Bangalore District Court
Devaraj vs Mehul A. Patni on 6 April, 2024
KABC020037192020
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATED: THE 6th DAY OF APRIL 2024
PRESENT
SMT. DIVYASHREE C.M., B.A.L, LL.M,
II Addl. Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.671 OF 2020
Petitioner: Sri. Devaraj
S/o Late Girigowda,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Byranahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
Rep.by his guardian/wife
Smt.Eramma
W/o Devaraj
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Byranahalli Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
SCCH.13 2 MVC.671/2020
Also at No.243,
1st Main Road, 11th Cross,
Near Gangadhareshwari School,
Mallasandra, Bengaluru North,
Dasarahalli, Bengaluru57.
(By Sri.Gopal Gowda H.K., Adv.)
/Vs./
Respondents: 1. Mr. Mehul A. Patni
Chokdi Main Road,
Laxmikunj Vadodra,
Gujarat, Vadodra390001.
(RC owner of the Lorry bearing
No.GJ06TT7938)
(Exparte)
2. TATA AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.,
No.3/2, Kaverappa Layout,
Millers Road, Vasanth Nagara,
Bengaluru - 560 051.
(I/P No.015637182000 valid from
18102016 to 17102017)
(By Sri. K. Sridhara, Adv.)
J U D G M E N T
This petition under Section 166 MV Act, is filed seeking compensation of ₹50,00,000/ for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a road traffic accident.
SCCH.13 3 MVC.671/20202. It is stated in the petition that on 10072017 about 11.30 p.m. Petitioner was riding his motorbike on Bengaluru - Tumkur NH at Tonachinakuppe village, opposite to Santhrupthi Daba, Nelamangala, at that time, the driver of a Lorry bearing No.GJ 06TT7938 (herein after called as offending vehicle) drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorbike. Due to the impact, Petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately Petitioner was taken to Sapthagiri hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from permanent disability and unable to lead normal life as earlier and he is literally bed ridden. The Petitioner has spent ₹10,00,000/ for treatment and other incidental expenses. It is claimed that the Petitioner was aged 41 years at the time of accident and working in a factory for daily wages and was earning ₹700/ per day. Due to SCCH.13 4 MVC.671/2020 accidental injuries he has lost his earning capacity and income. As the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, it is requested to award compensation from the Respondent No.1 owner and Respondent No.2 insurer.
3. In response to the petition notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the written statement. The Respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court and he was placed exparte.
4. Respondent No.2insurance company in its objection statement has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of offending vehicle and its validity as on the date of accident. However, its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It has denied the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident. It has is contended that the owner of the alleged vehicle and the concerned police have not SCCH.13 5 MVC.671/2020 complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.134(c) and 158(6) of MV Act. Further it is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence and offending vehicle had no valid FC and permit to ply on the road. It has also denied all the allegations with regard to the age, avocation and income of the deceased and contended that compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed :-
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained injuries when he was riding the motorcycle bearing No.KA52J6502 on 1072017 about 11.30 p.m. opp.Santhrupthi Daba, near Thonachinakuppe, Bengaluru -
Tumkur Road, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ashoka Leyland Lorry vehicle bearing No.GJ06TT7938?
2. What compensation Petitioner is entitled ?
SCCH.13 6 MVC.671/20203. What order ?
6. In order to prove the claim, the Petitioner's wife is examined as PW.1 and Medical Record technician from Sapthagiri hospital is examined as PW2 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.17 respectively.
7. The Respondent No.2 has examined its official as RW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R.1 to 5.
8. I have heard the counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.
9. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Issue No.2: Partly in affirmative. Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
R E A S O N S
10. ISSUE NO.1: In order to prove his claim, wife of Petitioner relied on the SCCH.13 7 MVC.671/2020 police and medical records. PW1 - wife of the Petitioner has deposed that on 1007 2017 about 11.30 p.m. her husband i.e., Petitioner was riding his motorbike on Bengaluru - Tumkur NH at Tonachinakuppe village, opposite to Santhrupthi Daba, Nelamangala, at that time, the driver of a Lorry bearing No.GJ06TT7938 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorbike. Due to the impact, Petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries. It is stated that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
11. In support of the claim, PW1 has produced copy of FIR at Ex.P1, complaint at Ex.P2, spot mahazar at Ex.P.3, wound certificate at Ex.P.4, IMV report at Ex.P.5 and charge sheet at Ex.P.6. As per wound certificate, he had sustained the following injuries:
SCCH.13 8 MVC.671/20201. Right Fronto tempero parietal subdural haemmorrhage.
2. Fronto Temporal contusion.
3. Left fronto temporal sub archnoid haemorrhage.
4. Cut lacerated wound on right occipital area.
5. Cut lacerated wound on left occipital area.
Doctor opined that injury No.1 to 3 are grievous in nature and rest injuries are simple in nature.
12. The Respondent No.2 has contended that some unknown vehicle had hit the Petitioner and after lapse of three days, false complaint has been lodged alleging the negligence of insured lorry. It was also suggested to PW1 that her husband himself had hit the some other lorry and it was his negligence in causing accident. PW1 has denied all the suggestions.
13. Official of the Insurance Company is examined as RW1 and stated that defective chargesheet is filed against the driver of SCCH.13 9 MVC.671/2020 the offending lorry and he had no valid driving licence. He has also denied the negligence and involvement of the insured lorry.
14. It is true that the complaint is belatedly filed. The accident has occurred on 10072017 about 1135 p.m. and the complaint is registered on 12072017 at 1.00 p.m. It was stated in the complaint that the complainant is the nephew of the Petitioner and since he was taking care in the hospital, the complaint was delayed. According to the medical records, the Petitioner was hit by a lorry. Immediately after the accident it was informed that he was hit by a lorry and one person by name Mahesh had accompanied the injured. It is clear that the lorry had caused the accident. There are no materials to prove that the insured lorry was not involved in the accident. From the spot mahazar it is clear that the lorry bearing No.GJ06TT 7938 was stationed at the spot and it was SCCH.13 10 MVC.671/2020 very much available at the place of accident along with the motorbike of the Petitioner when the spot mahazar was done. Hence, it is clear that the insured vehicle had caused the accident. From the materials available on record, it is clear that the Petitioner was riding the motorcycle on the left side and the lorry had negligently hit the motorcycle. After investigation police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. There are no contrary material to hold otherwise. Hence, I hold that driver of the offending vehicle is liable for negligent driving and injuries sustained by the Petitioner. In view of these, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.2: The PW1 states that her husband was aged about 40 years as on the date of accident. Due to the accident he has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Sapthagiri hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated as an SCCH.13 11 MVC.671/2020 inpatient for almost 45 days. After discharge from the hospital he has taken followup treatment. It is said that he sustained Right Fronto tempero parietal subdural haemmorrhage, Fronto Temporal contusion, Left fronto temporal sub archnoid haemorrhage, Cut lacerated wound on right occipital area and Cut lacerated wound on left occipital area. She has stated that at the time of accident, her husband was working in a factory for daily wages and he was earning ₹700/ per day. Due to the accidental injuries he is permanently disabled, unable to move on his own and is literally bed ridden and unable to do his work and suffered loss of income. He has lost his normal life as earlier.
16. PW2 Medical Record Technician at Sapthagiri hospital has appeared before the court to produce the MLC register extract and case sheet with Xrays of the Petitioner which are marked as Ex.P.16 and 17.
SCCH.13 12 MVC.671/202017. The Petitioner has produced discharge summary at Ex.P.8, which shows that he was inpatient at Sapthagiri hospital, Bengaluru, from 11072017 to 21072017 i.e. for 10 days. He underwent right fronto temporo parietal decompressive craniotomy + Evacuation of SDH with loose duroplasty. PW1 has stated that as per advise of the doctor, after discharge from the hospital, her husband was taken for regular followup treatment. She has produced photographs and pendrive which are not marked as exhibits to show that her husband suffers from permanent disability and unable to do the work. According to case sheet and discharge summary at Ex.P.8, he was diagnosed with head injury, right fronto temporo parietal Decompressive cranotomy + Evacuation of SDH with loose duroplasty was done and his GCS score at the initial stage was 3/15 and EVM was E1V1M5 during treatment. At the time of discharge the GCS score was E3VtM5 as he suffered ventilator associated pnumonia with SCCH.13 13 MVC.671/2020 low CD4 counts and discharged from the neurosurgery department and transferred to medicine department. The levels of response in the components of the Glasgow Coma Scale are 'scored' from 1, for no response, up to normal values of 4 (Eyeopening response) 5 (Verbal response) and 6 (Motor response) According his case sheet he was treated till 2982017 and discharged in stable condition with Ryle s tube in situ. It is evident that he had sustained severe head injury and treated by a Neurosurgeon. According to Ex.P.7 - disability certificate issued by the District Govt. hospital, Doddaballapura shows that he has suffered 79% disability which is not progressive and not likely to improve. The disability card is renewed in the year 2018 and it is not proved that the disability is only due to the accidental injuries. The Petitioner has not examined the treated doctor or a neurosurgeon or the authority who has issued the Ex.P.7. It is evident that Petitioner is unable to work SCCH.13 14 MVC.671/2020 and the disability appears to be permanent. By considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner and the present medical condition, considering that he has undergone surgery due to his head injury, his functional disability is considered as 50%.
18. The Petitioner has stated that he was aged about 41 years, in support of his age he has produced Ex.P.12 Aadhaar card, which shows his date of birth as 01011975. Hence, his age is considered as 42 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, the proper multiplier applicable to be the case on hand is 14.
19. The Petitioner has claimed that he was working in a factory for daily wages and was earning ₹700/ per day and ₹21,000/ p.m. To prove his avocation and income he has not produced any documents. Hence, considering year of accident and monthly income of ₹11,000/ is taken. Since the SCCH.13 15 MVC.671/2020 permanent disability is considered at 50%, considering the age of the Petitioner, 25% of future prospects is added to the monthly income then the monthly income will be ₹13,750/. On the basis of these, Loss of future earnings due to permanent disability is calculated as ₹13,750 x 12 x 14 x 50% = ₹11,55,000/.
20. Pain and sufferings: Considering the fact that the Petitioner has suffered grievous head injury and inpatient for more than one month due to the accident which caused him to immeasurable mental agony and pain, I am of the opinion that an amount of ₹1,00,000/ would be just and fair compensation under the head pain and sufferings.
21. Loss of amenities of life: For loss of amenities of life undoubtedly Petitioner is sure to suffer in his day today activities and face hardships. Hence, SCCH.13 16 MVC.671/2020 Petitioner is awarded ₹30,000/ under loss of amenities of life.
22. Medical expenses: Under the pecuniary damages, expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization and medicines, the Petitioner has produced medical bills amounting to ₹.3,95,966/ at Ex.P.11. Insurance company disputed the medical bills. Considering the genuineness of medical bills, it would be reasonable to award ₹3,95,966/ towards medical expenses.
23. Conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges: Discharge summary at Ex.P.8 and on perusal of case sheet, which shows that he was inpatient at Sapthagiri hospital, Bengaluru, from 11072017 to 29 082017 i.e. for more than one and half months. Therefore, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of ₹50,000/ under the head of conveyance, food, nourishment and attendant charges.
SCCH.13 17 MVC.671/202024. Thus the compensation awarded under the various heads are as under:
Sl. Nature of Compensation Amount No.
1. Loss of future earnings ₹ 11,55,000/
2. Pain and Sufferings ₹ 1,00,000/
3. Loss of amenities ₹ 30,000/
4. Medical expenses ₹ 3,95,966/
5. Conveyance, Food, ₹ 50,000/ Nourishment & Attendant charges Total ₹ 17,30,966/
25. LIABILITY: As it is already held in Issue No.1 that it was the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident, which was insured with Respondent No.2Insurance company. But the 2nd Respondent - insurance company has disputed its liability contending that the driver of the insured lorry had no valid and effective DL as on the date of accident. It is stated that the RC owner of the insured lorry has not appeared before this court and SCCH.13 18 MVC.671/2020 he has not produced DL of his driver. The insurance company says that it has proved that the DL which is produced is fake and in this regard insurance company tried to examine RTO, Hazaribagh (Jarkhand state). But instead of appearing before the court the have sent a letter stating that DL was issued in the name of chargesheeted accused by the said RTO.
26. RW1 who is the official of the insurance company has stated that by the letter of RTO, it is clear that the concerned RTO has not issued any DL to the accused driver. He has produced copy of policy and stated that since the accused had no DL, the owner has violated the terms of policy and it is not liable to pay any compensation. RW1 has also produced copy of notice issued to Respondent No.1 and driver along with returned postal covers and postal receipts. Counsel has produced Form A to which DL details of the accused Manoj SCCH.13 19 MVC.671/2020 Yadav S/o Reva Yadav was sought from the RTO Hazaribagh, Jharkand.
27. On summons issued by the Court, Hazaribagh RTO has sent a letter informing that the alleged DL number is not issued in the name of Manoj Yadav S/o Reva Yadav. They have also produced ledger extract which shows DL number JH02/12/60762 is issued in some other's name. The copy of DL which is produced along with police records is not true copy and the DL number is JH 02/2010/0060762. Though in the information sent by the RTO which is marked as Ex.C.1, it is stated that the DL is not issued in the name of accused Manoj Yadav, the extract which is sent is appears to be of the year 2012.
28. However, the Respondent No.1 has not appeared before this court and original DL of the driver is not produced. By the endorsement issued by the RTO, which is marked at Ex.C.1, it is clear that the SCCH.13 20 MVC.671/2020 driver of the offending lorry had no valid DL as the alleged DL number is not in the name of accused who has caused the accident. Since it is the violation of policy conditions, RC owner shall be liable to pay the above compensation. Since it is a third party liability and the accident has taken place in the year 2017, by considering the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and our Hon'be High Court, it would be reasonable to direct the insurance company to pay the entire amount to the Petitioner and later recover the same along with interest @ 6% p.a. With these observation I answer Issue No.2 partly in the Affirmative.
29. ISSUE NO.3 : In view of the above discussion, reasons stated and findings given to Issue Nos. 1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with cost.SCCH.13 21 MVC.671/2020
Petitioner is awarded compensation of ₹17,30,966/ together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondents No.1 is liable to pay the compensation as awarded by this Tribunal.
Respondent No.2Insurance company shall deposit aforesaid amount within two months from the date of this order and recover the entire compensation amount along with interest from the Respondent No.1 in view of violation of terms of insurance policy.
After deposit of compensation amount, ₹10,00,000/ shall be kept in FD in the name of Petitioner in any nationalized Bank for a period of 2 years and remaining amount shall be released in favour of guardian of Petitioner i.e., wife with interest through Epayment on proper identification and verification. Advocate's fee is fixed at ₹1,000/. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court dated this the 6th day of April 2024.) (DIVYASHREE C.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACMM Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru SCCH.13 22 MVC.671/2020 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Petitioner :
PW.1 : Eramma PW.2 : D.Srinivasaiah
List of documents marked for Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of complaint
Ex.P.3 : True Copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.6 : True Copy of chargesheet
Ex.P.7 : Disability certificate of
Petitioner
Ex.P.8 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.9 : CT scan prescription
Ex.P.10 : OPD card
Ex.P.11 : Medical bills
Ex.P.12 : Notarized copy of Aadhar cards of & 13 Petitioner and PW1 Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of ration card Ex.P.15 : Authorization letter Ex.P.16 : MLC register extract Ex.P.17 : Case sheets with Xrays List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
RW.1 : Gireesha M SCCH.13 23 MVC.671/2020 List of documents marked for Respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of policy Ex.R.2 : Copy of notice Ex.R.3 : Returned postal cover with notice Ex.R.4 : Copy of notice with postal receipt Ex.R.5 : Copy of letter to RTO with postal receipt List of document marked through Court: Ex.C.1: Letter.
(DIVYASHREE C.M.) II Addl. Judge & ACMM Member, MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by C M DIVYASHREE CM DIVYASHREE Date:
2024.04.29 15:36:02 +0530