Bangalore District Court
Smt.A.Anjali Rao vs Venktesh P.R on 4 May, 2017
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.5064/2016
Dated this the 4th DAY OF MAY, 2017
Petitioner/s : SMT.A.ANJALI RAO
W/o N.R.Nagendra Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.81, A.M.S layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Banglaore-560 097.
(By pleader Sri ADJ)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. VENKTESH P.R
S/O Ramachandra Rao D.V
aged about 56 years,
R/at No.9/2, Dattatreya Road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560 004.
2. Sri.Mithun. P.V
S/o Venktesh P.R
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.9/2, Dattatreya road,
Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-540 004.
(R1 &2 -By pleader Sri KRA)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.5064/2016
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 16.04.2016 at about 10.30 to 10.40 p.m., the petitioner was crossing 9th cross, J.P Nagara, II phase, near 21st main road, Bangalore, at that time, car bearing No.KA-05-MA-9176 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner without observing traffic rules and regulations without seeing front portion of the road without sounding horn, in a high speed came and dashed against the petitioner. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained anterior cruciate ligament tear of right knee joint, injuries to back, patella, lateral femoral condyle and other parts of the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Forties Hospital wherein first aid treatment was given and then, she was shifted to Rajashekar Hospital wherein she was admitted as an inpatient. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient at Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. She spent Rs.5,00,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- for conveyance, Rs.75,000/- for nourishment. She engaged one maid attender to look after her and was paying salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was a director in Akshara Drug House Pvt.,Ltd., and was earning Rs.1,75,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries, she closed her business as a result loss of earning and SCCH-14 3 MVC No.5064/2016 earning capacity. The petitioner is still under treatment. The petitioner is not able to stand, walk and it is very difficulty to look after her family. Jayanagar Traffic police have registered Cr.No.145/2016 and after investigation, the said police have filed charge sheet against the driver of car bearing No.KA-05-MA-9176 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC and Sec.134(B) r/w 187 and 146 r/w 196 of MV Act. The respondents are the owner and driver of said car and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with Court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have appeared before the court through their counsel and filed their common objections statement. They have denied the averments of the petition as false and contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that the petitioner has filed the petition for getting compensation, that the petitioner was carelessly and negligently crossing the road in question without following the road traffic rules by not using the zebra crossing which was very much near by the place of alleged accident. They have admitted to be the owner and driver of car bearing No.KA-05-MA- 9176, but they have contended that the respondent no.2 is having driving licence No.KA520090007090 issued on 10.06.2015, that on 16.04.2016 at about 10.15 p.m., the respondent no.2 was driving the said car slowly and carefully duly following all the traffic rules and regulation, that the point of crossing was situated at about 25 meters behind the zebra cross, that the petitioner and a girl were SCCH-14 4 MVC No.5064/2016 negligently and carelessly trying to cross the road in the middle of motorway without using a well defined zebra cross lying just within a short distance, that the petitioner was trying to climb median, another vehicle was coming from the other side opposite direction with high beam and in the process of avoiding the said vehicle coming in the other direction, she lost her balance and fell on the ground backwards in 9th cross itself, that at that time, the driver of the car in front of the vehicle in question took a sharp turn and zoomed past the petitioner without touching her and went without stopping the car as a result of which, the petitioner fell on the ground, that the respondent no.2 suddenly stopped his car feeling pity and only out of humanity came out of vehicle for her help and assistance, but the petitioner unnecessarily started shouting and blaming the driver for having fallen down on the road by losing balance herself, that the respondent no.2 has taken the petitioner in his car to the hospital and she asked him to pay the bills, that the respondent no.2 has paid total amount of Rs.24,540/- for hospital bills, that the petitioner's daughter has taken a photo of the said car registration number plate in her mobile as per her mother's instructions for future anticipated insurance claim, that the incident narrated by the petitioner is completely fabricated and twisted only to suit her convenience to gain sympathy from this court in order to get a compensation at the cost of the respondents, that the petitioner gave her statement to the police on 18.04.2016 with her signature in which a totally different story is narrated, that Mahazar prepared by the police clearly shows that the petitioner fell down beside the median, that the petitioner filed a complaint on SCCH-14 5 MVC No.5064/2016 23.08.2016 i.e., after a week with highly fabricated and concocted documents only to claim compensation after learning that the insurance policy of the car in question was lapsed, that they have not done anything wrong and there was no physical contact between the petitioner and the said car, that CC No.6170/2016 is pending before MMTC -VIII and they are contesting the said matter, that they have helped the petitioner out of humanity by spending about Rs.28,000/-, that the petitioner filed this case even after sincerely promising them that she would not make any claim in this regard. Hence, they have sought for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 16.04.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., to 10.40 p.m., on 9th cross, near 21st main road, J.P Nagar 2nd phase, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing No.KA-05-MA-9176?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and examined a doctor as PW.2. She has got documents marked as Ex.P1 to 27. The respondents have examined SCCH-14 6 MVC No.5064/2016 themselves as RW.2 and 1 respectively and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 13.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.3,58,000/-
from the respondents.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner is the victim and she sustained injury in road accident 16.4.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., at 9th cross, near 21st main road, J.P.Nagar II phase, Bangalore, that the petitioner was taken to Forties hospital first and then, she was shifted to Rajashekhar hospital for treatment, that the respondents are the owner and driver of car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176, that they are father and son in relationship, that their car was not insured as on 16.4.2016, that the respondent no.2 took the petitioner to hospital for treatment, that the respondents have incurred medical expenses of the petitioner pertaining to said hospitals, that the petitioner has given statement before police as per Ex.R-5 and gave complaint as per Ex.R-6/ Ex.P-1, that Jayanagar traffic police have registered Cr.No.145/16 on 23.4.2016 at about 7.15 p.m., on the basis of information given by the petitioner, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the respondent no.2 for the offences punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC, that the respondents have not SCCH-14 7 MVC No.5064/2016 challenged the said charge sheet, but the respondent no.2 is contesting the matter before criminal Court.
9. Ex.P-6 and 7 are copies of Sec.133 notice and of reply to it which reveal that the respondents are the owner and driver of car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176, the respondent no.2 was holding driving license to drive the car, but the car was not covered with insurance policy on the date of alleged accident. IMV report at Ex.P-4 discloses that car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176 was detained by the police and was subjected to inspection, that the car was found damaged and its brake system was in order. It is opined by the IMV authority that the alleged accident was not due to mechanical defects. It means, the accident was due to human negligence.
10. The petitioner and the respondents have made rival claim regarding negligence aspect. The petitioner has pleaded that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the respondent no.2 in which she sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. The respondents have denied the case of the petitioner as false. They have denied the occurrence of accident in the manner as pleaded by the petitioner, the existence of negligence on the part of the respondent no.2 for the occurrence of accident and causing of grievous injuries in the nature of causing permanent disability to the petitioner. They have contended that the petitioner sustained simple injuries due to self fall, that their car never touched the petitioner, that the petitioner has become as normal as before and she did not suffer any disability. It is their case that the SCCH-14 8 MVC No.5064/2016 respondent no.2 stopped his car, took the petitioner to hospital and spent amount for her treatment on humanitarian consideration and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner much less the one claimed in the petition.
11. PW-1:Anjali Rao is the petitioner. She has deposed as per the averments of the petition. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from her during cross examination. Evidence of RW-1:Mithun and RW-2: Venkatesh is as per the averments of written statement. They have admitted as to taking the petitioner to hospital from the place of accident, as to payment of medical expenses of the petitioner, as to registration of crime by police and as to filing of charge sheet against the respondent no.2 for causing grievous injuries to the petitioner by driving his car in rash and negligent manner. The said admissions of RW-1 and 2 go against their defence. The respondents tried to get support from Ex.R-1 to 13, but bank statement, copy of statement recorded by police, copy of complaint, prescription, OPD bills, final bill, receipt and bills at Ex.R-3 to 13 are helpful to the petitioner rather than to the respondents. There is some discrepancy between the statement and complaint at Ex.R-5 and 6, but said discrepancy is minor discrepancy and it does not take away the credibility of oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner.
12. Copies of police records are at Ex.P-1 to 8, at Ex.R-5 and 6 and they reveal that an intimation regarding MLC was given to the police on 17.4.2016 at about 7.35 a.m., by Rajashekhar hospital, that the police went to hospital on 18.4.2016 and recorded SCCH-14 9 MVC No.5064/2016 statement, but have not registered crime, that the police have registered Cr.No.145/16 on 23.4.2016 on the basis of statement of the petitioner as per Ex.R-6, that the car was moving from west to east and the petitioner was crossing the road from north to south, that the accident has occurred on the southern portion of the road, that the police have detained the car, got it inspected and released it to the respondent no.1 by getting indemnity bond. Left front portion of car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176 was damaged. There is no explanation from the respondents as to said damage. If there was no collision between the car and the petitioner as deposed by RW-1 and 2, then there was no chance of car getting damaged and there was every chance of the respondents challenging the detention of car. But, the car was damaged and the respondents have not challenged the detention of car by the police. Instead of challenging the action taken by the police, the respondents have incurred huge medical expenses of the petitioner as can be seen from bank statements, prescription, OPD bills, final bill and receipts at Ex.P-3, 4, 7 to 13. Such an act is not of a prudent man and it can only be expected from a guilty person. Damage found on the car indicates that the car went and hit the petitioner. Hence, false implication of car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176 in the accident and filing of false complaint against the respondent no.2 is ruled out.
13. There was a delay of about 7 days in lodging complaint. But, there was no delay in admitting the petitioner to the hospital, in sending MLC intimation to the police and in recording of statement of the petitioner by the police. History of injuries of the SCCH-14 10 MVC No.5064/2016 petitioner is shown as RTA i.e., hit by a 4-wheeler in police intimation, wound certificate and emergency consultation sheet at Ex.P-8 to 10. The respondent no.1 has taken the petitioner to Forties hospital and then, the respondents shifted her to Rajashekhar hospital. There was no chance for the petitioner to give wrong information to the hospital authority regarding history of her injuries in the presence of the respondents. The delay in lodging complaint is explained by the petitioner. Her explanation is probable and believable. RW-1 and 2 have admitted that the petitioner was demanding them money for her treatment. If the respondents were helping the petitioner on humanitarian ground, then the petitioner would not have demanded them to pay her hospital bills. No prudent man will keep quite and pay amount though he is innocent. There is no protest by the respondents to pay hospital charges of the petitioner. Their conduct clearly indicates that the accident was due to negligence of the respondent no.2.
14. RW-1 and 2 have deposed that the petitioner was crossing the road unmindfully where there was no zebra crossing. They have stated about existence of zebra crossing near the place of accident and about non use of such zebra crossing by the petitioner. Thus, it is their contention that the accident was due to sole negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent no.2. They have produced photographs of the place of accident and google map photograph as to existence of zebra crossing near the place of accident. The photographs make it clear that the road in the spot is a two way road with median at the centre. A zebra crossing is appearing in google map near the place of SCCH-14 11 MVC No.5064/2016 accident. But, PW-1 has stated that there was no zebra crossing in the said place at the time of accident. She indicates that the zebra crossing was put after the accident. Her evidence in that regard can not be brushed aside. There is gap of more than 10 months between the date of accident and production of google photograph. It is possible that zebra crossing is made after the date of accident. Secondly, crossing the road where there is no zebra crossing does not give any right or authority to any person to cause accident to pedestrian. There is no evidence that the petitioner has abruptly entered the road without giving room to apply brakes. Moreover, the respondents have no such defence. They have stated that the car never touched the petitioner and she fell down on her own by seeing high beam of another car coming from opposite direction and got injured. There is no corroboration to the evidence of RW-1 and 2 in that regard. Damage caused to the car and investigated done by the police indicate that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the respondent no.2 and the car went and dashed against the petitioner. Charge sheet is prima facie evidence as to negligence of the respondent no.2. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said charge sheet. Contesting of the criminal case by the respondent no.2 is no ground to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.
15 The brake system of the car was in order. The respondent no.2 could have avoided the accident by applying brakes at appropriate time. The petitioner was crossing the road. The respondent no.2 was able to see the petitioner before accident. Since, the petitioner was crossing the road from north to south, she SCCH-14 12 MVC No.5064/2016 was not able to see the car immediately after it entered the cross road. Sketch and the evidence of RW-1 and 2 disclose that the accident has occurred near road median i.e., southern portion of one way road. It means, the petitioner was almost crossed the road and she was about the cross the road median. The petitioner should have driven the car on the left of side of the road, but he went to right side i.e., towards median and caused accident to the petitioner. Since, the respondent no.2 was driving the car in high speed and in negligent manner, he could not control the vehicle which went and dashed the petitioner causing her injuries. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P-1 to 11 substantiate the averments of the petition. Evidence of RW-1 and 2 is improbable and untrustworthy. Ex.R-1 to 13 are not sufficient to prove the defence of the respondents and to disprove the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the documents at Ex.P-3 to 13 go in favour of the petitioner. I am of the opinion that the respondents have failed to prove their defence. On the contrary, the petitioner has succeeded to prove her contention regarding manner of accident. Hence, I hold that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the respondent no.2 in driving his car bearing no.KA- 05-MA-9176 in which the petitioner sustained injuries.
16. Medical records are at Ex.P-9 to 19, 23 to 25 disclose that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident. Ex.R7 to 13 confirm the causing injuries to the petitioner in road accident. X-rays confirm that there was ACL tear of right knee with lateral meniscus tear of the petitioner. PW-2: Dr.Krishan Prasad has deposed that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability due to SCCH-14 13 MVC No.5064/2016 accidental injuries, that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 45% to right lower limb and 15% whole body. The respondents have contented that the assessment made by PW-2 is on the higher side. Correctness of his assessment will be considered later. However, it becomes clear that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and is suffering from some sort of disability. There is no evidence to believe that the injuries caused to the petitioner were simple in nature and she did not suffer any disability. Hence, I believe the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P-9 to 19, 23 to 25 and hold that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury in an accident which was due to sole negligence of the driver of car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176. Thus, the petitioner has succeeded to prove this issue and I answer the issue in affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioner has pleaded that he was aged 42 years, was working as director in Akshara Drug House Pvt., Ltd., and was earning Rs.1,75,000/- p.m., The respondents have denied the said facts as false. PW-1: Anjali Rao has deposed as per the averments of the petition. Her evidence as to occupation and income is denied during cross examination. The petitioner has not produced any document regarding her age and income. But, he has produced copy of ITR for the assessment year 2015-16 and 2016-17 which are marked as Ex.P-22. Age of the petitioner is shown as 41 years in police records and medical records. Her occupation is mentioned as housewife in charge sheet. But, copy of Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association at Ex.P-21 discloses that the petitioner is a director of Akshara Drug House Pvt., Ltd., ITRs at Ex.P-22 disclose that the petitioner has declared her income as SCCH-14 14 MVC No.5064/2016 Rs.2,67,970/- for the assessment year 2015-16 and as Rs.3,00,270/- for the assessment year 2016-17. The said ITRs are filed after accident i.e., on 22.9.2016. Though, the ITRs are subsequent to the accident, they can be relied upon because pass book of the petitioner is at Ex.P-20 which disclose that the petitioner was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.29,800/-. Annual income of the petitioner exceeds the income shown in ITRs at Ex.P-22. Since, the amount shown in Ex.P-22 is declared income, same shall be considered as income of the petitioner as on the date of accident. Income shown in ITR for the assessment year 2016-17 is the income as on the date of accident as it pertains to previous year 2015-16. She was having income of Rs.3,00,000/- plus p.a., It means, she was having monthly income of Rs.25,000/-. Denials elicited from PW-1 are no way helpful to the respondents to disprove the case of the petitioner. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was aged 41 years, was engaged in business and was a director of Akshara Drug House Pvt., Ltd., and was having an income of Rs.25,000/- p.m., as on the date of incident.
18. Evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of wound certificate, emergency consultation sheet, investigation report, discharge summary, OPD record echo report, physiotherapy form, MRI report, case sheets and x-rays at Ex.P-9 to 16, 18, 23 to 25 disclose that the petitioner has sustained following injuries in the accident:
1.Abrasions over the back SCCH-14 15 MVC No.5064/2016
2.Anterior cruciate ligament tear with horizontal tear post horn of lateral meniscus of right knee joint.
The petitioner was admitted in Rajashekhar hospital for 6 days from 17.4.2016 to 22.4.2016 and was treated conservatively. She was admitted in Hosmat hospital for 5 days from 11.7.2016 to 15.7.2016 and underwent following course:
"Arthoscopic ACL reconstruction with hamstring graft and bioscrews with partial lateral meniscectomy of right knee."
The petitioner was advised to take follow up treatment and rest after discharge. Follow up records are at Ex.P-13 and 24 which disclose that the petitioner took follow up treatment till 7.11.2016. She was under treatment for more than 6 months. Ex.P-19 discloses that the petitioner was on leave from 11.7.2016 to 31.12.2016. But, entire period can not be considered as laid up period. The injuries of the petitioner are of such nature which requires follow up treatment and rest for a period of about 3 to 4 months. Total laid up period comes to 4 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart from incurring medical expenses. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 that she spent Rs.5,00,000/- for treatment, medicines and incidental charges. However, she has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.1,59,583/- and Rs.3,210/- which are marked as Ex.P-17 and 26. Prescriptions are not produced. There is nothing on record to believe that the petitioner did not sustain injuries as stated by PW-1 and 2, that PW-2 is not SCCH-14 16 MVC No.5064/2016 competent to assess the disability of the petitioner. Denials elicited from PW-2 regarding assessment of disability are not sufficient to disbelieve his evidence. Medical bills at Ex.P-17 and 23 are believable. The petitioner might have not attended to work/ business for about 4 months and might have lost her salary. Passbook at Ex.P-20 confirms the same. But, she has received salary till June 2016. It means, she received salary for 2 months during laid up period. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner is unable to do her business and to work as director and she has become 100% disabled. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.1,63,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges and Rs.50,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period.
19. Evidence of PW-1 as to causing of disability is supported by the evidence of PW-2 which is corroborated by the contents of wound certificate, discharge summary, test report, recent examination report and x-rays at Ex.P-9, 11 to 16, 18, 23 to 25 collectively disclose that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury i.e., ACL tear with horizontal tear post horn of lateral meniscus of right knee. PW-2 has assessed the disability of the petitioner @45% to right lower limb and of 15% to whole body. But, there is no fracture injury to the petitioner. There is no evidence as to requirement of treatment to her in future. The doctor has given more weightage of stability component. On perusal of admissions of the doctor, it can be said that the disability assessed by the doctor SCCH-14 17 MVC No.5064/2016 is on the higher side. I am of the opinion that if the limb disability of the petitioner is considered as 30%, it will meet the ends of justice. Whole body disability will be 1/3rd limb disability which comes to 10%. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 10% to whole body due to accidental injury. The said disability is physical disability and it does not come in her way to continue her work as director of Akshara Drug House Pvt., Ltd., and to get income as before. The petitioner can do day to day activities with difficulty. There is no loss of earning capacity. But, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 10% to whole body. She has to live with such disability throughout her life. She has got several difficulties as noticed by PW-2 which may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities. There is no necessity for the petitioner to undergo surgery in future. Therefore, the petitioner is further entitled for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,63,000/-
3 Nourishment, conveyance and Rs. 15,000/-
attendant charges 4 Loss of income during laid up Rs. 50,000/-
period 5 Loss of future earning 6 Disability Rs. 75,000/-
7 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Total Rs.3,58,000/-
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.5064/2016
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015
(arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs. Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Liability
20. The respondents are the owner and driver of car bearing no.KA-05-MA-9176. It is held above that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the respondent no.2. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and interest to the petitioner as calculated above. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
P. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.SCCH-14 19 MVC No.5064/2016
The respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest. They are directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 4th day of May, 2017).
(Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 20 MVC No.5064/2016
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
Petitioner's PW.1 H.Anjali Rao PW.2 Dr.Krishan Prasad Respondent' s RW.1 Mithun RW.2 P.R.Venkatesh Ex.P1 Copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 Copy of sketch Ex.P3 Copy of spot panchanama Ex.P4 Copy of IMV report Ex.P5 Copy of charge sheet Ex.P6 Copy of section 133 notice Ex.P7 Copy of reply to 133 notice Ex.P8 Copy of police intimation Ex.P9 Copy of wound certificate Ex.P10 Emergency consultation record of Forties hospital Ex.P11 Investigation report Ex.P12 Discharge summaries (2 in nos.,) Ex.P13 Progress record Ex.P14 Lab and test reports Ex.P15 Physiotherapy form Ex.P16 MRI report Ex.P17 Medical bills (23 in nos.,amounting to Rs.1,59,583/-) Ex.P18 X-rays ( 2 in nos.,) and MRI films ( 3 in nos.,) with CD Ex.P19 Medical sickness certificates ( 4 in nos.,) Ex.P20 Pass book Ex.P21 Copy of memorandum of association and articles of association Ex.P22 Copy of Income Tax returns for the assessment of year 2015-16 and 2016-17 Ex.P23 IP case sheet Ex.P24 OP case sheet SCCH-14 21 MVC No.5064/2016 Ex.P25 X-ray with report Ex.P26 Cash bills ( 5 in nos., amounting to Rs.3,211/-) Ex.P.27 Copy of photo of number plate Ex.R.1 Photographs (2 in nos.) Ex.R.2 Goggle earth road map photograph Ex.R.3 Bank statement of R2 (Credit card) Ex.R.4 Bank statement of Manasa Ex.R.5 Copy of statement Ex.R.6 Copy of complaint Ex.R7 Prescription of Fortis hospital.
Ex.R8 EMD OPD bill
Ex.R9 OP bills for
Rs.2,540/-
Ex.R10 OP cash bill of
Rajshekar hospital
for Rs.400/-
Ex.R11 IP final bill
Ex.R12 Receipt for
Rs.14,500/-
Ex.R13 Medical bills for
Rs.3,800/-.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.5064/2016
Dt. 24.04.2017
P-ADJ
R1 & 2- KRA
For Judgment
Perused records.
It is noticed that certain
documents are marked as
Ex.R.1 to 7 during cross-
examination of PW.1. During
examination of RW.1 and 2,
fresh documents are marked as
Ex.R.1 to 6. It is necessary to
change the marking of
documents which are marked
during cross-examination of
PW.1. The said documents are
re-numbered as under:
Ex.R7 Prescription of Fortis
hospital.
Ex.R8 EMD OPD bill
Ex.R9 OP bills for
Rs.2,540/-
Ex.R10 OP cash bill of
Rajshekar hospital
for Rs.400/-
Ex.R11 IP final bill
Ex.R12 Receipt for
Rs.14,500/-
Ex.R13 Medical bills for
Rs.3,800/-.
For judgment by 04.05.2017
XVI Addl.Judge.
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.5064/2016
Dt.04.05.2017
P-ADJ
R1 & 2- KRA
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner
U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest. They are directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.SCCH-14 24 MVC No.5064/2016
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 25 MVC No.5064/2016
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC.5064/2016 Petitioner/s : SMT.A.ANJALI RAO W/o N.R.Nagendra Rao, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.81, A.M.S layout, Vidyaranyapura, Banglaore-560 097.
(By pleader Sri ADJ) V/s Respondent/s 1. VENKTESH P.R S/O Ramachandra Rao D.V aged about 56 years, R/at No.9/2, Dattatreya Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004.
2. Sri.Mithun. P.V S/o Venktesh P.R Aged about 28 years, R/at No.9/2, Dattatreya road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-540 004.
(R1 &2 -By pleader Sri KRA) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the
SCCH-14 26 MVC No.5064/2016
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severely liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.3,58,000/- with interest. They are directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
SCCH-14 27 MVC No.5064/2016Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2017.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH-14 28 MVC No.5064/2016
SCCH-14 29 MVC No.5064/2016