Bangalore District Court
Rmeshvaramraju Mudunur vs Shivakumar R on 8 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF XIX ADDL. JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-17)
Dated: This the 9th day of December 2020
Present: SMT.VIJAYALAXMI GHANAPUR
L.L.M.,
XIX ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.141/2019
PETITIONER: Rmeshvaramraju Mudunur,
S/o.Mudunuru
Krishnamurthyraju,
Aged about 31 years
Presently r/at;
No.Flot No.1, 2nd floor,
Krishna Krupa,
Kavery Layout, near
Annapurna Mars,
Marathhalli, Bangalore - 37
Permanent r/o.
No.7-9-B, 4th line,
Amaravathi colony,
2 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17
Ammavari temple,
Rajam, Srikakulam,
Andhra Pradesh- 532 127
(By Pleader Sri.TKR)
V/s.
RESPONDENTS: 1. Shivakumar R.
S/o.Rajagopal A, Major
Flot No.104, first floor,
No.10, 2nd main road, 2nd cross,
Venkatadri Layout, J.P.Nagar,
Bannerghatta road,
Bangalore - 560 076
(By pleader Sri.NM)
2. The Manager,
Liberty Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.1, Alyssa, 1st floor, rear portion,
Old No.28, new No.23,
Richmond road, Richmond town,
Bangalore - 25
(By pleader Sri.KP)
3 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed claim petition against the respondents U/S 166 of M.V. Act for seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- along with 12% interest for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The substance of the petition, in brief, is as under:
Petitioner pleaded that on 24-12-2018, at about 7.30 P.M., when the petitioner proceeding on the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-03-HW-7949 on T.Chowdaiah road, near LRDE junction, from Chalukya circle towards Rajabhavan, Bangalore, at that time the rider of another motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-51-HE-6983 rode the same in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down and 4 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 sustained grievous. The motorcycle was also damaged to an extent of Rs.20,000/-. Immediately he was shifted to Vikram hospital, Bangalore, wherein first aid was administered and then shifted to Sakra World Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. He has spent about Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges.
He was hale and healthy at the time of the accident, aged about 31 years, working as Senior Software Engineer at Intelli four Software Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs.1,23,350/- p.m. Due to accidental injuries he become disabled.
Jurisdictional police registered the case against the rider of offending motorcycle, which is insured with the second respondent and owned by the first respondent, they are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, petition is filed. 5 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17
3. In response to the petition notice, both the respondents appeared before the court and filed their respective written statements.
4. The substance of the written statement of first respondent is as under:
The first respondent has denied the averments of the petition formally and contended that, he is the RC owner of the said motorcycle bearing reg. No. KA-51-HE-6983 and same was insured with the second respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and he was holding valid and effective driving license to ride the vehicle and hence, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Further the first respondent has denied the age, occupation and quantum of income of the petitioner. Further he contended that, the compensation claimed by 6 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against him with costs.
5. The substance of the written statement of second respondent, in brief, is as under:
The second respondent is the insurance company denied the petition averments in toto and admitted the issuance of the policy to the alleged motorcycle bearing Engine No. G3H7E0071056 and chasis No.ME1RG4219J0044814 and inter alia contended that the liability of this respondent, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further the owner of the alleged motorcycle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(C) and 158(6) of MV.Act. The rider of the alleged motorcycle was not 7 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. It has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him and also disablement suffered by him. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant. With these grounds he prays to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-51-HE-6983 on 24-12-2018 at about
7.30 p.m. on T.Chowdaiah road, LRDE junction, Bangalore?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate? From whom?
3. What order or award?
8 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to 12. He also examined Ranganatha D. Asst. Medical Records Officer at Sakra Hospital as Pw.2 and Ex.P13 to 16 are got marked through him. Further in support of his evidence, he has examined Dr.R.Kantharaju as Pw.3 and Ex.P.17 to 19 are got marked through him. Per contra respondents have not chosen to led any evidence on their behalf.
8. Heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the entire material on record and also the citations submitted by the learned counsel for second respondent.
9. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative 9 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
10. ISSUE NO.1:-. Petitioner asserted that he sustained injuries in road traffic accident occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of rider of alleged motorcycle. Per contra respondents denied the same.
11. It is well settled that to claim compensation u/S. 166 of MV Act it is sine qua non to demonstrate the actionable negligence on the part of tortfeasor, which is to be proved under the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt as it is warranted in a criminal trial to bring home the guilt of accused. Initial burden of proof is always on the claimant. 10 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17
12. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he sustained grievous injuries due to the accident caused by rash and negligent riding of rider of alleged motorcycle. To prove the same and discharge the said burden the petitioner filed his evidence affidavit and relied upon Ex.P.1 to P.12. Ex.P.1 is the FIR registered by High Grounds Traffic P.S against the rider of the motorcycle on the basis of the report lodged by petitioner. Ex.P2 is the charge sheet filed by the High Grounds Traffic P.S. against the rider of the alleged motorcycle by opining that the accident has not taken place due to any mechanical defect of the vehicles. But it has taken place due to the negligence of rider of the motorcycle. Ex.P.3 & 4 are Sketch and Spot mahazar and Ex.P5 is IMV report, which reveals the damages to the motorcycle and the said damages were not 11 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 because of mechanical defects. Ex.P6 is wound certificate, reveals that petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident.
13. During the cross-examination of the Pw.1 it is suggested that due to his own negligence the accident was occurred. But the Pw.1 denied the said suggestion. To prove the specific defence of respondents, they have not placed any proof to prove its defence.
14. The Learned counsel for second respondent fairly submitted at the time of the accident that they are not disputing the accident. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that the charge sheet filed against the first respondent has not been challenged by him. Admittedly there is no dispute with respect to the police documents produced by the petitioner, which were prepared by the 12 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 police while discharging official duty. Admittedly second respondent has not challenged the police reports. In addition to this, there is no contra material to disprove the case of the petitioner. Therefore, looking to the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner there is no impediment to accept the version of the accident projected by the petitioner in which he sustained the injuries. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 31 years, working as Software Engineer and earning Rs.1,23,550/- Per month. Further he suffered with disability due to accidental injuries and due to that he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier 13 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 to the accident and incurred medial and incidental expenses of Rs.3,50,000/- and prays to award compensation.
On the contrary, respondents denied the above contention of the petitioner in toto. The petitioner has proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing reg. No.KA-51-HE-6983, by its rider. In this backdrop let me determine just and reasonable compensation under the following heads.
a) Towards Pain and suffering: On perusal of Ex.P.6 i.e. copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injury:-
Comminuted fracture of left radius (L) As per the medical records, the said injury is grievous in nature. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injury and the line of treatment he underwent and 14 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 also considering the age and occupation of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of Pain and sufferings.
b) Towards attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges: On perusal of Ex.P.16 i.e. inpatient record, it shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from 25-12-2018 to 27-12-2018 for a period of 3 days at Sakra Hospital. Considering the above facts and looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/-under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
c) Towards medical expenses: The petitioner stated that he has spent about Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical expenses. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly submitted that the amount of Rs.1,68,465/- already reimbursed from 15 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 the company of the petitioner. Pw.1 during the cross-
examination clearly stated that he has also received the compensation towards damages of his vehicle through his own insurance company. Considering the fair submission of learned counsel for petitioner and also admission of the Pw.1 during his cross-examination, the question of compensation towards medical expenses either present or future does not arise at all.
d) Towards loss of future income due to disability:
There is no dispute regarding the avocation of the petitioner. Admittedly, he is a software engineer and getting gross salary of Rs.1,60,000/- and above. It is also not in dispute that he is getting salary more than prior to the accident. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, the salary certificates produced by the petitioner himself 16 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 depicts that presently he is getting the salary of Rs.1,63,112/-, wherein he used to get Rs.1,23,550/- prior to the accident. It is also admitted that he had received entire salary for the month of December and January. Admittedly, the accident took place on 24.12.2018 i.e., in the month of December. Ex.P8 depicts that the petitioner himself resigned the job. But Learned counsel for petitioner argued that for six months the petitioner is not worked in any company. But, looking to the documentary and oral evidence of Pw.1, it is clear that, petitioner himself resigned the job and his salary is hiked and he has received the salary for the month of January without any deductions. As per the Ex.P8 he resigned his job in the month of March. So, after the accident he used to get the same salary by continuing the same profession. It is settled position of law 17 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 that while granting compensation under the head of future loss of earnings, there must be evidence to show that as a result of injury, the income was reduced or there was loss of earnings or he was removed from the service on account of disability or he is incapable of doing any work. Looking to the factual and documentary evidence on record, the petitioner not at all suffered for any reasons as stated supra. Hence, in the absence of these factors, the question of awarding of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings will not arise at all.
Looking to the avocation of the petitioner, there is no functional disability, which restrict discharge of his duty. Looking to the salary certificates which clearly reveals that his efficiency in the work is good and satisfactory and 18 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 hence, he is getting more salary than earlier to the accident in the new working place.
e) Towards loss of future amenities and happiness:
As per the evidence of Pw.3 i.e., doctor the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 6% to the whole body and some moderate pain. But the said doctor is not a treated doctor and looking to the discharge summary the condition of the petitioner at the time of discharge is stable the said Pw.3 clearly admitted that the dominate hand of the petitioner is the right hand. So, the disability to the left portion will not resist in his avocation. But, to some extent, it may become uncomfortable in future. So, considering the above facts and keeping the age of the petitioner in mind, I deem it just and reasonable to grant 19 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 compensation of Rs.10,000/- under the head of loss of future amenities and happiness.
Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following the heads;
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
a. Towards Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
b. Towards attendant, nourishment Rs. 50,000/-
and conveyance charges
c. Towards medical expenses Nil
d. Towards loss of future income Nil
due to disability
e. Towards loss of future amenities Rs. 10,000/-
and happiness
Total Rs.1,10,000/-
16. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the first respondent and second respondent are the 20 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 owner and insurer of alleged motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
51-HE-6983. Therefore, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Second respondent being the insurer has to indemnify the owner.
Awarding the interest on compensation amount is concern in MFA No.103557/2016 (Sriram General Ins.Co. Ltd., V/s.Smt. Lakshmi & Others) (DD.20-03-2018) the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that as per Sec.34 of CPC, the rate of interest that can be awarded on judgments cannot be more than 6% and that since Sec.149 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for interest on judgments, the interest to be awarded in claim petitions has to be 6% per annum and not more than that. Hence, in the case on hand, interest at the rate of 6% per annum is 21 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 awarded. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.3: In view of my answers to issue Nos.1 & 2, in the affirmative and partly affirmative, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R Petition is allowed in part with costs. Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- (Rupees One lakh ten thousand only) with interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till its realization.
Respondents are liable to pay compensation. Second respondent being the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and it is directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this judgment.
In the event of deposit, release the entire amount in favour of the petitioner.
22 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17 Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 9th day of December, 2020).
(VIJAYALAXMI GHANAPUR) XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
Pw.1 Rmeshwararaju Mudunur Pw.2 Ranganatha Pw.3 Dr.Kantharaju
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint of High Grounds Traffic P.S. in crime No.77/2018 Ex-P2 True copy of charge sheet Ex-P3 Sketch Ex-P4 Spot mahazar Ex-P5 IMV report Ex-P6 Wound certificate Ex-P7 Pay slips for the month of January and February 2019 Ex-P8 Relieved letter issued by Intelli Four 23 MVC.No.141/2019 SCCH-17 Software Pvt. Ltd., Ex-P9 Bank statement Ex-P10 Notarised copy of driving licence Ex-P11 Form 16 for the assessment year 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-2020 Ex-P12 Offer letter issued by accenture company Ex-P13 Authorisation letter Ex-P14 True copy of MLC register Ex-P15 Carbon copy of police intimation Ex-P16 Inpatient file Ex-P17 Clinical examination note Ex-P18 Disability assessment chart Ex-P19 Recent X-ray films List of witnesses examined on respondent's side:
NIL List of documents exhibited on respondent's side: NIL XIX ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM.24 MVC.No.141/2019
SCCH-17 SCCH-17 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.141/2019 PETITIONER: Rameshvaramraju Mudunur, S/o.Mudunuru Krishnamurhtyraju, Aged about 31 years Presently r/at;
No.Flot No.1, 2nd floor, Krishna Krupa, Kavery Layout, near Annapurna Mars, Marathhalli, Bangalore - 37 Permanent r/o.
No.7-9-B, 4th line, Amaravathi colony, Ammavari temple, Rajam, Srikakulam, Andhra Pradesh- 532 127 (By Pleader Sri.TKR) V/s.