Bangalore District Court
Sri. Kapil Sharma vs M/S. Srs Travels on 15 October, 2020
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH-4
PRESENT: Smt. Champaka, B.A(LAW)., LL.M.,
Member, MACT,
XVIII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 15 th day of October, 2020
MVC No.903/2018
PETITIONER: Sri. Kapil Sharma,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o. Sri. P.K.Sharma,
R/at No.507,
Sankalp Central Park,
Yadavgiri,
Mysore - 570 020.
(By Sri.M.S.M. Adv.,)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s. SRS Travels,
Represented by Proprietor
Sri. K.T. Rajashekar,
No.270, MM AdigalSalai,
Pondicherry.
(By Sri.K.S.A. Adv.,)
2. The Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Divisional Office at No.40,
Laxmi Complex KR Road,
Opp. Vanivilas Hospital,
Bangalore - 560 002.
SCCH-4 2 MVC 903/201835
(By Sri.R.S.S. adv.,)
3. Sri. Bharat Gaikwad,
S/o. Sri. Vasanth Gaikwad,
R/at A/P Hangirage,
Tal Sangola,
Solapur District - 413 307.
(Exparte)
4. M/s.Prayati Products,
No.6, LM Complex,
Sathyanarayan Street,
Swarnapuri, Salem.
(Exparte)
5. United India Insurance Ltd.,
Branch Office III, Arjuna Tower,
248/164, Cherry Road,
Salem - 636 001,
Tamil Nadu.
(By Sri.V.R. adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under: SCCH-4 3 MVC 903/201835
On 27.09.2017 the petitioner along with other passenger was travelling in SRS Volvo Bus bearing No.PY-01-CM-2864 from Pune to Mysore via Haveri & Davanagere and driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tanker lorry bearing No.TN-30-BA-7570, travelling from Haveri to Davanagere. Due to the impact, all the passengers in the SRS Volvo bus including petitioner sustained grievous injuries and many passengers who were grievously injured died on the spot. The petitioner was taken to OM hospital, Ranebennur, then he was taken to Narayana Multi specialty Hospital, Mysore for further treatment. The petitioner was treated for the injuries caused in the accident like Traumatic spinal cord, fracture D8 vertebral body with paraplegia, bilateral loculated empyema, HCAP Klebseila, AKI-interstinal Nephritis, Normocytic Normorchromic and other grievous injuries which are diagnosed as permanent disability.SCCH-4 4 MVC 903/201835
It is further contended that, the petitioner besides being a BE graduate was an aspirant of MBA-ITBM from Symboisis Center for information Technology, the petitioner being young, brilliant, smart and deserved a suitable placements in reputed IT industry after his education. The petitioner had bright future but due to the injuries being permanent in nature has curtailed his future prospects. The petitioner has spent huge amount for the treatment, medicine, transportation etc., due to the injuries caused in the accident. The petitioner is suffering with major ailments from the date of accident due to which there is absolutely no possibility of married life and denied happiness of having companionship for rest of his life.
The accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of SRS Volvo bus bearing No.PY-01-CM- 2864 by its driver and the driver of lorry bearing No.TN30BA7570. The respondent No.1 is the owner, SCCH-4 5 MVC 903/201835 respondent No.2 is the insurer, respondent No.3 is the driver of SRS bus, respondent No.4 is the owner of the lorry No.TN-30-BA-7570 belonging to KSBCL and respondent No.5 is the insurer of said lorry. Hence, all are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.3 and 4 have remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent No.1, 2 & 5 appeared through their counsel and filed written statement respectively.
4. The respondent No.1 in his written statement denied all the allegations made in the petition and contended that, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The respondent admitted the particulars given in column No.15(1) of the claim petition with regard to the ownership of the bus bearing Reg.No.PY-01-CM-2864 and the said bus was insured SCCH-4 6 MVC 903/201835 with the New India Assurance Co., Ltd., vide policy No.67010031700000799, valid from 08.06.2017 to 08.06.2018 and the same is valid. The respondent further contended that, on 27.09.2017, the driver of the SRS bus bearing No.PY-01-CM-2864 belonging to the respondent No.1 was driven by it's driver very carefully and cautiously following all the traffic rules in a slow manner and when he reached near Halgeri under Bridge and Cholamareswara temple RNR City, Haveri- Davanageri PB road, at that time, the driver of the tanker Lorry which is belongs to respondent No.4 drove in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules dashed against the bus and due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tanker Lorry. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is false and exaggerate. He has denied the age, occupation, income and injuries SCCH-4 7 MVC 903/201835 sustained by the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
5. The respondent No.2/insurance company in its written statement denied all the allegations made in the petition except admitted the policy subject to terms and conditions and contended that, the driver of the bus not having valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the bus to the said driver and contravened the proviso of the MV Act and also not complied with statutory demand. The bus in question did not held valid permit and route permit as on the date of accident. The respondent further contended as on the date of accident, the bus was being driven in reasonable speed and careful manner and there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. It has denied the age, occupation SCCH-4 8 MVC 903/201835 and income of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is exaggerate, arbitrary and speculative. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition as against the insurance company.
6. The respondent No.5/insurance company in its written statement denied all the allegations made in the petition except admitted the policy subject to terms and conditions and contended that, the accident occurred due to the rash negligent driving by the driver of the bus and no way the driver of the lorry was negligent and involved in accident, as such the insurer and insured of the bus alone liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. It has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is exaggerate, arbitrary and speculative. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition as against their insurance company. SCCH-4 9 MVC 903/201835
7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained injuries due to RTA al- leged to have been occurred on 27.09.2017 at about 5.00 a.m., near Halgeri under Bridge and Chola-
mareswara Temple, RNR city, Haveri-
Davanageri PB road, Haveri, due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the SRS bus bearing Reg.No.PY-01-CM-
2864?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner chosen to examine the witnesses through the commissioner. Accordingly, the commissioner was appointed for recording the evidence of witnesses and submit before the court. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 18. The doctor is examined as PW.2 and got marked document Ex.P19 to SCCH-4 10 MVC 903/201835
23. The HR of Infosys Mysore is examined as PW.3 and got marked Ex.P24 to 28. The respondent No.5 got examined its administrative officer as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1. The respondent No.2 got examined its administrative officer as RW.2 and got marked Ex.R2 to 6.
9. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner filed the written arguments. the counsel for respondent No.2 produced decision reported in ACJ 2011 Kar 1131. Perused the records.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
11. ISSUE NO.1: It is the contention of the petitioner that, on 27.09.2017 at about 5.00 a.m. the petitioner along with other passenger were travelling in SRS Volvo Bus bearing No.PY-01-CM-2864 from Pune to SCCH-4 11 MVC 903/201835 Mysore via Haveri & Davanagere and driver of the bus drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tanker lorry, due to the impact he sustained grievous injury and taken treatment in the hospital.
12. In order to prove the case, the petitioner filed the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW.1 and got marked several documents. On perusal of Ex.P1/FIR, the Ranebennuru Traffic police have registered the Cr.No.44/2017 against the driver of the bus for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC on the basis of Ex.P2 complaint. The Ex.P4 is the wound certificate, which shows that petitioner sustained injuries due to accident. The Ex.P3 is the charge sheet filed by the IO against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. So, the only point now remained for the consideration of this Tribunal for the proper adjudication of this issue is the rash and negligent act of SCCH-4 12 MVC 903/201835 whom resulting in the present accident. On perusal of these documents, it shows that, there is an accident, in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
13. On perusal of oral evidence, during cross- examination PW.1, deposed that, at the time of accident he was sleeping and after the accident he was unconscious. He further deposed that, he don't know the cause of accident was due to the rash and negligence driving of the driver of the bus or lorry as he was sleeping. He admitted in Ex.P4 wound certificate it is written as bus was hit by lorry. Except that, nothing worthwhile elicited from the mouth of the PW.1 to prove the defence of respondents.
14. In order to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 and 5 administrative officers examined as RW.1 and 2. The RW.1 produced the copy of the insurance policy and RW.2 produced the copy of the insurance SCCH-4 13 MVC 903/201835 policy, letter to insured with postal acknowledgement and claim settlement letter. Even though the respondent No.1 taken the contention that, the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the lorry driver and on the other hand, the respondent No.5 taken the contention that, the accident took place due to rash and negligence of the bus driver but, the insurance company have not chosen to examine any witness. Even they have not made attempt to produce any documents to show the negligence of either the driver of the bus or lorry. So far as the petitioner sustained grievous injuries because of accidental injuries, there is no dispute between the parties.
15. Moreover, the oral evidence of petitioner is supported by police papers and medical records in that regard. On perusal of the Ex.P3 is the charge sheet filed by the IO against the driver of the offending bus also prima facie discloses that, the accident occurred due to SCCH-4 14 MVC 903/201835 the negligent driving of the driver of the SRS bus. Even though in the evidence the respondent No.2 taken the contention that, there is head on collision between these two vehicles, but in support of the same, absolutely no materials or evidence before the court. Moreover, as per police records, both the vehicles are moving on the same direction and the bus was hit to the back right side corner of the lorry. Except that, there is nothing on record to show that, there is also negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. So, looking to these facts, this tribunal is of the opinion that, the accident is caused solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the SRS Volvo Bus bearing Reg.No.PY-01-CM- 2864. Hence, this tribunal answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
16. ISSUE NO.2 : The petitioner produced wound certificate, discharge summaries, inpatient record, medical bills and prescriptions, etc. SCCH-4 15 MVC 903/201835
a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:-The petitioner in the petition as well as in his evidence deposed that, due to the grievous injuries sustained, he took treatment as inpatient in several hospitals. As per Ex.P4/Wound Certificate he sustained following injuries:
1. Complained of pain over both side of chest, head blunt trauma, chest CT scan chest bilateral haemothorax,
2. Complained of loss of power in both lower limbs and loss of sensation below abdomen, loss of sensation below xiphistemum (para-
plegia), fracture D8 vertebra, complete cord transection at D8 vertebral level.
The doctor has opined that, injuries are grievous in nature. As per the medial records he was taken treatment for more than one year. He sustained injuries of grievous in nature and also as per the opinion of the doctor the petitioner was suffering from paraplegia. Further, he was unable to move both his lower limbs and was on Foleys catheter and also bilaeral ICD's were inserted. He underwent spinal surgery and further SCCH-4 16 MVC 903/201835 underwent bilateral thorocotomy decortication. The doctor also advised to medication to be continued, daily catheter care, back care for prevention of bedsore, physiotherapy and rehabilitation with aids. Hence, it is clear that, during the above said period, the petitioner suffered lot of pain and inconveniences. Considering all these aspects and medical records, the Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, the same is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.
b) MEDICAL EXPENSES:- The petitioner produced medical bills(231) at Ex.P11 for Rs.24,75,779/- and 31 prescriptions at Ex.P12. On going medical records, the petitioner has taken the treatment as an inpatient about one year. The medical records also discloses, the petitioner received sum of Rs.4,03,321/- from insurance policy. In support of the claim, he also produced 5 discharge summaries marked at Ex.P5 to 9 and inpatient records. The petitioner also examined the SCCH-4 17 MVC 903/201835 doctor to prove his disability. The RW.2 during his cross- examination produced Ex.R6 claim settlement letter which is not included in the claim amount. Hence, looking to the grievous injuries sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner for long time, it shows that, he might have spent that much of amount. The medical bills produced by the petitioner also including air-ticket, guest house charges and other bills without payment receipts and also not pertaining to petitioner. Hence, considering all these aspects, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as medical expenses. Accordingly, the same is awarded.
c) LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID UP PERIOD: The petitioner has produced 5 discharge summaries at Ex.P5 to 9 to show that, he took treatment as an inpatient at NH Narayana Multi Speciality hospital from 27.09.2017 to 07.11.2017, PLEXUX Neuro Stem research Cell hospital from 25.11.2017 to 24.02.2018, SCCH-4 18 MVC 903/201835 JSS hospital Mysore from 12.12.2017 to 13.12.2017 and 17.08.2018 to 20.08.2018, Columbia Asia hospital from 03.04.2018 to 04.04.2018 totally for a period of about one year. The medical records as well as documents produced by the petitioner also discloses, after the accident he was continuing his treatment in several hospitals.
So far as income of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner contended, besides being a graduate, he was an aspirant of MBA-IRB, he has bright future but, due to the injuries being permanent in nature has curtailed his future prospects. During his evidence he has produced Ex.P15 to 18 convocation certificate of BE and MBA, salary statement, salary slips of Infosys and IT returns, Form No.16. All the documents pertaining to the year 2018 and 2019 i.e., after the accident. He also examined PW.3 HR of Infosys Mysuru, he also produced salary certificate of petitioner, Form No.12-BA salary SCCH-4 19 MVC 903/201835 statement, Form No.16, salary slips for the month of March to June 2019. As per the said documents he is withdrawing salary of Rs.63,645/- p.m. i.e., after the accident. Initially, he was employed with IMS Health Analytical services Pvt., from 07.07.2014 to 17.05.2016. As per the Ex.P16, his drawing salary was Rs.4,84,770/- per annum. The documents also discloses he resigned the job and continued his studies in course of MBA at Symbiosis International University. It is also clears from the records, after the accident the petitioner got the job in Infosys and getting salary. The Ex.P17 discloses the Infosys issued an offer letter to the petitioner on 09.10.2018 for getting job. The accident took place in the month of September 2017 and he was took treatment till August 2018 as per the medical documents. Hence, all these period is to be considered as loss of income of the petitioner i.e., about one year. Under such SCCH-4 20 MVC 903/201835 circumstances, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under this head.
(d) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: It is also clears from Ex.P17, the Infosys issued an offer letter to the petitioner on 09.10.2018. The petitioner also examined HR of Infosys Mysore as PW.3 and she produced salary particulars of petitioner. After the accident the petitioner got the job in Infosys and getting salary of Rs.63,645/- per month as discussed supra. The accident took place in the month of September 2017. Hence, the petitioner is now doing the job is not in dispute.
In a decision reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2439 between Subhas v/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., wherein it is held that awarding compensation towards loss of future income, resulting sin serious miscarriage of justice, wherein fact, the claimant has been continued in the services of the Corporation as 'Conductor'. If the claimant is continued in service, then SCCH-4 21 MVC 903/201835 the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise.
Hence, In view of the above decision as well as facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled the compensation under head of loss of future income.
(e) DISABILITY: The petitioner has examined treated doctor Dr.Goutham Cugati as P.W.2. The PW.2 produced letter issued by the NH Multi Speciality hospital, 3 inpatient records, X-rays, MRI and CT-CD, and recent clinical examination notes with CD. In his evidence he deposed about the admission of the petitioner after the accident. On examination, he found the petitioner had tenderness in the dorsolumbar spine D10 and was unable to move both his lower limbs and was on Foleys catheter. He further deposed, the petitioner under went MRI of the dorsolumbar spine and bilaeral ICD's were inserted and further underwent SCCH-4 22 MVC 903/201835 spinal surgery - D6-D10 stabilization on 28.09.2017. He further deposed, the petitioner further underwent bilateral thorocotomy decortication on 24.10.2017 and readmitted on the same day due to developed drug induced renal injury and discharged on 07.11.2017.
He further deposed, the petitioner was regular on follow up at NH hospital and he was last seen him on 11.03.2019.Further, on evaluation he was found to have paraplegia, 0/5 sensory loss below D8 level, on Foleys catheter for urinary incontinence, and he was advised to medication to be continued, daily catheter care, back care for prevention of bedsore, physiotherapy and rehabilitation with aids. On examination he found the disability as vertebral fracture 30%, 4 Motor 75%, 5 Sensory 20%, 5 Incontinence 100% = total disability 100%.
SCCH-4 23 MVC 903/201835
During the course of cross examination of PW.2, he deposed that, he was treated the petitioner from the date of admission and also in OPD basis only for spine related issues. He denied if compared to the admission, the condition of the patient is improved at the rate of 90%. He admitted in the present condition, the petitioner may not require any surgical treatment and treatment for vertebral fracture is completed and also vertebral fracture is united. He deposed due to nerves disability he need regular catheter to pass urine, hence, he opined the petitioner suffered 100% disability for incontinence. He further deposed, the motor weakness was assessed in the lower limbs, whereas the disability (75%) is for the whole body and 20% disability is assessed on account of sensory loss of lower limbs. He denied assessment made by him, if it is put together all heads it comes more than 100% disability, the person non exist. He further denied SCCH-4 24 MVC 903/201835 in order to help the petitioner, assessed disability on higher side.
On going through the evidence as well medical records, it is discloses, the petitioner was suffering from traumatic spinal cord injury- complete cord transection at D8 level fracture vertebral body with paraplegia. Admittedly, the PW.2 is a treated doctor deposed the petitioner is suffering from paraplegia. Further it also discloses, he require nursing care and catheter care for the rest of his life also. It is also clear from the evidence of the PW.1 he is unable to walk and mobilize without wheel chair and he is doing the job with great difficulties. So, considering all these aspect, this tribunal is of the opinion that the disability of the petitioner is to the extent of 70%, if it is done it will meet the ends of justice.
As per the petition at the time of accident, the petitioner is aged about 25 years. As per Aadhar SCCH-4 25 MVC 903/201835 card/Ex.P14 of the petitioner, the date of birth is shown as 1992. Hence, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is taken as 25 years. By considering the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner and the disability assessed by the doctor it is just and proper to award sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the head of disability, If it is done so, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under this head.
(f) FOOD, CONVEYANCE, NOURISHMENT AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: Further, as the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for long period about one year in the hospital and he suffering from paraplegia. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of treatment taken, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of food, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges during these period. Accordingly, same is awarded.
SCCH-4 26 MVC 903/201835
(g) LOSS OF AMENITIES DUE TO PERMANENT DISABILITY: The petitioner has sustained severe injuries and suffering from traumatic spinal cord injury and fracture in vertebral body with paraplegia disability to an extent of 70%. Even he has not able to do his daily activities as usually and can mobilize only on wheel chair with DL brace. The petitioner being a BE and MBA graduate ambitious to work outside India with his elder brother as narrated in his pleadings. Admittedly, he had bright future but due to the injuries curtailed his future amenities. The medical records discloses that, he lost his future amenities through out the life due to the RTA injuries. Even the petitioner not in position to move without the support of others and he has suffering major aliment due to the RTA. Whereas, taking into consideration of nature injuries and the avocation of the petitioner and disability as assessed above, he is entitled SCCH-4 27 MVC 903/201835 for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under the head of loss of future amenities.
(h) LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS: The PW.1 deposed that, he is unmarried and having sexual and fertility problem due to the accident injuries. Moreover, he is suffering from traumatic spinal cord injury nerve system with paraplegia with permanent disability of 70% to the whole body which is permanent in nature. Due to the above said reason, the petitioner has lost his marriage prospects. Admittedly, the petitioner is of the age 25 years. Absolutely, there is less possibility of married life and loss of happiness of having companionship for rest of his life. Considering all these facts, it is just and reasonable if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under this head.
(i) FUTURE ATTENDANT CHARGES: The treated doctor PW.2 deposed, if the petitioner does not take the physiotherapy and rehabilitation the condition will be SCCH-4 28 MVC 903/201835 worsen and quality of life will come down and he need medicine expenses of Rs.1,000/- p.m., physiotherapy of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- p.m., nursing care of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m. On perusal of medical records and evidence, it clearly discloses that due to severe injuries sustained by the petitioner, he requires one attendant throughout his life for his assistance and his daily activities. Further, due to nerves disability, the petitioner need regular catheter to pass urine for that he regularly need attendant and he requires physiotherapy and rehabilitation, nursing care for the rest of his life. Hence, considering all these facts, it is just and reasonable if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is awarded under this head.
17. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a) Pain and sufferings Rs. 3,00,000/-
b) Medical expenses Rs. 20,00,000/-
c) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 5,00,000/-
period SCCH-4 29 MVC 903/201835
d) Loss of future income -----
e) Disability Rs. 10,00,000/-
f) Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 3,00,000/-
attendant charges
g) Loss of future amenities and Rs. 5,00,000/-
happiness
h) Towards marriage prospectus Rs. 5,00,000/-
i) Towards future attendant Rs. 5,00,000/-
expenses
Total Rs.56,00,000/-
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.56,00,000/-.
18. LIABILITY: This Tribunal opined that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus bearing Reg.No.PY-01-CM-2864. The respondents No.1 & 2 being the owner and the insurer of the bus are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. As such, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of offending vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.1. In view of the detailed discussion made herein above the petition against the SCCH-4 30 MVC 903/201835 respondent No.4 and 5 is deserved to be dismissed. This Court has gone through the decision laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.103557/2016 (MV). In the said judgment the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka observed that, the rate of interest is to be 6% p.a., keeping in line with statutory ceiling limit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above findings, tribunal proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The petition filed under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2.
The petition against the respondent No.4 and 5 is hereby dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.56,00,000/- with interest SCCH-4 31 MVC 903/201835 at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from Respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner and shall deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation awarded to the Petitioner, 75% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner by way of e-payment on his proper identification and remaining 25% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years, in his name.
Fee of counsel for petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw an award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 15 th day of October 2020) (Smt.Champaka) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE SCCH-4 32 MVC 903/201835 List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 Sri.Kapil Sharma PW.2 Dr.Goutham Cugati PW.3 Athira Antony
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Charge sheet
Ex.P4 Wound certificate
Ex.P5 & 6 Two discharge summaries of JSS Hospital,
Mysore
Ex.P7 Two Discharge summary of NH Narayana Multi
Speciality Hospital
Ex.P8 Discharge summary of Columbia Asia dated
04-04-2018
Ex.P9 Discharge summary of Plexus Neuro and Stem
Cell Research Cell
Ex.P10 Disability certificate and Identity card for
differently abled person issued by District Disabled Welfare Office Mysore Ex.P11 Medical bills (231 in nos for sum of Rs.24,75,779/-) Ex.P12 Prescriptions (31 in nos) Ex.P13 Laboratory reports, scanning reports and OPD case sheets etc., (70 in nos) Ex.P14 Aadhar Card of Petitioner Ex.P15 Convocation certificated of BE and MBA Ex.P16 Salary statement and last drawn salary of IMS Health Analytical Service Pvt., Ex.P17 Office letter and salary slips of Infosys Ex.P18 IT Returns Form No.16 Ex.P19 Letter issued by NH Multi specialty hospital Mysore Ex.P20 In-patient file 2 in nos Ex.P21 Inpatient filed date 31-10-2017 SCCH-4 33 MVC 903/201835 Ex.P22 X rays and MRI and CT-CD 3 nos Ex.P23 Clinical examination notes dated 11-03-2019 with CD Ex.P24 Authorization letter along with photocopy of ID Ex.P25 Salary certificate of Mr.Kapil Sharma Ex.P26 Form 12 B A Salary statement of Mr.Kapil Sharma Ex.P27 Form 16 of Mr.Kapil Sharma Ex.P28 Salary slips for the month March, April, May and June 2019 List of witness examined for the Respondents:
RW.1 Savitha RW.2 Sushil Tiwari
List of documents marked on behalf of Respondents:
Ex.R1 Copy of the insurance policy
Ex.R2 Authorization letter
Ex.R3 Policy copy along with terms and conditions
Ex.R4 Postal acknowledgement
Ex.R5 notice
Ex.R6 Letter issued by the Columbia Asia Medical
Center
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
Bengaluru