced evidence for consideration. And the respondent No.2 remained as silent spectator, with respect to the case of the petitioners. Hence, the matter was set down for arguments.
11 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
14. Heard the arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the written argument with one citation reported in 2011 ACJ 911 between Ravi V/s Badrinarayan and others, on the point of limitation. I have gone through the proposition laid down in the said authority, on the point of limitation.
15. On appreciation of the evidence available on record, my findings to the issues in MVC No.1920/2019 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:
16. On the other hand, my findings to the issues in MVC No.1921/2019 are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order
12 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
for the following:
*R E A S O N S*
ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES:
17. The petitioners herein, to prove the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, has to prove that, on the fateful day of the alleged accident, in the place of accident, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car bearing registration No.KA51AA7682, accident had taken place. In the said accident, the petitioners have sustained grievous injuries, which caused permanent disability. Since, burden lies on the petitioners, to prove these issues.
18. The petitioners, to discharge the burden lies on them, relied on the affidavit evidence of PW1 & PW2 and documentary evidence Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 and Ex.P12 for consideration in connection with the above issue. On the 13 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 other hand, Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 and Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the medical documents pertaining to both the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondents herein, to rebut the case of the petitioners have not produced any documentary evidence or oral evidence on record for consideration. Hence, it is incumbent upon the court to assess the available evidence on record, in order to appreciate whether the petitioners are successful in proving the above issues to satisfaction of the court.
19. It is settle principle that, under section 166 of the M.V. Act, the petitioners have to place their evidence on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The PW1 & PW2 in their respective evidence reiterated the main petition averments with respect to the accident, and actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, and also the injuries sustained by both the petitioners, consequent upon the said accident. 14 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 Added to this, on going through the documentary evidence reflect that, on the basis of the first information given by Pavan H.B. who was the driver of the defending vehicle, criminal law set in motion against the driver of the offending vehicle alleging that, he has committed the offences punishable under section 279 and 337 of IPC. It is evident that, there is no much delay, in giving information about the accident as per the recitals of Ex.P1. As per the authority relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, point of delay is not fatal in the case on hand.
20. Apart from this, this, on going through the recitals of Ex.P3 spot mahazar, Ex.P4 spot sketch and Ex.P5 motor vehicle inspector report, go to show that, after the registration of the case, the investigation officer, visited the scene of occurrence and conducted the spot mahazar in the presence of the complainant and the 15 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 punch witnesses and prepared spot sketch in the spot. The recitals of these two documents reveal about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and there is a clear mention about the registration number of the car which caused the accident and the recitals of the IMV report and the damages mentioned in the said document, has not been questioned by the respondents. And also no evidence from the side of the respondent to disprove the recitals of Ex.P5 which reveals that, accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the alleged vehicles. Added to this wound certificates, Ex.P6 & Ex.P7 and Ex.P12 reflects that, on the history of RTA, the petitioners of both the cases, sustained injuries and on the said back ground, they have taken treatment in the hospital.
21. Ultimately, on going through the recitals of the final report submitted by the investigation officer, reveals that, after setting criminal law in motion against the driver 16 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 of the offending vehicle, after due investigation process, submitted charge sheet against Sachin son of Kumar who was the driver of the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident alleging that, he has committed the offences punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. This material document remained unquestioned and unchallenged by the other side. If at all, the driver of the offending vehicle was innocent of the alleged offences, he could have question it, well in time, to prove his innocence and the owner of the offending vehicle could have give explanation, if at all his driver was innocent as on the date of the accident. All these circumstances will not create confidence with respect to the defenses forthcoming in the written statement of the respondent No.1. And no evidence is available on record to show that both the petitioners have engineered the prosecution documents in order to gain wrongfully from the hands of 17 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 the respondents. And also no acceptable evidence on record, to prove that, due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the defending vehicle, alleged accident, and its consequences were caused.
22. At the time of crossexamination of PW1 & PW2, though several questions put to them, nothing has been elicited from their mouth, to disprove the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle, as well as the innocence of the driver of the offending vehicle, Hence, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have placed satisfactory and reliable evidence on record to the effect that, due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle CAR bearing registration No.KA51AA7682. Hence, without making much discussion on the point of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, I am answering the issue No.1, in both the cases are in the Affirmative. 18 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 ISSUE NO.2 :
23. These issues are with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioners. The petitioners through these petitions claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/ and Rs.3,00,000/ respectively on account of the injuries sustained by them in the accident, under different heads.
24. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by the petitioners about the injuries sustained by them, in the accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein, the preposition laid down in the following land mark judgment, while appreciating the injury cases in Motor Vehicle Act.
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010 Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the court has to make judicious attempt to award compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant. The compensation should not be assessed
19 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 conservatively. On the other hand, compensation should also not be endeavour to secure some uniformity and consistency. The object of awarding compensation is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done, as far as money can do so, in a fair reasonable and equitable manner."
25. In the light of the preposition laid down in the above case, let me to discuss the evidence available on record. It is relevant to note that, while determining quantum of compensation, in such cases, the court has to strike a balance between the inflated and unreasonable demands of a victim and the equally untenable claim of the opposite party saying that nothing is payable. That sympathy for the victim does not, and should not, comes in the way of making a correct assessment. But if a case is made out, and the court must not be chary of awarding adequate compensation.
26. Firstly, in connection with MVC No.1920/2019 is concerned, the petitioner by name Nagajyothi, to 20 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 substantiate her contention that, she had sustained injuries in the accident, has produced wound certificate marked at Ex.P6. The said document discloses that, she sustained "Injury to the right fracture with displaced fracture of ulna shaft." According to the doctor, the injury is grevious in nature. Further Ex.P7 wound certificate of the petitioner, discloses that, she sustained injury of "Swelling and tenderness, deformity crepitus abnormal mobility present and Xray shows fracture ulna right." According to the doctor, the said injury is grievous in nature
27. Apart from this, the petitioner also produced the OPD, medical bills, 5 prescriptions and discharge summary as per Ex.P9 to Ex.P11 and Ex.P16. Subsequently as per the Ex.P16, he was admitted as an inpatient at Sanjaygandhi Institute of Trauma & Orthopaedics from 24.1.2019 to 30.1.2019. Apart from her evidence, witness by name, Dr.Avinash Parthasarthy 21 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 was examined as PW3. Who placed case sheet, OP file, Disability calculation sheet and xray as per Ex.P17 to Ex.P20. For having taken note of the injuries sustained by the petitioner & by taking note of the nature of the injuries sustained by her, and by keeping in mind about her sufferings during the said period of treatment, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.25,000/ towards pain and suffering.
28. Another point to be discussed herein, about the loss of income during laid up period and rest period. In the petition, she had stated that, she was a data entry operator at Prakash & Company, Marenahalli, Bengaluru and getting an income of Rs.15, 000/ per month. But no documentary evidence in this regard. As per the discharge summary the petitioner had took the treatment from 24.1.2019 to 30.1.2019. Anyhow, there was some difficulty to her, during the period of treatment, to do daily 22 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 routine work and to do her work for livelihood. She could have taken rest in this regard, atleast for one month Hence, I am of the view that, she is entitled for compensation of Rs.12,000/ towards the period of laid up and rest period.
29. The petitioner herein, in connection with her treatment expenses, at the time of her evidence placed 23 medical bills as per Ex.P10 of Rs.24,123/ and 5 prescriptions as per Ex.P11. The said documents remained unquestioned by the other side. Though some questions put to her in the cross examination, but nothing worthwhile has been elicited in this regard. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,123/ under the head of medical expenses.
30. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records, had sustained grievous injury of fracture of ulna shaft right forearm. As per the evidence of the petitioner, 23 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 she took the treatment at Sanjaygandhi Hospital and discharged with advice of follow up treatment and bed rest. As such, during the period of treatment, the petitioner could have taken the assistance of the attendant for travelling, and she could have spent some amount towards travelling, food and nourishment. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/ towards attendant charges, food, and nourishment and conveyance charges.
31. Another material point of loss of future income is concerned, the petitioner herein, asserting that, she had sustained permanent disability, consequent upon the injuries sustained by her. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied on her evidence along with the wound certificate, and other medical documents. In the evidence of the PW1, reiterated the same thing, forthcoming in the main petition. As already discussed above, wound 24 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 certificate placed by her as per Ex.P6 & P7, goes to show that, he had sustained grievous injuries. As per the discharge summery, marked at Ex.P.16, at the time of diagnosis, found fracture of ulna shaft right forearm. To substantiate this, the petitioner has placed, wound certificate and Xray for consideration. Apart from this, the petitioner had placed the evidence of the doctor by name Dr.Avinash Parthasarathy.
32. In the evidence of this material witness, PW3, bring forth the point that, on the history of RTA, the petitioner had sustained injuries. At the time of his examination, he perused the discharge summary of the petitioner pertaining to Sanjaygandhi Hospital, and on the basis of oral complaints of the petitioner and also on the basis of diagnosis, he came to know that, consequent upon the accident, she sustained fracture of Ulna shaft right forearm. In this regard, as per the medical record 25 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 operation was conducted of OR & IF, was done on 28.1.2019. And, he was discharged on 30.1.2019 Thereafter, she had taken regular followup treatment in the hospital. Further deposed on 9.9.2021, he examined the petitioner, in order to assess the disability and found tenderness over right ulna elbow and wrist region and also deposed with respect to the movement of right wrist dorsi, right elbow and in connection with her difficulty to lift over hard objects, drinking water, putting and removing dresses. As per the xray report dated 9.9.2021, shown old fracture right ulna with implants in situ. And also in connection with the mobility and stability components percentage of disability has been assessed. And on the basis of his, disability calculation sheet, fully narrated in para No.4 of his affidavit evidence, opined that, permanent physical impairment of the petitioner is 36% with respect to a particular limb. And with respect to the 26 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 whole body assessed the disability of Rs.12%. Apart from this opined that, for removal of implants, one more surgery is required, which would be costs Rs.15,000/. Ultimately he deposed that, he assessed the disability of the petitioner Nagajyothi, on the basis of the guidelines and Gazette Notification. And also opined that, the disability mentioned by him, is permanent in nature, and it will interfere with the routine physical activity of the petitioner.
33. At the time of the crossexamination of this witness, stated that, he was the treated doctor of the petitioner. And answered that, now the fractures were united, by denying the suggestion that, as on the date of his examination, the petitioner she was in normal condition. And also denied the suggestion that, only to help the petitioner, opined about the percentage of disability, in higher side. And also answered that, the petitioner with difficulty, can do her daytoday work. 27 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 And, it is elicited from his mouth that, the petitioner had taken free treatment in the hospital. But not received any Government facilities.
34. Over all appreciation of the evidence given by the PW1, as well as the evidence of PW3, along with the medical documents and assessment of PW3, in connection with the percentage of the disability of the petitioner with respect to a particular limb and whole body, I am of the view that, if the permanent physical disability of the petitioner, in connection with the whole body, if at all 9% is taken, will meet the ends of justice.
35. In connection with the age of the petitioner by name Nagajyothi G. is concerned, on going through the cause title of the petition reveals that, as on the date of the petition, his age was 27 years. The petitioner has not produced any documents regarding her age proof. On going through the wound certificate, as on the date of 28 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 accident the petitioner was aged about 27 years. The said medical documents placed by the petitioner, on record, remained unchallenged. Therefore, as on the date of accident, as per the wound certificates, the petitioner was aged about 27 years. To the said age, as per Sarla Verma case, multiplier '17' is to be taken into consideration.
36. Next factual aspect of the income of the petitioner is concerned, in the main petition, and also in the examinationinchief evidence, it is the assertion of the petitioner that, prior to the accident, she was working as a Data entry operator at Prakash and Company, Marenahalli, Bengaluru and used to earn Rs.15,000/ per month. In support of her avocation and about the definite income per month, the petitioner has not placed any satisfactory documents on record, for consideration. In such a situation, as per law, notional income per month 29 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 has to be taken in to consideration. But the said notional income is to be taken judiciously, by taking into consideration of the year of the accident and the economic scenario of the society, and also by considering the necessities to lead peaceful and satisfactory life, in the family. It is pertinent to note that, in the case on hand, the alleged accident had taken place in the year 2019. Hence, by keeping in mind about the year of the institution of this case, I am of the view that, in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the present case, fully discussed above, it is apt to take the notional income of the petitioner as Rs.12,000/ for the year 2019.
37. In the light of my detailed discussions held above, no doubt injuries sustained by the petitioner definitely come in the way of her future, in a slight manner, to do her daily routine work, as well as to do her 30 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 work for livelihood. Hence, the petitioner herein, is entitled for compensation under loss of future income as follows:
Rs.12,000 X 12 X 17 X 9/100 = Rs.2,20,320/
38. Next factual aspect of loss of amenities is concerned, on going through the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and also as per the evidence of the PW1, along with the documents placed by her, as well as the recitals of the discharge summary and also on perusal of the main petition averments about the age, occupation and income of the petitioner, due to the injuries sustained by her, there may be a chances of little bit difficulties may occur while doing her daily routine activities and also while doing her work for livelihood. Hence, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/ towards the loss of amenities.
39. In connection with the future medication expenses is concerned, the PW3, in his evidence, has
31 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 stated that, the petitioner has to undergo one more surgery, for removal of the implants and the estimated cost of the said procedure would be Rs.15,000/. Hence, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/ under the head of future medication.
40. In view of my due discussions held above, on various aspects, the above petitioner is entitled for compensation in toto, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 25,00000
2. Loss of income during laidup Rs. 12,00000 period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 24,12300
4. Attendant, Nourishment and Rs. 10,00000 Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Rs.2,20,32000
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 20,00000
7. Future medication Rs. 10,00000 Total Rs.3,21,44300 32 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
41. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,21,443/ (Rupees three lakhs twenty one thousand four hundred and forty three only) along with interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
42. Secondly, in connection with the petitioner of MVC No.1921/2019, by name Rajalakshmi is concerned, the said petitioner, to substantiate her contention, has produced wound certificate marked at Ex.P12. The said document discloses that, she had sustained the following injury: 33 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
1) Soft tissue injury over chest,
2) Lacerated wound over scalp
3) Injuries to back bone
43. According to the doctor, the aforesaid injuries are simple in nature. Further the petitioner has produced outpatient record as per Ex.P13, medical bills as per Ex.P14 and prescriptions as per Ex.P15. As per Ex.P13, the petitioner had taken treatment conservatively as an outpatient. For having taken note of the injury sustained by the petitioner & by taking note of the nature of the injury sustained by her, and by keeping in mind about her sufferings during the said period of treatment, I am of the view that, the petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.15,000/ towards pain and suffering.
44. Another point to be discussed herein, about the loss of income during laid up period and rest period is concerned, the petitioner has produced Ex.P13 34 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 outpatient record, the said document, will not give clear picture how many days the petitioner had taken treatment as an inpatient or an outpatient in the hospital with respect to the injuries sustained by her consequent upon the RTA. In such a situation, court cannot give finding in connection with the point that, how many days the petitioner had lost her income at the time of treatment. Hence, I am of the view that, she is not entitled for compensation towards the laid up and rest period.
45. The petitioner herein, in connection with her treatment expenses, has produced 6 medical bills as per Ex.P14 for Rs.1, 877/ along with prescriptions as per Ex.P15. The said documents remained unquestioned by the other side. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,877/ under the head of medical expenses.
35 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
46. The petitioner herein, as per the medical records, sustained simple injuries. Except the wound certificate, she has not produced any medical documents for consideration. As per the petition averments, she took treatment in the Baptist Hospital. The petitioner has taken treatment conservatively as an outpatient for her three simple injuries. During the said period, she could have spent some amount towards food, nourishment, travelling charges, and also she could have born the exposes of the person, who accompanied her to the hospital. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation of Rs.5,000/ towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
47. Another material point of loss of future income is concerned, the petitioner herein, suffered only simple injuries. No piece of paper is available on record to show that, the injuries sustained by her, are grievous in 36 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 nature. Further petitioner has not examined the doctor to assess the disability. Hence, she is not entitled to get any compensation under the loss of future income.
48. Next factual aspect of loss of amenities is concerned, consequent upon the injuries sustained by the petitioner, mentioned in the wound certificate, there will be no any loss of amenities, for consideration. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the loss of amenities.
49. In connection with the future medication expenses is concerned, the petitioner has not placed any iota of medical documents for consideration. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under the head of future medication.
50. In the light of the above discussion on various heads, the above petitioner is entitled for compensation in toto, under the following heads:
37 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.15,00000
2. Loss of income during laid Nil up period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,87700
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 5,00000 and Conveyance Charges
5. Loss of future income Nil
6. Loss of Amenities Nil
7. Future medication Nil Total Rs.21,87700
51. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,877/ (Rupees twenty one thousand eight hundred and seventy seven only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition, till the realisation of the award amount, as per the proposition laid down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016, between Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated. 20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 38 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
LIABILITY:
52. As regards the liability is concerned, in the case on hand, accident has not been seriously disputed by the other side. And the evidence given by the petitioner to the effect that, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Car bearing Registration No.KA03AD9416, accident had taken place, and in the said accident, the petitioners sustained injures, remained unshaken. The respondent No.1 being the insurance company, has not seriously disputed about the existence of insurance policy pertaining to the offending vehicle, as on the date of the accident. As per the assertion of the petitioners and the narrations forthcoming in the cause title of the main petition, policy pertaining to the offending vehicle was valid from 27.8.2018 to 26.8.2019. Accident
39 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 had taken place on 24.1.2019. As such, the respondent No.1 & 2 being the insurance company and the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1, being the insurance company, and indemnifier has to satisfy the award. As such, in view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization. Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 in both the cases, partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3 IN BOTH THE CASES:
53. In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 & 2, in both the cases, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petitions filed by the respective petitioners, as per MVC No.1920/2019 and MVC 40 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 No.1921/2019, under section 166 of M.V. Act, are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for
compensation amount as noted below, with
interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of deposit.
MVC.No.1920/2019 Rs.3,21,44300
MVC.No.1921/2019 Rs.21,87700
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 being the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners, together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
41 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 The expenses to be incurred for future medication of MVC 1920/2019 shall not carry any interest.
After deposit of the compensation amount with interest, the petitioner of, MVC 1920/2019 is concerned, 40% is directed to be deposited in any nationalized/Schedule bank in F.D for a period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
After deposit of compensation amount together with interest, the petitioner of MVC 1921/2019 is concerned, since the award amount is very meager, entire amount shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
42 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019 The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.1920/2019 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC No.1921/2019.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/ each.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, online, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 25th day of March 2022).
(V.NAGAMANI) C/C XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Smt.Nagajyothi G. PW2 Smt.Rajalakshmi PW3 Dr.Avinash Parthasarthy
List of documents exhibited on petitioners' side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of Rough sketch
43 SCCH17 MVC 1920/2019 & 1921/2019
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P6 Wound certificate
Ex.P7 Wound certificate
Ex.P8 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P9 OPD records
Ex.P10 Medical bills
Ex.P11 Prescriptions
Ex.P12 True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P13 True copy of discharge summary
(Outpatient record)
Ex.P14 Medical bills
Ex.P15 Prescriptions
Ex.P16 Discharge summary
Ex.P17 Case sheet
Ex.P18 OP file
Ex.P19 Disability calculation sheet
Ex.P20 Xray
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
Nil List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Nil (V.NAGAMANI) C/C XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.