Bangalore District Court
Harish.H.M vs ) Icici Lombard Gen. Ins.Co.Ltd on 16 January, 2020
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH4
PRESENT: Smt.Champaka., B.A (LAW)., LL.M.,
Member, MACT,
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of January 2020
M.V.C.No.5421/2015
PETITIONER: Harish.H.M.,
Aged about 24 years,
S/o H.K.Mahesh,
No.841, 31st Cross,
Tilaknagar, Jayanagar,
4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru - 41.
Since after the accident the
petitioner is not able to speak
Reptd. By his father,
Sri.H.K.Mahesh,
S/o.Kodanda Jetty.
(By Sri.G.M Adv.,)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1) ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.Co.Ltd.
No.89, SVR Complex, II Floor,
Hosur Main Road, Madivala,
Bengaluru - 560068.
(By Smt.R.S. Adv.,)
2) Hitaish.K.N.,
SCCH4 2 MVC No.5421/2015
Major, S/o.Nagaraj.T.,
Shivashaila krup,a
Behind MHS School,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District 562159.
(By.Sri.R.K Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The present petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 14.08.2015 at about 11.30 a.m., the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA42Q6147 and at the time of the accident, one Yatish was riding the motor cycle at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, the petitioner requested several times him to ride the vehicle in a slow manner. When they reached near BWSSB Quarters on SCCH4 3 MVC No.5421/2015 NH209 Road, a dog came across the road, the motor cycle rider applied the sudden break to avoid the dog, since he was driving at high speed, the said motor cycle turned turtle, resulting which petitioner sustained severe head injury and other injuries all over the body.
3. Immediately, after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Sri Sai Ram Hospital, wherein the petitioner took treatment for 5 days and then shifted to BGS Hospital, wherein the petitioner took treatment as inpatient. The Doctors have opined the injuries sustained by the petitioner are permanent in nature. After the accident the petitioner is not able to speak, not able to stand and still he is in coma. The petitioners have spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges.
4. The Harohalli Police have registered a case in Cr.No.288/2015 for the offences punishable U/s 279, SCCH4 4 MVC No.5421/2015 337 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the motor cycle are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
5. In pursuance of the notices, both the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed written statements.
6. The respondent No.1/insurance company in his written statement denied all the averments made in the petition. It has contended that, as on the date of alleged accident the motor cycle, bearing No.KA42Q6147 was not insured with this respondent, which is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has denied the manner of occurrence of accident. It has denied the injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount spent towards medical expenses. It has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It has further contended that, regarding the denial of policy in respect SCCH4 5 MVC No.5421/2015 of the offending vehicle and to get compensation from this respondent, petitioner should prove that the said vehicle was involved in accident, the same was validly insured. It has contended that, the rider of the motor cycle was not holding driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle, the respondent No.2/owner without ascertaining the same, as handed over the vehicle to drive and the same amount to violation of policy conditions. Hence, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It has further contended that as per the medical records the petitioner sustained injuries due to slip and fell from motor cycle, it is only a self negligence and was not properly sitting on the vehicle, the rider of the vehicle has not caused any accident and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle. Further as per police records i.e., sketch and panchanama the entire negligence is on the part of the petitioner. This respondent further denies that SCCH4 6 MVC No.5421/2015 the alleged accident, which took place on 14.08.2015 the respondent no.2/owner has not informed about the accident and has not furnished the particulars of the policy and as statutorily contemplated under section 134
(c) of M.V.Act. This respondent contended that, the motor cycle was not all involved in the accident, petitioner colluding with the police lodged a false complaint against the rider of the motor cycle after seven days of the alleged accident. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant one. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent.
7. The respondent No.2 filed his written statement denied all the averments made in the petition. He conended that, as on the date of accident the rider of the motor cycle was having valid driving licence and the motor cycle was insured with respondent No.1 and the same is valid from 07.04.2015 to 06.04.2016. He denied SCCH4 7 MVC No.5421/2015 the occurrence of accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries, period of treatment and expenses thereon. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and exorbitant one. Hence, prayed to reject the claim petition against this respondent.
8. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he had sustained injury in RTA as contested in petition?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that the al leged accident is due to rash and negli gent riding of the rider of the motor cycle, bearing Reg. No.KA42Q6147?
3. Whether the Respondent No.2 proves that his vehicle bearing No.KA42Q6147 was validly insured with Respondent No.1 at the time of accident as con tended?
4. Whether the petitioner proves that they are entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
SCCH4 8 MVC No.5421/2015
5. What Order or Award?
9. In order to prove the case the father of the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 22. The Neurosurgeon at Sri Sairam Hospital is examined as PW.2. The Medical Record Officer, Sri Sai Ram Hospital is examined as PW.3 and got marked documents Ex.P23 and 24. The Medical Record Incharge at BGS Global Hospital is examined as PW.4 and got marked document Ex.25 to 29. The Addl. Prof of Neuropsychology at NIMHANS is examined as PW.5 and got marked document at Ex.P30 and 31. The Eye Witness is examined as PW.6 and got marked document Ex.P32.
The respondents have not adduced their evidence either oral or documentary.
10. Heard. Both the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents with written arguments. Perused the records.
SCCH4 9 MVC No.5421/2015
11. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the following citations.
1) 2014 ACJ 1441 (V.Mekala V/s M.Malathi)
2) 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others v/s Rabir Singh and others)
3) 2011 ACJ 911 (Ravi V/s Bhadrinarayan and Others).
12. The counsel for respondent no.2 filed relied on the following citations:
1) 2019 ACJ 445 (Iqbal Ahamed v/s Vice Chairman, Patel integrated Logistics Ltd., & another.
2) 2019 ACJ 624 (A.Chaithra & Others v/s G.A.Shivakumar)
13. My findings on the above issues are as under: Issue No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4 : In the partly Affirmative Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
14. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2: On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents, it shows that, while the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motor cycle, when reached near BWSSB Quarters on NH209 SCCH4 10 MVC No.5421/2015 Road, a dog came across the road, the motor cycle rider applied the sudden break to avoid the dog. Due to which petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and took treatment for the injuries sustained in the alleged RTA.
15. In order to prove the case, the father of the petitioner filed the sworn affidavit in lieu of chief examination as PW.1 by reiterating the petition averments and further deposed that, prior to accident his son was working as driver and getting salary of Rs.12,000/ per month, after the accident due to abnormal deformity has lost his present and future loss of earnings. During hospitalization himself and his wife used to accompany his son in the Hospital. At the time of accident his wife was working as Head Master in Government Primary School at Chikkanavalase, Marlawadi Hobli and getting salary of Rs.26,000/ per month. After the accident his wife was on leave for 95 SCCH4 11 MVC No.5421/2015 days. He further filed the additional affidavit and deposed that, since, there was no improvement in petitioner, readmitted in Sri Sri college of Ayurvedic science and research hospital and was treated for 7 days as inpatient and again on 22.12.2017 readmitted in Sushruta Ayurveda hospital at Puttur for 23 days and spent additional medical expenses of Rs.2,00,000/.
16. During crossexamination clearly deposed that, his son was working as driver in Milk Van but he has not produced any document. Admittedly, he is not a eyewitness but deposed that as on the date of accident his son was proceeding in Yamaha motor cycle and the same was riding by his friend Hitesh. Except that, nothing worth while elicited from the mouth of PW.1 in order to disbelieve his evidence. The petitioner also examined eye witness as PW.6 and he produced his voter ID card. In his evidence he deposed that, on 1482015 at about 11.30 a.m. the petitioner was going on motor SCCH4 12 MVC No.5421/2015 cycle bearing reg. no.KA42Q6147 as a pillion rider, at that time one motor cycle came in high speed and rash and negligent manner near B.W.S.S.B Quarters at Harohalli. He further deposed at that time one dog came across the road in order to avoid the dog the rider of the motor cycle applied the break in result motor cycle turned turtled and petitioner thrown on the road and got severe head injury. During the crossexamination he deposed he was working as Cashier in R.B. Bar and also running petty shop near Harohalli, Kanakapura Taluk.. He further deposed while he bringing cauvery water the rider of the motor cycle came in high speed and he saw the motor cycle about 15 meter distance. He brought the petitioner to Sai Ram Hospital and also given statement in hospital and also informed the accident. He denied the accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner.
17. The petitioner in support of his contention SCCH4 13 MVC No.5421/2015 also produced the Ex.P1 is the FIR filed by Harohalli Police in Cr.No.288/2015 on the basis of complaint lodged by the father of petitioner. The Ex.P3 is the mahazar, which discloses the manner of occurrence of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged RTA. The Ex.P4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report, filed by IMV Inspector after investigation and opined that the cause of accident was not due to any mechanical defect of the said vehicle. The Ex.P5 is the charge sheet filed by the IO against the rider of the motor cycle for the offences punishable under Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The Ex.P7 is the wound certificate discloses the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the alleged RTA. On perusal of these documents, it shows that, there is an accident, in which the petitioner sustained injuries.
18. By considering the pleadings of the parties, absolutely there is no dispute with regard to the alleged accident; the date, place and time of accident. So, the SCCH4 14 MVC No.5421/2015 only point now remained for the consideration of this Tribunal for the proper adjudication of this issue is the rash and negligent act of whom resulting in the present accident.
19. On the other hand, to disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the respondents have not examined any witness nor produced any documentary evidence.
20. On perusal of these documents, it shows that, there is an accident, in which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries. So far as the petitioner sustained fracture injuries because of accidental injuries, there is no dispute between the parties. Moreover, the oral evidence of petitioner as well as PW.6 is supported by police papers and medical records in that regard. On perusal of the Ex.P5 is the charge sheet filed by the IO against the rider of the offending vehicle also prima facie SCCH4 15 MVC No.5421/2015 discloses that, the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. 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 rider of the motor cycle. Hence, this tribunal answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
21. ISSUE NO.4: The petitioner produced the wound certificate, discharge summary, medical bills, prescriptions etc. On that basis, he is entitled for compensation on the following heads:
a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: The petitioner in the petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1 deposed that, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Sri Sai Ram Hospital, Bengaluru wherein the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 4 days, then shifted to BGS Hospital, herein the petitioner was an inpatient for 135 days. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to Sri Sri SCCH4 16 MVC No.5421/2015 College of Ayurvedic Science and Research Hospital for physiotherapy treatment, wherein the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for 232 days. Again for the 2 nd time he was readmitted to Sri Sri College of Ayurvedic Science and Research Hospital and took treatment as inpatient for 7 days. Again the petitioner was admitted to Sushruta Ayurveda Hospital at Puttur and treatment as inpatient for 23 days. In all, the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for 401 in different hospitals. As per Wound Certificate/Ex.P7 the petitioner sustained the following injuries:
1) Healing abrasion over forehead length 2x7cm
2) Abrasion over right temporal region and right side of face measuring 15 x 10 cm
3) Abrasion over left zygomatic area 3x2 cm
4) Abrasion over nose measuring 2 x 1 cm
5) Abrasion over right shoulder 3x2 cm wrist 1cmx1cm on radial aspect.
6) CT brain - tiny parenchymal bleed in left basal SCCH4 17 MVC No.5421/2015 ganglia and medial temporal lobe mild IVH.
The Doctor has opined that, the above said injuries 1 to 5 are simple in nature and injury 6 is grievous in nature. Admittedly, the petitioner was suffered severe head injuries. Hence, it is clear that, during the above said period the petitioner suffered lot of pain and inconveniences. Considering all these aspects, the Tribunal grants compensation of Rs.2,00,000/. Accordingly, the same is awarded.
b) MEDICAL EXPENSES: The petitioner produced 67 medical bills at Ex.P17 and 21 for sum of Rs.8,95,611/ and 76 medical bills at Ex.P21 for sum of Rs.1,06,512/ with prescriptions total sum of Rs.10,02,123/. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and treatment taken by the petitioner in several hospitals, it shows that he might have spent that much of amount. Hence, he is entitled for the said medical SCCH4 18 MVC No.5421/2015 expenses of Rs.10,02,123/, which is rounded of to Rs.10,02,000/ Accordingly, same is awarded.
c) LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID UP PERIOD: The petitioner produced discharge summaries at Ex.P8 to 10, 19 and 20 issued by Sri Sai Ram, BGS Hospitals and Sri Sri College of Ayurvedic Science and Research Hospital, which shows that, he took treatment as an inpatient for more than one year and it is also supported by case sheet, MLC extract, Neuropsychological assessment report, Xray etc. Except that, he has not produced any other documents to show that, how many days he has taken bed rest. Naturally, it shows that he might have taken atleast for more than one year because of the said injuries.
The PW.1 deposed that his son was working as a driver and earning Rs.12,000/ per month. To prove the same, he has not produced any documents except SCCH4 19 MVC No.5421/2015 Ex.P11 driving licence. Hence, the income of the petitioner is considered on the basis of notional as Rs.10,000/ per month. Hence, 24 months is to be considered as loss of income. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of (Rs.10,000/ x 24 months) = Rs.2,40,000/, under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
d) DISABILITY: The petitioner has examined the Dr.K.Karthik.R as PW.2 in his evidence deposed that, the petitioner was admitted with history of RTA on 14.08.2015. On examination he was unconscious and was intubated in casualty to protect airway and assist breathing and found the following:
1) Abrasions over the face
2) Boggy Swelling Right parietal region
3) MRI Scan of brain was suggestive of Diffuse Axonal injury (Grade III) SCCH4 20 MVC No.5421/2015 He was discharged on 18.08.2015 and referred to NIMHANS for Rehabilitation.
In support of the same, the Medical Record Officer is examined as PW3 and got marked document Ex.P23 and 24 case sheet. During the crossexamination he deposed since the petitioner discharged against the medical advise, MRI and CT scan return to the petitioner.
Further the petitioner examined the MRO of BGS Hospital as PW.4 and produced documents Ex.P25 to 29, i.e., authorization letter, case sheet ( 4 in nos), MLC extract, CT scan films ( 2 in nos.) and Xrays (13 in nos.).
In support of their contention, the petitioner also examined Dr.Jamuna Rajeswaran as PW.5 and got marked Ex.P31 - Neuropsychological report. The PW5 deposed that, the petitioner was referred from SCCH4 21 MVC No.5421/2015 Department of Neurorehabilitation, NIMHANS for Neuropsychological assessment to Neuropsychology Unit on 03.01.2019. On clinical examination he was conscious, he came walking with his relative and was difficult to establish rapport. His attention could be aroused difficult to sustain and was cooperative but motivation was poor and was not able to follow the instructions given. He was disoriented to time person and place, the speech was not clear and fluent. Hence a complete neuropsychological though attempted cannot be commented upon. Vineland Social Maturity Scale was attempted. He gets an IQ of 10 to indicating profound mental retardation. According to Government of India disability PWD Act he get a cognitive disability of 100%.
During the crossexamination, the PW.5 deposed that she is not a treated doctor but before assessing the disability she verified the MRD file. She further deposed SCCH4 22 MVC No.5421/2015 that she has done cognitive test to the petitioner and assessed the disability as per Ex.31. As per the medical records the petitioner only treated conservatively and as per Ex.P9 BGS Hospital discharge summary, the injury is mild impairment. She further deposed that, while the petitioner discharged from the BGS Hospital, CGS Score is Galsco Coma Scale. She further deposed that, the petitioner taken speech therapy but he is not able to continuously speak but she has not produced observation notes of the petitioner. She further deposed that as per the OPD physical disability is mentioned as 60%. She further deposed that the petitioner sustained diffused axonal head injury which is in severe nature. She denied that the petitioner not suffered 100% disability. Considering the evidence of the doctor as well as treatment taken by the petitioner, the disability assessed by the PW5 is at higher side. If the disability is taken as 60% to the whole body, it would meet the ends SCCH4 23 MVC No.5421/2015 of justice.
The age of the petitioner as per the petition is 24 years. In order to prove the age, the petitioner has produced Ex.P11/driving licence, which discloses the date of birth as 19.05.1991. Hence, the age of the petitioner is considered as 24 years and appropriate multiple applicable to above age group between 15 to 25 years is '18'. Hence, Rs.10,000/ x 12 x 18 x 60%= Rs.12,96,000/.
e) FOOD, NOURISHMENT, CONVYEANCE AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: Further as the petitioner was treated as an inpatient for more than one year and he sustained grievous head injury. The PW.1 also produced the pay slip of petitioner's mother and earned leave availment certificate issued by the Head Master of Govt. Primary School, Maralavadi. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and the period of treatment taken, he SCCH4 24 MVC No.5421/2015 is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Accordingly, same is awarded.
f) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS: The petitioner was aged 24 years at the
time of accident. He sustained grievous head injury. It shows that, he finds difficulty in doing daytoday activities as he might have suffered loss of pain, loss of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age, nature of injuries and percentage of disability Rs.2,00,000/ is awarded under this head.
g) LOSS OF MARRIAGE PROSPECTS: The PW.1 deposed that, his son was aged 24 years and unmarried. The petitioner is suffering with permanent disability of 60% to the whole body which is permanent in nature. Due to abnormal deformity, the petitioner has lost his SCCH4 25 MVC No.5421/2015 marriage prospects. Considering all these facts, it is just and reasonable if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded under this head.
h) FUTURE ATTENDANT CHARGES: On perusal of medical records and evidence, it clearly discloses that due to severe head injury sustained by the petitioner, he requires one attendant throughout his life for his assistance and his daily activities. Hence, considering all these facts, it is just and reasonable if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded under this head.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a) Pain and sufferings Rs. 2,00,000/
b) Medical expenses Rs. 10,02,000/
c) Loss of income during laid up Rs. 2,40,000/ period
d) Disability Rs. 12,96,000/
e) Towards food, nourishment and Rs. 2,00,000/ attendant charges
f) Towards loss of amenities Rs. 2,00,000/ SCCH4 26 MVC No.5421/2015
g)Towards loss of marriage Rs. 1,00,000/ prospects
h)Towards future attendant charges Rs. 1,00,000/ Total Rs.33,38,000/ Hence, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.33,38,000/.
22. LIABILITY: This Tribunal opined that, the accident took place due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle, bearing Reg.No.KA42Q6147. The respondent no.1 being insurer and respondent no.2 being the owner of the motor cycle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However the respondent No.1 has to indemnify the owner. 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.
SCCH4 27 MVC No.5421/2015 Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 partly in the partly affirmative.
23. ISSUE NO.5: 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 cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,38,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from respondents.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation awarded to the Petitioner, 50% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner by way of crossed cheque on proper identification and remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years in the name of petitioner.
SCCH4 28 MVC No.5421/2015 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 16th day of January 2020) (Smt.Champaka) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 H.K.Mahesh PW.2 Dr.K.Karthik.R PW.3 Krishnappa PW.4 Stalin Christopher PW.5 Dr.Jamuna Rajeswaran PW.6 Ramanarasimha
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Mahazar
Ex.P4 IMV report
Ex.P5 Charge sheet
Ex.P6 Medical Certificate
Ex.P7 Wound certificate
SCCH4 29 MVC No.5421/2015
Ex.P811 Discharge summary
Ex.P12 Notarised copy of driving licence of the
petitioner
Ex.P13 Pay slip of the mother
Ex.P14&15 Medical bills
Ex.P16 Scan report bill
Ex.P17 Medical bills
Ex.P18 Prescriptions
Ex.P1920 2 Discharge summary
Ex.P21 Medical bills
Ex.P22 Prescriptions
Ex.P23 Authorization letter
Ex.P24 Case sheet
Ex.P25 Authorization letter
Ex.P26 Case sheet
Ex.P27 MLC extract
Ex.P28 2 CT Films
Ex.P29 13 Xrays
Ex.P30 Authorization letter
Ex.P31 Neuropsychological Assessment report and
DNR file Assessment
Ex.P32 Notarised copy of the voter identity card
List of witness examined for the Respondents:
None List of documents marked on behalf of Respondents:
NIL XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru SCCH4 30 MVC No.5421/2015 AWARD SCCH NO.4 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.5421/2015 PETITIONER: Harish.H.M., S/o.H.K.Mahesh, No.841, 31st Cross, Tilaknagar, Jayanagar, 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru - 41.
Since after the accident the petitioner is not able to speak Reptd. By his father, Sri.H.K.Mahesh, S/o.Kodanda Jetty.
(By Sri.G.M Adv.,) Vs. RESPONDENTS: 1) ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.Co.Ltd.
No.89, SVR Complex, II Floor, Hosur Main Road, Madivala, Bengaluru - 560068.
(By Smt.R.S. Adv.,)
2) Hitaish.K.N., Major, S/o.Nagaraj.T., Shivashaila krup,a Behind MHS School, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District -562159.
(By.Sri.R.K Adv.,) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH4 31 MVC No.5421/2015 the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a
motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Champaka, XVIII Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from respondents.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation awarded to the Petitioner, 50% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner by way of crossed cheque on proper identification and remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years in the name of petitioner.
Fee of counsel for Petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2019.
SCCH4 32 MVC No.5421/2015
MEMBER
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
By the
______________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
SCCH4 33 MVC No.5421/2015
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment) ORDER The petition filed under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.33,38,000/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from respondents.
The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order.
Out of total compensation awarded to the Petitioner, 50% of the same to be released in favour of petitioner by way of crossed cheque on proper identification and remaining 50% to be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank, for a period of three years in the name of petitioner.
Fee of counsel for Petitioner is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw an award accordingly.
XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru SCCH4 34 MVC No.5421/2015 SCCH4 35 MVC No.5421/2015