Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.7722/2016 vs No.2 By S.Maheshwara on 11 April, 2018
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
1
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL.M.A.C.T., BANGALORE
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A., LL.B.,
MEMBER, PRL.M.A.C.T
DATED: 11th DAY OF APRIL'2018
M.V.C.Nos.7722/2016 to 77372016 c/w 7739/2016
BETWEEN:
Jayarajaiah,
S/o.Masthaiah,
Aged 43 years,
R/at Aregujjanahalli,
Urdugere Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7722/2016
Mallesh,
S/o.Mahalingaiah,
Aged 21 years,
R/at G.Dodderi,
Gollarahatti,
Seegehalli Post,
Mayasandra Hobli,
Turuvekere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7723/2016
Harish C.N.,
S/o.Narasimhappa,
Aged 20 years,
R/at Chittaganahalli,
Kallarlahalli Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7724/2016
Manjunatha G.,
S/o.Sharanappa,
Aged 21 years,
R/at Lingayatha Lane,
Kenchappanahalli,
Kudlagi Taluk,
Kudlagi,
Bellary District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7725/2016
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
2
Rakshith M.L.,
S/o.Lingaraju M.S.,
Aged 20 years,
R/at Vanashree Nilaya,
Kottanahalli New Extension,
Mallasandra Post,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7726/2016
Ramanji K.,
S/o.Krishnappa,
Aged 22 years,
Rat Chikkahalli,
Chikkahalli Post,
Y.N.Hosakote Hobli,
Pavagoda Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7727/2016
Santhosh V.,
S/o.Veerabhadrappa,
Aged 19 years,
R/at Karadigere,
Makanahalli Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7728/2016
Babu C.,
S/o.Chandreashekaraiah,
Aged 22 years,
R/at No.56,
D.Nagenahalli,
Kasaba Hobli,
Koratagere Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7729/2016
Yerri Swamy B.,
S/o.Lakshmana B.,
Aged 19 years,
R/at Ward No.3,
Near Chowdamma Temple,
Gudekote, Kudlagi,
Ballary District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7730/2016
Dharshan C.N.,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
3
S/o.Narasimhamurthy,
Aged 21 years,
R/at Chowkenahalli,
Madapura Post,
Kasaba Hobli,
Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7731/2016
Ravi A.,
S/o.Ashwathappa,
Aged 21 years,
R/at No.133,
Venkatapura,
Kasaba Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7732/2016
Harsha Kumr C.P.,
S/o.Pandurangaiah,
Aged 20 years,
R/at Karikere,
Brhambhasamudra,
Kora Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7733/2016
Ramamurthy P.,
S/o.Ettigeyappa,
Aged 20 years,
R/at No.7,
Near Anjinaya Temple,
Kuppinakeri,
Ballary Taluk,
Ballary District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7734/2016
Vijayakumar R.C.,
S/o.Channabasavaiah,
Aged 25 years,
R/at Ramenahalli,
Karadi, Kasaba Hobli,
Tiptur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7735/2016
Vinod Kumar G.H.,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
4
S/o.Hanumantha,
Aged 23 years,
R/at No.544,
Adithyapattana,
Adiyapatna,
Tumkur,Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7736/2016
Udaya Kumar P.N.,
S/o.Nagaraju P.N.,
Aged 18 years,
R/at Thimmalanaikanakote,
Thimmalanayakanabetta,
Kasaba Hobli,
Pavagada Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7737/2016
Abubakar Siddiq,
S/o.Mahaboob Khan,
Aged 18 years,
R/at 6th Cross,
Maralur Dinne,
Kasaba Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
Petitioner in MVC No.7739/2016
(By Sri Venkateshaiah, Advocate)
AND:-
1) Ibrahim Khan,
S/o.Ismile Khan,
Aged Major,
No.82, 1st Cross,
Guthal Colony Post,
Sadath Nagara,
Mandya City and Town.
(Owner of the Canter Lorry
Bearing Reg.No.KA.51/9128)
2) The Manager,
SHRIRAM GENERAL INURANCE CO., LTD.,
No.5, 3rd Floor,
Monarch Chambers,
Infantry Road,
Bangalore 560 001.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
5
(Policy No.10003/31/16/361016
Valid from 29.10.2015 to 28.10.2016)
Common Respondents in all the Petitions
(Respondent No. 1 - Exparte,
Respondent No.2 by S.Maheshwara, Advocate in all the
petitions)
COMMON JUDGMENT
All these petitions are arising out of the same accident and
therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The petitioner in MVC No.7722/2016 has claimed
Rs.8,50,000/- whereas, petitioner's in other petitions have
claimed Rs.1,50,000/- each from the respondents 1 and 2,
the owner and insurer of the Canter Vehicle No.KA.51/9128,
jointly and severally, on account of the injuries sustained by
them in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on
19.05.2016 at about 05.45 am., on NH 4, Tumkur Bangalore
High Way, near Kuluvanahalli, Thyamagondlu Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:- On 19.05.2016, the
petitioner in MVC No.7723/2016 to 7737/2016 and
7739/2016 were traveling in Swaraj Mazda Vehicle
No.KA.52/589 driven by the petitioner in MVC
No.7722/2016. When their vehicle came near Kuluvanahalli,
Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk on NH 4, at that
time, the Eicher vehicle No.KA.51/9128 came there in rash
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
6
and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the
these petitioners and there occurred and accident and in the
accident, all these petitioners suffered injuries. Immediately
after the accident, all the petitioners were shifted to
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangal wherein they were
treated. They spent huge amount for treatment. They lost
income during the period of treatment and suffered loss of
future income on account of disability.
4. It is the case of all the petitioners that the accident
has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the
Eicher vehicle No.KA.51/9128 and hence, the jurisdictional
Police, after investigation filed charge sheet against him. The
respondent No.1 is the owner whereas the respondent No.2 is
the insurer of the said vehicle. Hence, all the petitioners pray
that their petitions be allowed and the compensation as
claimed by them be awarded.
5. Pursuant to filing of these petitions, notice was issued
to both the respondents and in response to the same, the
respondent No.1 remained absent and hence, he was placed
exparte where, the respondent No.2 entered appearance and
filed statement of objections in all the petitions.
6. In the statement of objections, the respondent No.2
admitted to have insured the Canter Vehicle No.KA.51/9128
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
7
and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy.
7. The respondent No.2 has taken the general defence, in
as much as, as provided under Section 134(c) of the MV Act,
the respondent No.1 has not furnished the particulars of
policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of the
injured and the name of the driver and particulars and his
driving licence and thereby violated the provisions of the said
Act.
8. The respondent No.2 has taken statutory defence under
Section 158(6) of the MV Act and contended that it is the
mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all
the relevant documents to the insurer within 30 days of the
information and the said provision is not complied and
hence, the petitions are not maintainable.
9. The respondent No.2 also denied all the material
averments made out in the claim petition with regard to the
manner in which the accident occurred, nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioners, period of treatment, expenditure
incurred, the avocation of the petitioners, their income, age,
loss of earnings during the period of treatment, disability said
to have been suffered by them etc., apart from denying the
negligence attributed to the driver of the Eicher Vehicle. It is
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
8
contended that the accident in question has not occurred due
to the rash and negligent riding of the insured vehicle by its
driver and in fact, the accident has occurred due to the
negligence on the part of the petitioner in MVC
No.7722/2016 himself since he drove the Mazda Vehicle in
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the insured
vehicle.
10. The amount of compensation claimed is excessive and
not based on any norms in all the petitions. For all these
reasons, the respondent No.2 has prayed for dismissal of all
the petitions.
11. The respondent No.2 has also filed additional written
statement contending that at the time of accident, one Abdul
Rafiq S/o.Rajasab was driving the Eicher vehicle, who has
submitted his driving licence before the Police and the
respondent No.2 has appointed an investigator to procure the
documents from the Police Station and the DL copy available
in the Police station pertaining to the driver of the vehicle was
a fake one and thereafter, the respondent No.2 has appointed
an investigator to procure DL from RTO Mandya and upon
making application to the RTO Mandya, they replied that no
such DL was issued nor found in their office records and this
fact clearly shows that the driver of the Eicher vehicle did not
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
9
possess valid and effective driving licence and thus there
being violation of policy conditions, the respondent No.2 has
prayed to dismiss the petitions as against the respondent
No.2.
12. Based on the above pleadings, the following common
issues were framed:-
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievous
injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on
19.05.2016 at about 5.45 am., on NH-4, Tumkur
Bangalore High Way near Kuluvanahalli, Thyamagondlu
Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural within the
jurisdiction of Nelamangala Rural Police Station on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Eicher Lorry
bearing registration No.KA.51/9128 by its driver?
2) Whether the respondent No.2 proves that the accident
occurred on account of negligent act of the petitioner
himself/driver of Swaraj Mazda?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so,
how much and from whom?
4) What order?
13. In order to prove their case, the petitioners of
these cases have been examined as PW 1 to 17 and another
witness has been examined as PW 18 and through their
evidence, got marked 44 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.44.
14. On behalf of the respondent No.2, 3 witness have
been examined as RW 1 to 3 and 4 documents are marked as
Ex.R.1 to R.4.
15. Heard the arguments of the petitioners' Counsel
and also that of the Counsel for the respondent No.2.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
10
16. The counsel for the respondent has filed a Memo
with a copy of the order passed in SLP No.31406/017 and I
have perused the principles laid down in the above judgment.
17. Having perused the pleadings of the parties,
evidence let in by the petitioners, material available on record
and upon going through the arguments of the petitioners'
Counsel and the respondent No.2's Counsel, my common
findings on the above issues are as under:-
1) In the affirmative,
2) In the negative,
3) Partly in the affirmative,
4) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
18. Issue No.1 and 2 in all the cases:- Since all
these claim petitions are arising out of the same accident and
issue No.1 and 2 in all the petitions are regarding the
negligence, they are taken up together for discussion.
19. Since the petitions are filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is incumbent upon the
petitioners to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of
the Eicher Vehicle No.KA.51/9128 in occurrence of the
accident.
20. All the petitioners have stated in their respective
petition's that the accident occurred on account of the rash
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
11
and negligent driving of the Eicher vehicle bearing
No.KA.51/9128 by its driver.
21. It is their case that on 19.05.2016, the petitioner in
MVC No.7722/2016 as driver and the petitioner's of other
cases as passengers, were traveling in Swaraj Mazda Vehicle
No.KA.52/589 and while proceeding so, when their vehicle
came near Kuluvanahalli on NH 4 Road, Thyamagondlu
Hobli Nelamangala Taluk, at about 05.45 am., the Eicher
Vehicle No.KA.51/9128 came there in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering human life and safety others, without
observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed
against their vehicle, consequent to the terrific impact, all the
petitioners sustained grievous injuries.
22. Apart from the case made out by them in their
petitions, the petitioners, who have been examined as PW 1
to 17 respectively, reiterated the negligence attributed to the
driver of the Eicher vehicle in their evidence also. Through
the evidence of PW 1, Ex.P.1 - FIR, Ex.P.3 - Spot Mahazar,
Ex.P.4 - Seizure Mahazar and Ex.P.5 - Charge Sheet are
marked. It has to be stated that PW 1 was driving the Swaraj
Mazda and PW 2 to 17 were the inmates of the said Swaraj
Mazda and hence, their evidence as well as the answer
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
12
elicited from them during their cross-examination gains
importance in coming to the conclusion as to the negligence.
23. PW 1 has been cross-examined by the counsel for
the respondent No.2, wherein it is elicited from him that his
distant relative has lodged the complaint after the accident
and the complainant has not witnessed the accident. It is
suggested to him that the accident has occurred due to his
negligence and not on account of the negligence of the driver
of the Canter Vehicle and the said suggestion has been
denied by him. He says that the Police have recorded his
statement in the hospital.
24. The cross-examination of PW 2 to 17 is identical
to each other, wherein it is elicited from them that their
friend has given the complaint and the driver of the Swaraj
Mazda was proceeding in a medium speed. It is suggested to
them that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of
driver of their vehicle and not the driver of the lorry and the
said suggestion has been denied by all of them.
25. As stated above, the respondent No.2, though in
the statement of objections, contended that the accident has
occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Swaraj
Mazda by the petitioner in MVC No.7722/2016, but to
substantiate the said contention, the driver of the Eicher has
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
13
not been examined. The witnesses RW 1 to 3 have deposed
only on the point of the validity or otherwise of the driving
licence of the driver of the Eicher Vehicle.
26. Now, let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidence available before the Court with regard
to the negligence is concerned. PW 1 to 17, apart from their
oral evidence, have also produced Ex.P.1 - FIR registered
against the driver of the Eicher for offence under Section 279
and 337 of the IPC. Ex.P.3 is the Spot Mahazar. Ex.P.4 is the
Vehicle Seizure Panchanama and Ex.P.5 is the Charge Sheet
filed by the jurisdictional Police against the driver of the
Tempo under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. Ex.P.43 is
the MLC Extract. A perusal of all these Police papers clearly
and categorically reveal that the complaint is lodged by one
Kempaiah, alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the
Eicher Vehicle for causing the accident. Further, the
respondent No.2, having contended that the accident has not
occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the
Eicher Vehicle and further that the accident has occurred on
account of the negligence of the petitioner in MVC
No.7722/2016-PW1, has not examined the driver of the
Eicher Vehicle, who would have been the best person, to
speak as to whether there was any negligence on the part of
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
14
PW 1. The witnesses examined by the respondent No.2 ie.,
RW 1 to 3, have deposed only regarding the driving licence of
the driver of the Eicher Vehicle. Thus, the contents of the
police papers coupled evidence let in by PW 1 to 17 clearly
and categorically reveal that the accident has occurred on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher
Vehciel by its driver. Accordingly, issue No.1 in all the cases
is answered in the affirmative and issue No.2 in the negative.
27. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7722/21016:- Petitioner
in MVC No.7722/2016 has been examined as PW 1. His
evidence would go to show that he sustained injuries in the
accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted
to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was
treated as inpatient for 15 days. In order to substantiate the
nature and gravity of injuries and the treatment, the
petitioner has produced Ex.P.2 - Wound Certificate issued by
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital. Further, the petitioner has also
produced Ex.P.7 - Discharge Summary issued by the said
Hospital and Ex.P.8 - 3 Medical Bills for Rs.2,05,875/-,
Ex.P.9 - 2 X rays. Added to that the petitioner has also
examined PW 18 - Manjunath, Medical Record Keeper at
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital and through him, Ex.P.42 Case Sheet,
Ex.P.43, MLC Extract and Ex.P.44 - 3 X rays are got marked.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
15
All these documents reveal that the petitioner has suffered
the following injuries:-
1)Injury to abdomen
2) Mid jejunal perforation
3) Mesentric tear
4) Recto sigmoid serosal tear
5) Haemo peritoneum
6) Facial contamination of peritoneum.
28.During the course of treatment, CT abdomen was
taken, which revealed the above injuries and therefore
emergency laprotomy with resection anastomosis of small
bowel jejunum and repair of serosal tear of rectosigmoid was
done on the same day and the petitioner withstood the
procedure well. The petitioner was admitted on 19.05.2016
and discharged on 27.05.2016. The petitioner has produced
Ex.P.8 - 3 Bills, totaling to Rs.2,05,875/- and the main Bill
issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangala is for
Rs.2,05,000/-. Thus from the above medical records and
the evidence of PW 18, it is clear that the petitioner has
suffered the injuries stated above and he as treated as
inpatient from 19.05.2016 to 27.05.2016 at M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital and spent Rs.2,05,875/- for treatment. But the
point to be noted here is that the petitioner having contended
that the above injuries sustained by him in the above
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
16
accident, has resulted in permanent disability and thereby he
is unable to continue his driver avocation, has not examined
the doctor who treated him nor any acceptable evidence in
support of his said contention. Ex.P.6 - copy of the Driving
License issued by the RTO Department shows that the
petitioner is having licence to drive MCWG, LMV CAB, PSV
Bus and also transport vehicle from 11.07.1996 and that his
date of birth being 01.07.1972, he was running 44 years at
the time when the accident has occurred.
29. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered 1)Injury to abdomen 2) Mid jejunal perforation 3)
Mesentric tear 4) Recto sigmoid serosal tear 5) Haemo
peritoneum and 6) Facial contamination of peritoneum and
that he was treated as inpatient from 19.05.2016 to
27.05.2016 and that he has spent Rs.2,05,875/- for
treatment, in the absence of expert's evidence to show the
nature and percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the
petitioner and considering the fact that the injuries suffered
by the petitioner being grievous in nature and during in
patient, some one has attended to his needs and that he has
suffered loss of income during treatment, I am of the opinion
that this is a fit case to award a global compensation of
Rs.3,50,000/- towards pain and suffering, attendant charges,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
17
conveyances expenses, medical expenses, loss of income
during treatment and loss of amenities in life and
accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to the
petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in the
affirmative.
30. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7723/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7723/2016 has been examined as PW 2. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 21 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.16,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.10 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Lumbo Sacral Strain
31. Ex.P.10 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
18
Certificate Ex.P.10, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.11 - Medical Bills for Rs.2,332/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.10 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
32. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Lambo Sacral Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.2,332/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
19
33. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7724/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7724/2016 has been examined as PW 6. His
evidence would go to show that he sustained injuries in the
accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted,
M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated
as inpatient. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity
of injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.18 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Right Knee Strain
34. Ex.P.18 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.18, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.19 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,650/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.18 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
20
35. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Right Knee Strain Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,650/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
36. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7725/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7725/2016 has been examined as PW 7. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 21 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.17,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
21
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.20 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Knee Strain Left and Right
37. Ex.P.20 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.20, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.21 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,671/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.20 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
38. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Knee Strain Left and Right Injury and that he was
treated as outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,671/- for
treatment, in the absence of expert's evidence to show the
nature and percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the
petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
22
a global compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and
suffering, attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical
expenses, loss of income during treatment and loss of
amenities in life and accordingly, I award a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue
No. 3 partly in the affirmative.
39. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7726/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7726/2016 has been examined as PW 3. His
evidence would go to show that he sustained injuries in the
accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted
to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was
treated. In support of his case, while reiterating the said fact
in his evidence as PW 3, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.12
- Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala and a perusal of which reveals that in the
accident, the petitioner has suffered "Left Shoulder Strain"
and the injury is shown as simple in nature. Apart from
production of Ex.P.12 - Wound Certificate, the petitioner has
also produced Ex.P.13 - Inpatient Bill issued by the said
Hospital, which reveals that the petitioner was treated as
inpatient for 2 days ie., on 19.05.2016 and 20.05.2016 and
the hospital has charged Rs.6,364/- for treatment. I have
perused the Wound Certificate Ex.P.12 and Bill at Ex.P.13,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
23
according to which the petitioner has only suffered simple
injury and was treated for 2 days.
40. Even though the petitioner has taken up the
contention that on account of the accident and the injuries
suffered by her resulted in permanent disability, but to
substantiate the same, no evidence is adduced, either oral
evidence of the doctor who treated her or the documentary
evidence.
41. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Left Shoulder Strain and that he was inpatient for 2
days on 19.05.2016 and 20.05.2016 and that he has spent
an amount of Rs.6,364/- for treatment and further he msut
have incurred some amount for conveyance, attendance and
other miscellaneous expenses, I deem it just and proper to
award Rs.20,000/- under the head pain and suffering and
conveyance, attendant charges and other miscellaneous
charges, loss of income for 2 days and loss of amenities I life.
Accordingly, Issue No.3 in MVC No.7726/2016 is answered.
42. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7727/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7727/2016 has been examined as PW 4. His
evidence would go to show that he sustained injuries in the
accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted
to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
24
treated. In support of his case, while reiterating the said fact
in his evidence as PW 4, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.14
- Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala and a perusal of which reveals that in the
accident, the petitioner has suffered "CLW 6x3 cm, right eye
brow, CLW left hand 1x1 x 1x1 cm., and mild head injury"
and the injuries are opined to be simple in nature. Apart
from production of Ex.P.14 - Wound Certificate, the
petitioner has also produced Ex.P.15 - Inpatient Bill issued
by the said Hospital, which reveals that the petitioner was
treated as inpatient for 2 days ie., on 19.05.2016 and
20.05.2016 and the hospital although charged Rs.14,157/-,
but received only Rs.12,741/- for treatment. I have perused
the Wound Certificate Ex.P.14 and Bill at Ex.P.15, according
to which the petitioner has suffered 3 simple injuries and was
treated for 2 days.
43. Even though the petitioner has taken up the
contention that on account of the accident and the injuries
suffered by her resulted in permanent disability, but to
substantiate the same, no evidence is adduced, either oral
evidence of the doctor who treated her or the documentary
evidence.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
25
44. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Contused Lacerated wound on right brow, contused
lacerated wound on left hand and mild head injury and that
he was inpatient for 2 days on 19.05.2016 and 20.05.2016
and that he has spent an amount of Rs.12,741/- for
treatment and further he must have incurred some amount
for conveyance, attendance and other miscellaneous
expenses, I deem it just and proper to award Rs.50,000/-
under the head pain and suffering and conveyance, attendant
charges and other miscellaneous charges, loss of income for
2 days and loss of amenities I life. Accordingly, Issue No.3 in
MVC No.7727/2016 is answered.
45. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7728/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7728/2016 has been examined as PW 12. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 19 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.13,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
26
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.30 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Nasal Bleed - Small cut wound
46. Ex.P.30 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Even though the petitioner
claims that injuries sustained by him the accident has
caused permanent disability and thereby he has suffered
future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate Ex.P.30
clearly and categorically shows that the injury suffered by the
petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the petitioner was
not even treated as inpatient for the said injury and even the
petitioner has not examined the doctor who treated him after
the accident and further, the petitioner has not produced any
bill for having spent amount for treatment.
47. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Nasal Bleeding - small cut wound and that he was
treated as outpatient, in the absence of expert's evidence to
show the nature and percentage of disability, if any, suffered
by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to
award a global compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and
suffering, attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
27
expenses, loss of income during treatment and loss of
amenities in life and accordingly, I award a compensation of
Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No.
3 partly in the affirmative.
48. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7729/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7729/2016 has been examined as PW 17 His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 22 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.13,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.39 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Right Knee Strain 2) Neck Strain
49. Ex.P.39 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.39, the petitioner has also produced and got
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
28
marked Ex.P.40 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,821/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.39 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
50. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Right Knee Strain and Neck Strain Injury and that
he was treated as outpatient and that he has spent
Rs.1,821/- for treatment, in the absence of expert's evidence
to show the nature and percentage of disability, if any,
suffered by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit
case to award a global compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards
pain and suffering, attendant charges, conveyances
expenses, medical expenses, loss of income during treatment
and loss of amenities in life and accordingly, I award a
compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly,
I answer issue No. 3 partly in the affirmative.
51. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7730/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7730/2016 has been examined as PW 13. His
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
29
evidence would go to show that he was aged 19 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.14,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.31 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) B/L Knee Strain
52. Ex.P.31 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.31, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.32 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,927/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.31 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
30
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
53. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered B/L Knee Strain Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,927/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
54. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7731/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7731/2016 has been examined as PW 8. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 21 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.14,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
31
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.22 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Abrasion on right knee
55. Ex.P.22 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.22, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.23 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,829/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.22 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
56. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Abrasion right knee Injury and that he was treated
as outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,829/- for
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
32
treatment, in the absence of expert's evidence to show the
nature and percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the
petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award
a global compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and
suffering, attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical
expenses, loss of income during treatment and loss of
amenities in life and accordingly, I award a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue
No. 3 partly in the affirmative.
57. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7732/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7732/2016 has been examined as PW 16. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 21 years when
the accident ccurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.16,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.37 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
33
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Left Knee Strain
58. Ex.P.37 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.37, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.38 - Medical Bills for Rs.2,497/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.37 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
59. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Left Knee Strain Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.2,497/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
34
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
60. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7733/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7733/2016 has been examined as PW 9. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 20 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.13,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.24 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Neck Strain
61. Ex.P.24 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.24, the petitioner has also produced and got
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
35
marked Ex.P.25 - Medical Bills for Rs.2,109/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.24 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
62. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Neck Strain Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.2,109/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
63. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7734/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7734/2016 has been examined as PW 10. His
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
36
evidence would go to show that he was aged 20 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.3 4,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.26 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Knee Strain
64. Ex.P.26 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.26, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.27 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,846/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.26 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
37
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
65. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered B/L Knee Strain Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,927/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
66. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7735/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7735/2016 has been examined as PW 5. His
evidence would go to show that he sustained injuries in the
accident and immediately after the accident, he was shifted
to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was
treated. In support of his case, while reiterating the said fact
in his evidence as PW 4, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.16
- Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
38
Nelamangala and a perusal of which reveals that in the
accident, the petitioner has suffered "Right elbow strain with
abrasion and right knee abrasion" and the injuries are opined
to be simple in nature. Apart from production of Ex.P.16 -
Wound Certificate, the petitioner has also produced Ex.P.17 -
Inpatient Bill issued by the said Hospital, which reveals that
the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 2 days ie., on
19.05.2016 and 20.05.2016 and the hospital although
charged Rs.9,582/-, but received only Rs.8,624/- for
treatment. I have perused the Wound Certificate Ex.P.16
and Bill at Ex.P.17, according to which the petitioner has
suffered 2 simple injuries and was treated for 2 days.
67. Even though the petitioner has taken up the
contention that on account of the accident and the injuries
suffered by her resulted in permanent disability, but to
substantiate the same, no evidence is adduced, either oral
evidence of the doctor who treated her or the documentary
evidence.
68. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered "Right elbow strain with abrasion and right knee
abrasion injury" and that he was inpatient for 2 days on
19.05.2016 and 20.05.2016 and that he has spent an
amount of Rs.8,624/- for treatment and further he must
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
39
have incurred some amount for conveyance, attendance and
other miscellaneous expenses, I deem it just and proper to
award Rs.25,000/- under the head pain and suffering and
conveyance, attendant charges and other miscellaneous
charges, loss of income for 2 days and loss of amenities I life.
Accordingly, Issue No.3 in MVC No.7735/2016 is answered.
69. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7736/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7736/2016 has been examined as PW 11. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 23 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.17,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.28 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Right Knee Strain
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
40
70. Ex.P.28 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.28, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.29 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,927/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.28 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
71. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Right Knee Strain Injury and that he was treated as
outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,927/- for treatment, in
the absence of expert's evidence to show the nature and
percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the petitioner, I
am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical expenses,
loss of income during treatment and loss of amenities in life
and accordingly, I award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
41
the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3 partly in
the affirmative.
72. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7737/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7737/2016 has been examined as PW 14. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 18 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.13,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.33 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Left fore arm contusion injury
73. Ex.P.33 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.33, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.34 - Medical Bills for Rs.1,911/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
42
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.33 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
74. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Left fore arm contusion injury and that he was
treated as outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,911/- for
treatment, in the absence of expert's evidence to show the
nature and percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the
petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award
a global compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and
suffering, attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical
expenses, loss of income during treatment and loss of
amenities in life and accordingly, I award a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue
No. 3 partly in the affirmative.
75. Issue No.3 in MVC No.7739/2016:- Petitioner in
MVC No.7739/2016 has been examined as PW 15. His
evidence would go to show that he was aged 18 years when
the accident occurred and working in Denso Kirloskar
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
43
Company and getting a month salary of Rs.13,500/- and in
the accident he sustained injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted, M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital, Nelamangala wherein he was treated as inpatient
and thereby he has suffered loss of income during treatment
and also suffered future loss of income on account of
disability. In order to substantiate the nature and gravity of
injuries and the treatment, the petitioner has produced
Ex.P.35 - Wound Certificate issued by M.S.Ramaiah Hospital,
Nelamangala which reveals that the petitioner has suffered
the following injury:-
1) Abrasion on left knee
2) Neck strain
76. Ex.P.35 - Wound Certificate further shows that the
said injury is simple in nature. Apart from the Wound
Certificate Ex.P.35, the petitioner has also produced and got
marked Ex.P.36 - Medical Bills for Rs.1926/-. Even though
the petitioner claims that injuries sustained by him the
accident has caused permanent disability and thereby he has
suffered future loss of income, but the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.35 clearly and categorically shows that the injury
suffered by the petitioner is simple in nature. Moreover, the
petitioner was not even treated as inpatient for the said
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
44
injury and even the petitioner has not examined the doctor
who treated him after the accident.
77. Thus, considering the fact that the petitioner has
suffered Abrason left knee and neck strain Injury and that he
was treated as outpatient and that he has spent Rs.1,926/-
for treatment, in the absence of expert's evidence to show the
nature and percentage of disability, if any, suffered by the
petitioner, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case to award
a global compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and
suffering, attendant charges, conveyances expenses, medical
expenses, loss of income during treatment and loss of
amenities in life and accordingly, I award a compensation of
Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue
No. 3 partly in the affirmative.
78. So far as liability to pay compensation amount is
concerned, it is the contention of the petitioners that the
respondent No.1 is the owner whereas the respondent No.2 is
the insurer of the offending vehicle which fact is admitted by
the respondent No.2 in its statement of objections. However,
the respondent No.2, in the statement of objections, while
admitting the issuance of Insurance Policy in respect of the
Eicher Vehicle No.KA.51/9128, vehemently contended that
the driver of the said vehicle was not holding valid and
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
45
effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and
further he was not qualified for holding or obtaining such
driving licence and further the respondent No.1 has not
satisfied Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules'1989 and
thereby the liability of the respondent No.2 is absolved.
79. In support of the said contention, the respondent No.2
has examined its Legal Officer as RW 1 and in his evidence,
he has reiterated the contentions raised in the statement of
objections. Further contended that the driver of the vehicle
namely Abdul Rafiq has submitted his driving licence before
the Police and their Insurance Company had appointed an
investigator to procure the documents from the Police and
upon obtaining of the driving licence from the Police, it
reveals that the same is a fake one and thereafter, their
investigator approached the RTO Mandya to procure the
driving licence of the driver and in response to the same, the
RTO Mandya has issued an endorsement stating that on
verification in the driving licence history book and computer,
no details pertaining to the said person was found and
thereby the said face shows that the driving licence produced
by the driver is a fake licence and thereby the respondent
No.2 is absolved from indemnifying the respondent No1. In
support of his evidence, RW 1 has got marked the Insurance
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
46
Policy as Ex.R.1 and the letter issued by RTO Mandya as
Ex.R.2. In the cross-examination, he admits that the Police
have not invoked the provision of Section 3 Clause 1 of the
MV Act. It is suggested to him that the RTO authorities
without verifying the manual book, have falsely issued the
endorsement and that he is falsely claiming that the driver
was not having the driving licence and the said suggestion
has been denied by him.
80. The respondent No.2 in support of its above
contention, has also examined B.S.Ashok, the then PSI of
Nelamangala Police Station, who conducted the investigation
of the case as RW 2. In his evidence, RW 2 says that he has
conducted the investigation in the above matter and verified
the driving licence and taken the Xerox copy of the driving
licence and released the vehicle and he has produced the
copy of the Notice under Section 133 as Ex.R.3 and he says
that he has collected the copy of the driving licence. At this
stage, the counsel for the respondent No.2 sought permission
of the Court to treat the witness as hostile and thereafter, he
was subjected to cross-examination and in his cross-
examination, he says that he has not collected the reply from
the owner to Section 133 Notice, but he has collected the
vehicular documents and copy of the driving licence. He says
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
47
that the driver has brought the original driving licence and he
did not seize the driving licence and sent the same to RTO to
verify as to its genuineness. He says that as per the copy of
the driving licence, the same was issued from Mandya RTO
Office and the same is valid from 14.07.2008 to 13.07.2028
and the driver was also having licence to drive heavy
transport vehicle and heavy passenger vehicle. It is
suggested to him that the owner and driver have produced
the fake driving licence before him and in collusion with the
driver and owner, he has filed a false charge sheet and the
said suggestion has been denied by him. It is suggested to
him that there is no original driving licence number as per
the copy of the driving licence and when the driving licence
number is not mentioned in the driving licence, that itself
shows the said driving licence copy is a fake one and the said
suggestion has been denied by him. In the cross-
examination by the counsel for the petitioners, he admits
that after detailed investigation he has filed charge sheet and
the driving licence was valid as on the date of the accident.
81. The respondent No.2 has also examined RW 3 one
K.Anwar Pasha, who is working as RTO at Mandya and in his
evidence, he says that they have not issued any driving
licence in favour of Sri Abdul Rafeeq and hence, he could not
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
48
produce the driving licence before the Court and in this
regard, he has produced the letter which is marked as
Ex.R.4. He further says that the copy of the driving licence
furnished by the petitioners' counsel is verified in their
register and they did not find any such driving licence in
their office. In the cross-examination by the counsel for the
petitioners, he admits that there is seal on the Xerox copy of
the driving licence, but he cannot say that the same belongs
to their office since the document is Xerox one. He says that
the signature available on the document does not belong to
his predecessor Mahabala Shastry. It is suggested to him
that the signature available on the Xerox copy belongs to
Mahabala Shastry and he did not verify the document
properly even though the driving licence is issued by their
office and the said suggestion has been denied by him.
82. Thus, on the one hand, the petitioners' case is that
Abdul Rafeeq, who was driving the Eicher vehicle at the time
of the accident, was having valid and effective driving licence
and the Police during the course of investigation verified the
original driving licence and being satisfied with the same,
have obtained only Xerox copy of the same and released the
vehicle to the owner and the said fact is clear from the
evidence of RW 2, the witness examined by the respondent
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
49
No.2 who filed charge sheet against the driver without
invoking the provision of Section 3 Clause 1 of the MV Act
and merely on the guise that the Xerox copy of the document
does not contain the driving licence number, when it
contains the signature of the RTO, does not mean that it is a
fake licence and hence, contended that the respondent No.2
being the insurer of the vehicle, cannot escape the liability of
indemnifying the respondent No.1.
83. On the other hand, the case of the respondent No.2 is
that the driver of the vehicle had produced Xerox copy of his
driving licence before the Police and their investigator
obtained the same from the Police and when enquired with
the RTO Mandya, the licencing authority, as per Ex.R.2, they
issued an endorsement that no such licence was issued in
the same of said person. Further, as per the admission of
RW 2, there is no driving licence number. Added to that RTO
Mandya, who has been examined as RW 3, has categorically
stated that they have not issued any driving licence in favour
of Abdul Rafeeq and hence, he could not produce the driving
licence before the Court and he further says that upon
verification of the driving licence furnished by the petitioner's
counsel, they did not find the same in the register of their
office. Hence, the counsel for the respondent No.2 contended
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
50
that the fact that the driving licence does not contain the
licence number, itself shows that it is a fake licence. It is
further contended that when the licencing authority, ie., RTO
Mandya has issued endorsement as per Ex.R.2 stating that
no such licence is issued, there remains nothing to say that
the driver was possessing the licence.
84. Now, let me appreciate both oral and documentary
evidence available before the Court with regard to the licence
is concerned. It has to be stated here that all important
person to speak on the licence is none other than the driver
himself. He has not come before the Court. If really the
driver of the vehicle had licence, then he would have come
before the Court and testified about the driving licence.
Neither the driver of the vehicle has been examined nor the
respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle appeared before the
Court. Hence, when the original driving licence is not placed
before the Court and when the licencing authority has
categorically denies to have issued the licence relied on by
the petitioners and when the original driving licence does not
contain the number and the driver of the vehicle has not
been examined before the Court, it appears that everything is
not well with the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle.
The conduct of the respondent No.1 in remaining exparte in
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
51
the above proceedings and not examining the driver of the
vehicle, creates doubt in the mind of the Court as to the
genuineness of the driving licence in question. It has to be
stated here that of course in the charge sheet, Section 3
Clause 1 of the MV Act is not invoked by the Police. At this
juncture it has to be stated here that the Court has
independently examine the evidence let in before the Court
without relying on the criminal court records. The principles
laid down in the judgment relied upon by the Counsel for the
respondent No.2 in SLP No.31406/2017 of the Supreme
Court, are not applicable to the case on hand, since the facts
of the case on hand are distinguishable with the facts of the
case relied on by the respondent No.2. Hence, when the case
made out by the respondent No.2 are examined carefully, it
becomes clear that the licence which the petitioners claim
that it belongs to the driver of the Eicher vehicle, has not
been proved to be genuine. Not only it contains the licence
number, but also the licencing authority has categorically
denies to have issued such licence and thereby the
respondent No.2 has successfully proved that the driver of
the insured vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence
as on the date of the accident and thereby, there being
violation of policy conditions, the respondent No.2 is absolved
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
52
from indemnifying the respondent No.1 and hence, the
respondent No.1 is alone responsible to satisfy the awards
and all the petitions as against the respondent No.2 deserve
to be dismissed and hence I answer Issue No.3 in all the
cases accordingly.
85. As far as awarding of interest on the compensation
amount is concerned, in a case reported in (2011) 4 SCC 481
: (AIR 2012 SC 100) (Municipal Council of Delhi Vs.
Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy), the Supreme
Court has specified that the Tribunal, in the matter of
awarding interest on the compensation amount, has to take
into consideration the rate of interest levied by the
nationalized banks and the present day cost of living and
thereby award interest on the compensation amount. In the
above background, when the present circumstances are
taken in to account, now a days, the rate of interest levied by
the nationalized banks is in downward trend. As held by the
Apex Court in the above judgment, since the rate of interest
to be awarded on the compensation amount, has direct
nexus with the interest levied by the nationalized bank with
that of the present day cost of living, I deem it just and
proper to award 6% interest on the compensation amount,
which in my opinion, would meet the ends of justice.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016
53
86. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
MVC 7722/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount so awarded, 30% with proportionate interest is ordered to be deposited in the name of the petitioner for a period of 5 years in any nationalized/scheduled bank of his choice and the balance 70% amount with proportionate interest is ordered to be paid to the petitioner. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
MVC 7723/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7724/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 54 respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7725/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7726/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7727/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 55 Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7728/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7729/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7730/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 56 MVC 7731/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7732/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7733/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7734/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs.
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 57 The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7735/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7736/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7737/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 58 annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC 7739/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs. The petitioner has been awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the realization from the respondent No.1, who shall deposit the compensation amount within 2 months from the date of this order.
Entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
All the petitions as against the respondent No.2 are dismissed.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.7722/2016 and a copy of the same be retained in other cases.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 11.04.2018) (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.MACT ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1 : Jayarajaiah
P.W.2 : Mallesh
P.W.3 : Rakshith M.L.,
MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 59 P.W.4: : Ramanji K., P.W.5: : Vijayakumar R.C., P.W.6: : Harish C.N., P.W.7: : Manjunatha G., P.W.8: : Darshan C.N., P.W.9 : Harsha Kumar C.P. P.W.10 : Ramamurthy P., P.W.11 : Vinodkumar G.H., P.W.12 : Santhosh V., P.W.13 : Yerriswamy B., P.W.14 : Udayakumar P.n., P.W.15 : Abubkar Siddiq P.W.16 : Ravi A., P.W.17 : Babu C., P.W.18 : Manjunath Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents:
R.W.1 : Mohan Kumar A.S.
R.W.2 : B.S.Ashok
R.W.3 : K.Anwar Pasha
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P.4 : Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.5 : Charge Sheet Ex.P.6 : Driving Licence Ex.P.7 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.8 : 3 Medical Bills Ex.P.9 : X rays Ex.P.10 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.11 : Medical Bills Ex.P.12 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.13 : Medical Bills Ex.P.14 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.15 : Medical Bills Ex.P.16 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.17 : Medical Bill Ex.P.18 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.19 : Medical Bills Ex.P.20 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.21 : Medical Bills Ex.P.22 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.23 : Medical Bills Ex.P.24 : Wound Certificate MVC 7722 to 7737/2016 c/w 7739/2016 60 Ex.P.25 : Medical Bills Ex.P.26 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.27 : Medical Bills Ex.P.28 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.29 : Medical Bills Ex.P.30 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.31 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.32 : Medical Bills Ex.P.33 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.34 : Medical Bills Ex.P.35 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.36 : Medical Bills Ex.P.37 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.38 : Medical Bills Ex.P.39 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.40 : Medical Bills Ex.P.41 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P.42 : Case Sheet Ex.P.43 : MLC Extract Ex.P.44 : 3 X rays Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Policy Copy Ex.R.2 : Letter issued by RTO Mandya Ex.R.3 : Section 133 Notice Ex.R.4 : Letter (H.P.SANDESH) MEMBER, PRL.M.A.C.T