Bangalore District Court
Sri.Ismail Zabeeulla.M vs Sri.C.Venkatesh on 4 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 4th day of July 2016.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.1516/2015
PETITIONER: Sri.Ismail Zabeeulla.M.
@ Mirza Ismail
S/o.Mirza Hasan Baig
Aged about 38 years,
R/o.No.132, 1st floor
1st Stage, 5th block
HBR Layout, Bangalore-43.
(By Pleader Sri.CSR)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.C.Venkatesh,
S/o.Chikkappaiah
Major
R/o.No.79,
Marasandahalli Village,
Hosakote Taluk,
Bangalore District.
(By Pleader Sri.HM)
2 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18
2. The IFFCO-TOKIO General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
Sri Shanthi towers
5th Floor, No.141, 3rd Main
East to NGEF layout,
Kasthurinagar,
Bangalore-43.
(By pleader Sri.VMS)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act seeking for compensation of Rs.25,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
On 20-01-2015, at about 3.45 P.M., the petitioner was riding the scooter bearing registration No.PY-01-AA-9208 in slowly and cautiously by following traffic rule and when he reached in front of Prakash Service station, Malur Town, Kolar district, at that time, the driver of the Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.KA-03-MB-3256 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's vehicle. Due to 3 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 the said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road along with motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to Narendra Hospital, Kolar, Wherein he has taken first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bangalore, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. Further after discharge from the hospital and as per the advice of the doctor, the petitioner has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental charges.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 38 years, running Niligiri Poles supply Business and earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. Further the contention of that petitioner is that, he has sustained grevious injuries in the accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered lot and also suffered 4 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident.
4. The respondent No.1 is the owner of the Qualis vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-MB-3256 and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said vehicle. Contending the above facts, he prays to grant for compensation of Rs.25,25,000/-with interest and cost.
5. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed the objection statement.
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.1 is as under:
The respondent No.1 contended that, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the part contents of the petition in toto. Further the respondent No.1 has 5 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 contended that, the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. petitioner. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also injuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him and disablement suffered by him. Further the respondent No.1 has admitted that, he is owner of the Qualis vehicle and the said vehicle is insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further he contended that, if this court grants the compensation to the petitioner, then the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him.
7. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 is as under:
The respondent No.2 contended that, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further he contended that, the petitioner and the driver of the Qualis vehicle were not having valid and effective Driving 6 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 License to ride the motorcycle and drive the Qualis vehicle as on the date of accident. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle i.e. petitioner. Further the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and injuries sustained by him and disablement suffered by him and medical expenses incurred by him. Further he contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioner is exorbitant and fashionable one. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against the him with cost.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grevious injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TOYOTA QUALIS bearing Reg.
No.KA-03-MB-3256 on 20-1-2015 at about 7 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 3.45.P.m., near Prakash Service station, on Malur-Kolar Road, Malur Taluk, Kolar District?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 27 and Ex.P.32 to 40. Further in support of his evidence and to prove the disablement, he has examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-28 to 31.
10. To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the respondents have not produced any oral and documentary evidence.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
12. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:8 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18 [[ R E A S O N S
13. ISSUE NO.1: During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued by reiterating the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW-1 & 2. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondents is that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was riding the scooter in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules as on the date of accident. But to prove the said fact, the respondents have not produced any supportive documents and also not examined any witnesses cited in the charge sheet. On the other hand, to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Qualis vehicle, the petitioner has produced the copy of police investigation papers and on perusal of those documents, it reveals that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Qualis vehicle. Further he argued that, the petitioner has produced the copy of order sheet and copy of plea in CC No: 784/2015 and on perusal of those 9 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 documents, it appears that, the driver of the Qualis vehicle has appeared before the JMFC court, admitted the guilt and paid the fine. Further he argued that, to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined the doctor as Pw-2 and as per the version of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body and also he needs 2 more surgery for removal of implants. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved his occupation and income by producing proper documents and also he has proved his case as contended in the petition by producing supportive documents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2. Further he argued that, on perusal of copy of police investigation papers, it appears that, the petitioner has also contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of alleged accident. Further he argued that, to prove the alleged disablement suffered by the petitioner, 10 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 though, he has examined the doctor as Pw-2, but he is not a treated doctor and as such, his evidence is not acceptable one. Further he argued that, to prove the occupation of the petitioner, he has produced some documents, but those documents are not the authenticated documents and as such, he is failed to prove his occupation and income as contended in the petition by producing proper documents and also failed to prove his case by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2.
15. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the merits of the case.
On perusal of the records, it appears that, to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as Pw.1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 27 and Ex.P.32 to 40.
11 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18
16. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent no.2 has cross examined the Pw.1 at length. In the cross examination, the Pw.1 has clearly stated at page no.17 that:-
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ PÁé°Ã¸ï ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A§¢ ºÁPÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV, D ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ »A§¢UÉ vÁV¹ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪɣAÉ zÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
"CfðAiÀÄ°è PÁtô¹zÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ PÁé°Ã¸ï ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DUÀzÃÉ £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÀ DVgÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, on the other hand, the accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner.
17. To prove the said defence, the respondent no.2 has not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the entire evidence of Pw-1, it appears that, though the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to 12 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 disbelieve his version regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged quails vehicle. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one.
18. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the alleged quails vehicle, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of Police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex.P1 to 11. On perusal of Ex-P1 & 5 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it appears that, Malur Police have registered a case against the driver of the Qualis vehicle and after completion of investigation , the concerned Police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the said vehicle.
19. Further on perusal of Ex.P.12 & 13 i.e. certified copy of order sheet in C.C.No.784/2015 and certified copy of plea, it appears that, the driver of the alleged Qualis vehicle has appeared before the JMFC Court, Malur, admitted the guilt and paid the fine. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of evidence of Pw-1, coupled with 13 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved that, the accident has occurred mainly due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the quails vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-MB-3256 by producing oral and documentary evidence.
20. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e. copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident.
21. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved this issue by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue is in the affirmative.
22. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 38 years, doing Niligiri Poles supply business and earning Rs.25,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, he has sustained grevious injuries in the 14 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident.
On the other hand, the respondents have disputed the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also disablement suffered by him.
23. To prove the age, the petitioner has not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the copy of wound certificate, wherein the age of the petitioner is shown as 38 years. Further on perusal of the records, it appears that, the petitioner has produced the copy of Election ID card (unmarked), wherein the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 04-04-1974. Looking to the above date of birth, it is clear that, as on the date of accident, the petitioner was aged about 40 years. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 15.
24. To prove the occupation and income, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of rental agreement and copy of 15 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 professional tax receipt and the same are marked as Ex.P.32 & 33. On perusal of Ex.P.32 i.e. copy of rental agreement, it appears that, the petitioner has taken the revenue site under rent for running the business of supply of survey poles. Further on perusal of Ex.P.33 i.e. Notarized copy of Form of '4', it appears that, the petitioner has registered his firm name in the Professional Tax office and paid the tax.
25. Further the petitioner has produced the payment register, material purchase register and way bridge slip and the same are marked as Ex.P.38 to 40. On perusal of those documents, it appears that, the said documents are not the authenticated documents. Further on perusal of Ex.P.9 i.e. copy of statement given by the petitioner before the police, wherein the occupation of the petitioner is shown as Nilgiri poles timber business. Considering the above facts and also on perusal of copy of rental agreement and sales tax receipts, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved that, he is running the Niligiri Poles supply business.
16 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18
26. On the other hand, to prove the income, the petitioner has not produced any supportive documents. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents regarding the income of the petitioner, I am of the opinion that, if the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.9,000/-p.m., certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
27. Further to prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner and disablement suffered by him. Further the Pw-2 has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 39% to the upper limb and 55% to the lower limb and suffered disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body.
28. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the Pw-2 at length. In the cross-examination, the Pw-2 has clearly stated at Page No. 6 that:
"UÁAiÀÄÁ¼ÀÄ E¸Áä¬Ä¯ï d©ÃªÀůÁè EªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀAvÀzÀ®Æè aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß RÄzÁÝV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è," 17 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18 "UÁAiÀƼÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ EwÛÃZÉUÉ ¥ÀjÃQë¹zÁUÀ DvÀ£À §®PÁ°£À JgÀqÀÆ ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JqÀ PÉÊ£À ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀ ºÀÁUÀÆ PÁå¯ïPÉäAiÀĪÀiï ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀ DVzÀÝzÀÄ PÀAqÀħAvÀÄ. ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉýzÀ ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁ° ¥ÀÇtðªÁV eÉÆÃqÀuAÉ iÀiÁVgÀĪÀªAÉ zÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, ºËzÀÄ, DzÀgÉ PÁå¯ïPÉäAiÀĪÀiï ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀzÀ §½ ¸Àé®à CAUÀªÀÅ ¸ÀªÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁtĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛg.É "
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the Pw-2 is not a treated doctor and at present, the fractures are united.
Further as stated above that, as per the version of the PW-2, the petitioner has suffered total disability to the extent of 94% to the upper limb and lower limb. But as stated above that, the Pw-2 is not a treated doctor and at present, the fractures are united. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if 1/3rd of the total disability of particular limb is considered as disability to the whole body, then it comes to 31.3%. But the Pw-2 has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body and 18 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 the same is considered as disability certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
29. The income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.9,000/- p.m. and the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner is taken as 25% and the Multiplier 15 is applied, then the loss of future income due to disability comes to Rs.4,05,000/- (9,000 x 12 x 25/100 x 15). Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- under the head of loss of future income.
30. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-
a) Closed fracture mid 1/3rd- distal 1/3rd - of shaft right tibia
b) Closed fracture mid shaft right tibia
c) Closed fracture distal end left radius and ulna
d) Pelvic dietaries 19 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18
31. Further on perusal of Ex.P.15 i.e. discharge summary, it appears that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 7 days at Hosmat, Hospital, Bangalore and underwent surgery.
Considering the above facts and also looking to the age and occupation of the petitioner and looking to the nature of injuries, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under head Pain and Suffering.
32. Further as stated above that the petitioner has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and sustained fracture of left radius and ulna and suffered disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of occupation and considering the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head of loss of amenities.
33. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 7 days at Hosmat 20 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 Hospital, Bangalore. Looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.8,000/-under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
34. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner might not have attended his regular work atleast for a period of 5 months as he has sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and sustained fracture of left radius and ulna. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.47,000/-under the head of loss of income during laid up period and rest period.
35. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
In support of the said contention, the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills and the same are marked as Ex.P.17, 18, 20, 23 & 24. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the medical bills and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent no.2 has cross-examined the 21 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 Pw.1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills.
On the other hand, on perusal of the Medical bills, it appears that, the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.2,51,380/-towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.2,51,000/-under the head of medical expenses.
36. The Pw-2 has stated that, the petitioner need one more surgery for removal of implants from right leg and left wrist and the cost of the said surgery is Rs.1,20,000/-. Further he has stated that, the petitioner need a fusion of the subtalar joint of the left lower limb which will cost of is Rs.1,20,000/-. In support of his contention, the Pw-2 has not produced any estimation letter or authenticated documents. On the other hand, the petitioner has also not produced any authenticated documents regarding the cost of future medical expenses. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents and looking to the nature of surgery, I am of the 22 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 opinion that, if an amount of Rs.80,000/-is awarded under the head of future medical expenses, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.80,000/-under the head of future medical expenses.
37. The contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accident, his scooter was fully damaged and to repair the said vehicle, he has incurred an amount of Rs.25,000/-. To prove the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon the bills and the same are marked as Ex.P.26. On the other hand, the respondents have disputed the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. Further when the respondent No.2 has disputed the genuineness of the bills, then it was the duty of the petitioner to prove the said bills by examining the author of it. But the petitioner did not do so. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the Ex.P.26 bills produced by the petitioner is not acceptable one. On the other hand, on perusal 23 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 of Ex.P.3 i.e. MVA report, wherein the concerned motor vehicle inspector has shown the following damages caused to the petitioner's vehicle:
1. Speedometer assembly Head light assembly brokened fully.
2. Front both indicators brokened
3. Crash guard bent at right side.
4. Front both shocks bent and damaged.
5. Dent mark on fuel tank at right side.
6. Chassis damaged at front end.
7. Front mag wheel brokened.
8. Front wheel mudguard brokened.
9. Broket-brokened which fitted behind the engine.
10. Rear left indicator brokened.
11. Handle assembly. Damaged and dent.
On perusal of the above damages and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of positive evidence, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of 24 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 Rs.20,000/-is awarded under the head of cost of vehicle repair charges, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
38. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,41,000/- under the following heads:-
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Loss of future income Rs. 4,05,000/-
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
4. Attendant, nourishment and conveyance Rs. 8,000/-
charges
5. Medical expenses Rs. 2,51,000/-
6. loss of income during laid up period and Rs. 47,000/-
rest period
7. Vehicle repair charges Rs. 20,000/-
8. Future medical expenses Rs 80,000/-
Total Rs.9,41,000/-
39. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petition and contents of objection statement, it reveals that, the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Qualis vehicle bearing registration No.KA-03-2-MB-3256 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as 25 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 stated above that, the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the above said Qualis. Hence, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the alleged vehicle is liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,41,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
40. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of MV.Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,41,000/- (future medical expenses does not carry interest) with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the policy, the 26 MVC.No.1516/2015 SCCH-18 respondent No.2 insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of the petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 4th day of July 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
27 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18 ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Ismail Zabeeulla M @ Mirza Ismail P.W.2. Dr.Krishan Prasad List of documents exhibited on petitioner`s side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of Panchanama
Ex-P3 True copy of MVA report
Ex-P4 True copy of wound certificate
Ex-P5 True copy of charge sheet
Ex-P6 Bail bond
Ex-P7&8 Indemnity bond
Ex-P9-11 Copy of witnesses statement
Ex-P12 Certified copy of order sheet in CC.No.784/2015
Ex-P13 Certified copy of plea in CC.No.784/2015
Ex-P14 CT scan report
Ex-P15 Discharge summary
Ex-P16 Lab reports 10 in Nos.
Ex-P17&18 Medical bills
Ex-P19 X-ray 26 in Nos.
Ex-P20 Medical bills
Ex-P21 Prescriptions
Ex-P22 X-ray
Ex-P23 Medical bills
Ex-P24 X-ray 4 in Nos.
Ex-P25 & Photos & CD
25 (a)
Ex-P26 Vehicle repair bill
Ex-P27 Medical bill
Ex-P28 Outpatient record
Ex-P29 Inpatient record
Ex-P30 X-ray reports
EX-P31 X-ray
28 MVC.No.1516/2015
SCCH-18
Ex-P32 Notarized copy of rental agreement
Ex-P33 Notarized copy of Form No.4
Ex-P34-37 Notarized copy of Form 'C'
Ex-P38 Payment register
Ex-P39 Material purchase register
Ex-P40 Way bridge slip
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:
-None-
List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
-Nil-
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.