Mr.Ajij And Mr.Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang vs Being The Rc Owners And The The on 11 January, 2022

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Mr.Ajij And Mr.Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang vs Being The Rc Owners And The The on 11 January, 2022

KABC020216942018




     BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
               TRIBUNAL
  COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.

 DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JANUARY 2022
                     (SCCH25)
     Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
                             B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
      XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, Bengaluru.

MVC No.5180/2018, 5181/2018 and 7053/2019

 PETITONER/S:           1. Smt. Roopa Devi
 In MVC:5180/2018:      W/o Asharam Godara,
                        Aged about 39 years,

                        2. Mr. Asharam Godara
                        @ Asharam
                        S/o Pumaram,
                        aged about 43 years,

                        3. Master Kishore Kumar
                        S/o Aharam Godara,
                        Aged about 16 years,

                        4. Master Tolaram
                        Godara
                        S/o Asharam Godara,
                        Aged about 15 years,

                        Since Petitioners 3 & 4 are
                      2      MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                 and 7053/2019
                     minors,
                     Rep. By their father and
                     natural Guardian Asharam
                     Godara,

                     All are residing at Ward No.4,
                     Runiya Badabass, Bikaner,
                     Runiya Barawas,
                     Rajasthan - 334 022.
                     Also at No.36, Maramma Temple
                     Road, Nyanappanahalli,
                     Begur Hobli,
                     Bangalore - 560 068.

                     Mr. Ajij
                     S/o Niku Din,
 In MVC:5181/2018:   Aged about 26 years,
                     R/at Ward No.3,
                     runiya Badabass,
                     Runiya Barawas,
                     Bikaner,
                     Rajasthan - 334 922.
                     Also at:
                     No.17/18, 14th Cross,
                     Sugana Layout,
                     Nyanappanahalli,
                     Near Prabhavathi Building,
                     Beguru Post,
                     Bangalore - 560 068.

                     Mr. Bajarang Lal @
                     Bajarang Lal Godara
 In MVC:7053/2019:   S/o Ratana Ram Godara,
                     Aged about 25 years,
                     R/at Ward No.1,
                     Runiya Bada Baas,
                     Village - Bikaner,
                     Rajasthan - 334 022.

                     Also At:
                     No.36, Maramma Temple Road,
                     Nyanappanahalli, Begur Hobli,
                       3       MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                   and 7053/2019
                      Bangalore - 560 068.

                      (By Sri.M.T.Nagaraj,
                      Advocate.)
 V/S
 RESPONDENT/S         1. Sri.Shivanna
 in MVC:5180/2018 &   S/o Veerabhadre Gowda,
 MVC:5181/2018:       No.143, Hosadurga, 1st
                      Division, Kanakapura,
                      Bangalore - 562 119.

                      (RC owner of Lorry bearing
                      Reg.No.KA42A2655)


                      2. Shriram Gen. Ins. Co.
                      Ltd.,
                      Regional Office,
                      No.4/5, 3rd Floor,
                      S.V.Arcade,
                      Bilekahalli Main Road,
                      Off: B.G.Road, IIM Post,
                      Bangalore - 560 076.

                      (Policy No.10003/31/17/006214,
                      valid from 04.04.2016 to
                      03.04.2017)


                      3. Rakesh Divakar
                      S/o Ganapathi Divakar
                      Arekere
                      Bannergatta Road,
                      Bangalore - 560 075.

                      Also at:
                      No.173/22, Jigani 1st
                      Division, Jigani Hobli,
                      Anekal Taluk,
                      Bangalore - 83..
                      (RC owner of motorcycle bearing
                      4       MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                  and 7053/2019
                     Reg.No.KA05HU6282)


                     4. United Inidia Ins. Co.
                     Ltd.,
                     Regional Office, 5th Floor,
                     Krushi Bhavan,
                     Nrupathunga Road,
                     Hudson Circle,
                     Bangalore - 560 027.
                     (Policy
                     NO.0701003116P100567383. Valid
                     from 12.04.2018 to 11.04.2017)

                     (R1 - Smt. C.Sharada,
                     R2 - Sri.Kiran Pujar,
                     Advocate,
                     R3 - Exparte
                     R4  Sri.B.T.Rudramurthy,
                     Advocate/s.)

 RESPONDENT/S        1. Sri.Shivanna
 in MVC:7053/2018:   S/o Veerabhadre Gowda,
                     No.143, Hosadurga, 1st
                     Division, Kanakapura,
                     Bangalore - 562 119.

                     (RC owner of Lorry bearing
                     Reg.No.KA42A2655)


                     2. Shriram Gen. Ins. Co.
                     Ltd.,
                     Regional Office,
                     No.4/5, 3rd Floor,
                     S.V.Arcade,
                     Bilekahalli Main Road,
                     Off: B.G.Road, IIM Post,
                     Bangalore - 560 076.

                     (Policy No.10003/31/17/006214,
                     valid from 04.04.2016 to
                           5         MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                         and 7053/2019
                          03.04.2017)

                          (R1 - Smt. C.Sharada,
                          R2 - Sri.Kiran Pujar,
                          Advocates.)

                              .......
                       JUDGMENT

The Petitioners have filed these three petitions under Sec.166 of Indian Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation for the death of Mr.Sawarlal Godara @ Srawanthram and injuries sustained by the Petitioners Mr.Ajij and Mr.Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang Lal Godara in a road accident dated 15.06.2016. All the petitions arisen out of a common accident, therefore all the petitions are clubbed together as per order dated 01.02.2021, common evidence is recorded and common judgment is passed.

2. The case of the Petitioners in nutshell is as follows:

That on 15.06.2016, the petitioners Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang Lal Godara, Ajij and the deceased 6 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Sawarlall Godara @ Srawanthram were proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA05HU6282 as a rider and pillion riders to reach Marathalli via HSR Layout on Outer ring Road, slowly and cautiously, by observing the traffic rules and regulations, while so proceeding reached in between 6.55 am to 7.00 am at Silk board junction, Bangalore, at that time suddenly the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA42A2655 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life without observing traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the aforesaid motorcycle and caused the accident. Due to which the petitioners and deceased fell down, sustained grievous injuries.

3. It is further case of the Petitioners (in MVC No.5180/2018) that immediately after the accident, deceased Sawarlall Godara @ Srawanthram was taken to St.Joh's Medical College Hospital, 7 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Bangalore, wherein provided better treatment, but he succumbed to the fatal injuries and died on the same day at about 7.00 pm while undergoing treatment, thereafter postmortem examination was conducted and handed over the dead body. So far they have spent Rs.2,00,000/ inclusive of hospitalization, medical and other incidental charges etc., Prior to the date of accident he was hale and healthy, doing Carpenter work and earning Rs.15,000/ per month and maintaining his family. Due to untimely death of deceased the petitioners life has become dark, miserable and depressed and put to great financial hardship.

4. It is further case of the Petitioner Ajij in MVC No.5181/2018 that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Prashanth Hospital wherein provided first aid treatment and thereafter referred to St.John's Medical College Hospital, 8 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Bangalore, thereafter referred to Primus Hospital then to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital wherein underwent surgery i.e., open reduction internal fixation + posterior and wall with ORIF (lt) Sl joint with scrotal skin suturing, after conservative treatment discharged with an advise for follow up treatment. So far he has spent Rs.4,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc., Prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, doing Carpenter work, earning Rs.20,000/ per month, with the said earnings he was maintaining his family members, since the petitioner was the only earning member in the family. On account of the said accidental injuries the petitioner is completely bed ridden, getting head ache and giddiness often, cannot walk, stand, cannot lift or carry weight, cannot ride any vehicle, the petitioner's marital life may ruin and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings, since the 9 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 injuries caused are permanent in nature. On account of the said accidental injuries, the petitioner till today cannot attend to his work, resulted in loss of earnings and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.

5. It is further case of the Petitioner Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang Lal Godara in MVC No.7053/2019 that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Prashanth Hospital wherein treated as an inpatient from 15.06.216 to 16.06.2016 thereafter shifted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital wherein provided treatment as an inpatient from 16.06.2016 to 28.06.2016 underwent surgery i.e., open reduction internal fixation pubic symphysis + ORIF (Rt) acetabulum + ORIF (Lt) pubic rami on 22.06.2016, after conservative treatment discharged with an advise for follow up treatment, restricted fracture movements, not to involve in any strenuous activities 10 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and for complete bed rest, as per the advise of the doctors the petitioner is still continuing follow up treatment and so far he has spent Rs.3,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges etc., Prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy, doing Mason work, earning Rs.700/ per day, with the said earnings he was maintaining his family members, since the petitioner was the only earning member in the family. On account of the said accidental injuries the petitioner could not attend to his work, resulted in loss of earning and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship. Due to accidental injuries the petitioner was completely bed ridden, getting head ache and giddiness often, cannot walk long distance, cannot stand long time, cannot lift or carry heavy weights and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and suffering, since the injuries caused are permanent in nature. On account of the said accidental injuries, 11 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 the petitioner till today cannot attend to his work, resulted in loss of earnings and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship.

Further all the petitioners stated that the Respondents being the RC owners and the the Insurers are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioners.

6. In spite of due service of summons, the Respondent No.3 has not appeared before this tribunal and hence he is placed exparte. In response to the notices issued by this tribunal, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 have appeared in all the cases/petitions and respondent No.4 appeared in two petitions and Respondent Nos.2 and 4 have only filed the written statements.

7. The Respondent No.2 in the written statement admitted the issuance of insurance policy 12 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 in respect of offending vehicle but subject to terms and conditions and submits that there is non compliance of Section 134(c) and 158(6) of M.V. Act. They denied the case of the petitioners as false and submitted that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No;KA05HU6282 was solely responsible for the alleged accident. Further submitted that the petitioner is bad for misjoinder of parties as they are neither necessary nor proper party to this petition. As per the complaint and the FIR it clearly disclose that the rider of the motorcycle bearing No:KA05HU 6282 was solely responsible for the alleged accident. As per the police documents there are three persons were proceeding on a motorcycle, hence all the three have contributed to the alleged accident. Further submitted that the driver of lorry bearing Reg.No:KA 42A2655 was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident and the owner 13 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 knowing the said fact willfully entrusted said lorry to such person in contravention of policy conditions.

8. The respondent No.4 has filed written statement denying the case of the petitioner and submitted that they have only issued liability only policy in respect of motorcycle bearing No:KA05HU 6282 in favour of third respondent and their liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further submitted that the respondent has issued statutory policy and not collected any premium under IMT for covering risk of pillion riders on the motorcycle and hence the policy does not cover the risk of pillions. There is noncompliance of Section134(c) of M.V. Act.

9. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following issues: 14 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 In MVC.5180/2018 1 Whether the Petitioners prove that, they are the legal heirs of the deceased Sawarlal Godara @ Srawanthram?

2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, Sawarlal Godara @ Srawanthram was died on account of RTA took place near silk board junction, outer ring road, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA42A2655 dated 15.06.2016 at about 06.55 a.m. as alleged in the petition?

3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?

4. What order or award?

In MVC.5081/2018 1 Whether the Petitioner proves that, the he has sustained injuries on account of road traffic accident took place near Silk Board Junction, out ring road, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA42A2655 dated 15.06.2016 at about 06.55 a.m. as alleged in the petition?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the 15 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 quantum? From whom payable?

3. What order or award?

In MVC.7503/2019 1 Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA42A2655 and in the said accident he sustained injuries?

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?

3. What order or award?

10. The 2nd Petitioner - Asharam Godara @ Asharam in MVC No.5180/2018 examined as PW.1 and produced 20 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.20. The Petitioner in MVC 5181/2018 examined himself as PW.2 and produced 11 documents as per Exs.P.21 to P.31. The petitioner in MVC 7053/2019 examined himself as PW.3 and produced 7 documents as per Exs.P.32 to P.38. Dr.Nagaraj B.N. examined (in MVC 16 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 5181/2018 and MVC 7053/2019) as PW.4 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P.39 to P.42. Mr. A.V.Prasad - ARTO, Koramangala, Bangalore, examined as PW.5 and did not produce any documents on his behalf. On the other side the Respondent No.2 examined (in all the cases) Smt.Shobha Appaiah - Legal Officer as RW.1. The 4 th Respondent in two cases (MVC.5180/2018 and 5181/2018) examined Miss Savitha - AO as RW.2 and produced 2 documents as per Exs.R.2 and R.3. The certified copies of petition, ordersheet and objections in MVC.No:6243/2016 is confront to PW.2 and on admission it got marked in the crossexamination of PW.2 as Ex.R.1.

11. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. The advocate for the Respondent No.2 relied upon the following decisions, (1) 2005 ACJ 1323 - National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s 17 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Premabai Patel and ors., (2) ILR 2016 KAR 55 - M/s ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins. Co., Ltd., Vs. Smt. Bharathi S. Reddy and ors., (3) 2009 ACJ 295 - Archana Goel and ors. Vs. Nav Ratan Balasia & Anr.. The counsel for the petitioners has relied upon decisions reported in, (1) 2021 ACJ 2558 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Chamundeswari and Otrs., (2) 2020 ACJ 751 in Mohammed Siddique and Anr. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. And Otrs., (3) 2020 ACJ 2159 in Erudhaya Priay vs. State Express Trans. Corpn. Ltd., (4) 2019 ACJ 3169 in Haridas and Ors. v. S.Rama and Ors., (5) 2021 ACJ 1163 in Shobha Sanil and Ors. v. Pushparaj Jain and Ors., and (6) Paranaya Sethi's case to highlight towards deduction for personal expenses. Further the counsel for the petitioners filed review on Pelvic Fractures and Associated Genitourinary and Vascular Injuries: A Multisystem Review of Pelvic Trauma, report on Fentanyl Citrate Injection, USP, Morphine Sulfate - 18 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Morphine Sulfate injection, international Medication Systems, Limited and Ketalar (ketamine hydrocloride) injection. I have perused the above citations and the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners are aptly applicable to the case on hand. With due respect to the decisions relied upon by the counsel for respondent No.2 are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case.

12. On hearing both sides and perusal of evidence on record this Tribunal answers the above issues in all the cases are as follows: Issue Issue Nos.2 Issue Nos.3 Case No. Issue No.1 Nos.1& 2 &3 &4 MVC No.5180/2018 Partly in As per the MVC In the In the the Final order No.5181/2018 Affirmative Affirmative Affirmative MVC No.7053/2019 19 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 REASONS

13. Issue No.1 in MVC No.5180/2018: It is the case of the Petitioners that, the Petitioner No.1 is the mother and the Petitioner No.2 is the father and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased - Sawarlal Godara @ Srawanthram. The Petitioners to prove this relationship have examined the second Petitioner as PW.1. PW.1 has specifically deposed this relationship in his chiefexamination. Apart from that to prove the relationship, the Petitioners have also produced notarized copy of Adhar Cards and original TC of deceased as per Exs.P.9 to 13. In Ex.P.9 - Adhar Card of the Petitioner No.1, wherein her husband's name is mentioned as Asharam Godara. In Ex.P.10 - Aadhar Card of the petitioner No.2 his father's name is mentioned as Purnaram Runiya and in Exs.P.11 and P.12 - Adhar Cards of the Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 20 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 their father's name is mentioned as Asharam Godara. In Ex.P.13 - Original TC of Sawrar Lal Godaram (deceased) his father's name is mentioned as Asha Ram Godara. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P.9 to P.13 are public documents which have got presumptive value under law. These documents have not been seriously disputed by the Respondents in the cross examination. The Respondents have not produced any contrary documents. As such, there are no reasons to discard the oral and documentary evidence produced by the Petitioners. Under such circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P.9 to P.13, this court/tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner No.1 is the mother, the Petitioner No.2 is the father and Petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are the brothers of the deceased - Sawarlal godara @ Srawanthram. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is held in the affirmative.

21 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25 and 7053/2019

14. Issue No.2 in MVC No.5180/2018 and Issue No.1 in both MVC No.5181/2019 and 7053/2019: The Petitioners in order to substantiate that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on part of the driver of the offending Lorry, the Petitioners in MVC Nos.5180/2018 got examined 2nd petitioner (father of the deceased) as PW.1 and petitioners in MVC No.5181/2018 and 7053/2019 got examined themselves respectively as PWs.2 and 3 and produced 8 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.8. PWs.1 to 3 have specifically deposed in their chief examination that the driver of the offending Lorry bearing No.KA42A2655 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering to human life and dashed against to the motorcycle in which the petitioners and the deceased were proceeding and caused accident. On the other side, the respondents 2 and 4 have denied the case 22 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 of the petitioners and respondent No.2 specifically contended that as per the police documents the negligence is solely on the part of the rider of motorcycle bearing No:KA05HU6282 and chargesheet also filed against said rider and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of alleged lorry bearing No.KA42A2655.

15. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is elicited that he did not witness the accident but somebody did inform him about the accident. In the crossexamination of PW.2 he admits Ex.R.1/MVC.6243/2016, on the date of accident they three were proceeding on bike which was ridden by petitioner in MVC No:7053/2019, he deposed the contents of para 3 of his chief affidavit on the basis as he witnessed the accident, firstly he admitted to Prashanth hospital and thereafter shifted to Mahaveer Jain hospital, in Mahaveer Jain hospital 23 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 he did has conscious but was not understanding properly.

16. In the crossexamination of PW.3 it is brought out that on 15.6.2016 he was riding bike bearing No:KA05HQ6282, Aziz and Sawarlal were pillion riders, he knows traffic rules, the Cr.No:121/2016 lodged against him and chargesheet also filed against him, he taken to Prashanth hospital first wherein he admitted for 23 days, himself Aziz and Sawarlal belonged to one town, he appeared in criminal case and he did not produce his DL before court.

17. The respondent No.2 got examined RW.1 who deposed in support of their defence. In the crossexamination of RW.1 it is brought out that she deposed on the basis of police documents. The respondent No.4 got examined its officer as RW.2, who deposed in support of their defence. In the 24 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 crossexamination of RW.2 it is brought out that he is deposing on the basis of police documents and produced document about filing of earlier MVC petitions as per Ex.R.4.

18. The case of the petitioners is entirely reverse to the police documents starting from first information till chargesheet and as per said police documents the petitioner in MVC.7053/2019 is the accused and the petitioner in MVC.5181/2018 is the first informant and the insurance companies respondents 2 and 4 contend that the police documents are clearly against the petitioners themselves as such they are not entitled for compensation and further the respondent No.2 specifically contends that there is no negligence on the part of lorry and the police documents are also clear in this regard and hence the case of the petitioners who themselves earlier filed MVC 25 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 petitions as per Exs.R.1 and R.4 on the basis of police documents and after withdrawing the said petitions by posting a complaint to Commissioner of Police as per Ex.P.21 have again filed these MVC petitions against the contents of police documents without any basis and the petitioners cannot go back to their own earlier petitions and file present claim petitions taking a new version only to get compensation and hence no case made out by the petitioners to prove the accident as alleged by them. Therefore, considering this claims and contentions of the parties now the documents on record to be evaluated carefully in order to come to the conclusion that whether the petitioners have made out any case in their favour with regard to accident disproving the police documents or not and whether the petitioners are entitled to get fair compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act for the death and 26 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 injuries sustained in accident caused by the lorry or not.

19. The Ex.P.1 is the first information alleged to have been lodged by the Sri.Ajij/petitioner in MVC.No:5181/2018 against Sri.Bajrang Lal/petitioner in MVC.No:7053/2019 on 15.6.2016 at 08.30 a.m. stating that on 15.6.2016 at 06.55 a.m. he in the motorcycle bearing No:KA05HU 6282 of Sri.Bajrang Lal Godara sat as pillion rider alongwith another friend/who was also pillion rider namely Sri.Shrawanth Ram, near Silk Board Junction three were proceeding in said bike from Marthalli towards BTM layout which was ridden by said Bajrang Lal in high speed and negligent manner in a reverse direction to the traffic and dashed to the front side of lorry bearing No:KA42A2655 coming from BTM side to Marthalli side, due to which he sustained injury to left side thigh, rider sustained injury to right leg, the another pillion rider 27 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Shravanth Ram sustained severe injury to right side of stomach, all three are taking treatment in hospital, Shravanth Ram was taking treatment at Saint Jhons hospital as inpatient, their motorcycle got damaged in front side and for the said accident Sri.Bajrang Lal Godara is the cause and to take action against him.

20. In the last line of first information/Ex.P.2 it is mentioned that the contents of first information read over to the first informant in Hindi Language and same is correct. In the Ex.P.2 one signature is put and its beneath it is mentioned as 'Before me' but whose signature it is no such information available in that regard. After receiving the said first information the Ex.P.1/FIR came to be registered. In Ex.P.2 there is no mention as to before which doctor the said statement was recorded and who was the translator. As per the evidence on record the first informant and the accused in Ex.P.1 28 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and P.2 they only know the Rajasthani and Hindi Languages, therefore non mentioning of details of doctor and the translator needs to be appreciated alongwith the other records which plays a crucial role in proving the case of the petitioners if any. The counsel for the petitioners argues that as the petitioner Mr.Ajij was given injections like Morphine, Ketamine, Fentanyl and hence there was no chance of petitioner Mr.Ajij giving statement at that state. As per Ex.P.22 the petitioner Mr.Ajij admitted on 15.6.2016 at 8.00 a.m. and the Ex.P.2 alleged to have recorded at 8.30 a.m. but the fit condition of patient to give statement is not mentioned by the doctor in Ex.P.2 and the translator name is also not appearing in Ex.P.2, hence the very recording of Ex.P.2 at that time appears to be doubtful.

21. As per the Ex.P.4 in the accident spot the motorcycle scratch marks are found, if the accident occurred as alleged in the Ex.P.2 that the motorcycle 29 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 itself got hit to lorry then there was no chance of appearing motorcycle marks on the accident spot as there was no chance at all for that due to alleged head on collusion. If, when the bike went to the front side and hit the lorry to its front side then where was the chance to such bike to move further as the lorry was being a big vehicle stood very opposite to the bike giving no chance to the bike to fall on the ground and move further leaving scratch marks on road without it was being hit and dragged by the lorry. Therefore, if the said bike scratch mark was found on spot definitely the manner of accident as alleged in Ex.P.2 could not be the case at all.

22. Further, the very important document to be considered and appreciated is Ex.P.5/MVA report. On its perusal the lorry bearing No:KA42A2655 was not had any damages, but the bike bearing No:KA05HU6282 had damages which are, Head light doom, front wheel mud guard, crash guard, 30 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 right side body, silencer, all foot rest, crash guard, right side rear view mirror, left side body, fuel tank damaged. When these damages are appreciated with the manner of accident alleged in Ex.P.2/first information then there was no chance at all for occurrence of such damages to the bike if the accident occurred in the manner narrated in police documents. As per Ex.P.2 the bike hit the lorry to its front side and it was head on collusion, if it was so there was every chance of lorry was being damaged to the front side. As per the police records the bike was ridden in very high speed and in negligent manner and ridden in opposite direction to the lorry which was coming on right side and hit to the lorry, if it is considered definitely damages ought to have occurred to the lorry and there was every chance that the lorry was being run over on the bike, but no damages were found to lorry and as per police records lorry did not run over on the bike which 31 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 cannot be accepted on the very basis of damages shown in Ex.P.4 and the Ex.P.4 damages itself falsifies the manner of accident alleged in the police documents. The said damages mentioned at Ex.P.4 clearly point out that the lorry did dash the bike from its back side which bike was proceeding on their way in right side near the Silk Board Junction and due to said impact the bikers fell down and the lorry run over the second pillion rider/the deceased causing multiple injuries to him as he was almost close to the lorry which touched the bike and made the bikers to fall down making the rider of bike to loose control over the bike and the rider and front pillion rider did sustain grievous injuries.

23. The Ex.P.6/Inquest mahazar clearly shows that the deceased sustained injuries to his lower stomach and right thigh and grievous injury to his private part, scratch injuries on his right knee 32 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and left leg. If the accident as alleged in Ex.P.2 was taken place then definitely the injuries alleged to have sustained by the deceased could not have occurred, if at all head on collusion taken place while the bike ridden in wrong direction then there was not at all chance of two being sustaining grievous injuries and one being succumbed to the injuries, as the vehicle as alleged which was being lorry was coming in right direction and normally driver of such vehicle could not have anticipated that any vehicle could come from its opposite direction in wrong way and hence there was every chance of lorry was being run over on all the three bikers which was not happened as per the police documents and hence which makes it crystal clear that the accident was not happened in the manner as alleged in Ex.P.2 but the story was created by the interested persons only to safeguard the driver of the lorry to the best interest what they have to their best knowledge. No 33 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 doubt the bikers were going three in contravention of traffic rules and they can be fined for said offence but they cannot be punished for the offence which they have not committed and as per settled principles thr triple riding does not disentitles them from getting their claim of compensation and triple riding should not be criteria to implicate them in a false case twisting the facts to which they are not cause at all if it is done it is nothing but causing injustice apparently.

24. The Ex.P.7/P.M. report in the first column No.1 under the head External Examination : Body Description and External injuries it is clearly mentioned that, "Dead body is that of a male aged about 18 years measuring 5 feet and 6 inches in length........................ Surgical Lopertomy wound over mid line of abdomen extending from unclicus to lower abdomen, the gaping surgical wound covered with transparent plastic sheet over an area 26.21 cm 34 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and stitched the skin with surgical sutures and also there is a surgical wound over right lower abdomen measuring 4cm x 1cm, with coil of intestine partly putuding out..., External Injuries mentioned at serial Nos.1 to 9. Further Ex.P.7 shows injuries to small and large intestines, peritoneal cavity, kidneys, bladder. Ex.P.7 shows as per opinion of doctor death was due to 'shock and haemorrhage as a result of injuries sustained. If the external injuries mentioned at Ex.P.7 is considered coupled with the manner of accident mentioned in Ex.P.2, there was no chance at all to happen such injuries only to the deceased who was not rider of bike but admittedly a second pillion rider who sat last in the bike.

25. The Ex.P.20/certified copy of judgment in C.C.3547/2017, wherein the petitioner in MVC.7053/2019 was acquitted, no doubt the said finding of acquittal is not having any bearing on this case but the evidence given in the said case needs to 35 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 be looked into and appreciated. The PW.2 in the said case also clearly stood with his case stating that he was traveling as pillion rider alongwith the accused at 7.00 a.m. from Silkboard to Marathalli, at that time one lorry came from their backside and dashed to their two wheeler from the backside, due to which he sustained injury to his left leg, he lost his consciousness, he has not given any statement before the police and after three days he regained his consciousness and came to know that one of his friend succumbed to the injuries. Though in the crossexamination of PW.2 he admitted Ex.P.2(b) but in the crossexamination by defence counsel he clearly states that accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver. After appreciating the evidence of PW.2 the Traffic Court also raised similar doubt about the genuineness of first information. 36 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25 and 7053/2019

26. The Ex.P.21 is the first information lodged by the petitioner Sri.Ajij to the Commissioner of police stating their case about the manner of occurrence of accident and prayed to order for re investigation in the Cr.No:121/2016. Petitioner Sri.Ajij is none other than the alleged first informant in Cr.No:121/2016, who himself filed this complaint before Commissioner of police. The counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that the petitioners have not challenged the FIR, chargesheet filed in Cr.No:121/2016 but the challenging the FIR, chargesheet cannot be construed or limited to the aspect that the petitioners should file writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court only which is not possible to all for some reasons and hence the contesting of the criminal case is also can be considered as nothing but challenging the police documents which has been done by the accused and PW.2 in said criminal case who are the present 37 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 petitioners and they very well putforth their case and stood with their case only in the said criminal case. Further, the counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that the very same petitioners with very same counsel prior filed Exs.R.1 and R.4 cases and withdrawn the same as they thought that they will not get compensation and filed these petitions by twisting the facts of the case of accident against the police documents. The said contention of counsel for respondent No.2 could have been considered if the PW.2 and accused did not putforth their specific case with regard to manner of occurrence of accident as they claim in the criminal case also and took their such claim of manner of occurrence of accident firstly in these petitions only, then the arguments of the counsel for respondent No.2 in this regard would have some force but it is not the case in this case as in the criminal case only the PW.2 and accused stood with their case about manner of occurrence of 38 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 accident which also pointed by the criminal court and raised doubt about genuineness in the first information itself and acquitted the accused/petitioner in MVC.7053/2019. No doubt the petitioners have admitted about they filing previous MVC petitions through very same present counsel and withdrawing them, it is clear from the memo filed for withdrawal that for the technical reasons they withdrawn the earlier petitions it means the counsel after coming to know about the facts of the case which are not in the police documents but the said facts are reverse to the police documents has rightly got withdrawn the earlier MVC petitions and not for any other reasons which can be make out from the overall appreciation of materials on record and there is no bar to file the petitions for the second time and hence filed these petitions narrating the case of the petitioners after lodging the Ex.P.21 praying for reinvestigation. 39 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Therefore, the defence taken in criminal case and evidence of PW.2 and the Ex.P.21 and the claim of petitioners in the present petitions about manner of occurrence of accident clearly goes in line and there is no any grounds to doubt the case of the petitioners in this regard. Therefore, Ex.P.21 also support the case of the petitioners. No matter whether any action taken on Ex.P.21 or not as it is for the police to take necessary action and it is also no matter whether the said Ex.P.21 ended in filing of final report or not as this is also duty of the police over which either the petitioners or the courts have no control and if no reinvestigation ordered and no chargesheet filed on Ex.P.21 it does not mean that the petitioners have asserted falsely only to get the compensation when their claim is also supported with the other materials on record which clearly support the case of the petitioners to point out and highlight the manner of occurrence of accident as 40 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 claimed by them falsifying the contents of police documents.

27. The Ex.P.22 is the discharge summary of Mr.Ajij, which shows he admitted in ICU on 15.6.2016 at 8.00 a.m. and discharged on 15.6.2016 at 12.45 p.m. on the very same day and history mentioned as RTA and sustained injury to HIP and testicles with inability to move both lower limbs and discharged against medical advise and treatment given shows some injunctions were given. In Ex.P.22 there is no details of RTA between which vehicles, further as per Ex.P.22 Mr.Ajij admitted on 15.6.2016 at 800 a.m., the Ex.P.2/first information alleged to have recorded at 8.30 a.m. itself, it means within half an hour of admission of Mr.Ajij to hospital, then who was the doctor attended immediately said patient Mr.Ajij and who affirmed that the patient/petitioner Mr.Ajij was in fit condition to give statement and how the translator 41 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 was immediately within half an hour got arranged by police or whether there was any translator or not, these all questions arises considering the time of admission of Mr.Ajij, which all questions are remained not answered in Ex.P.2. Further, it also raises doubt as to what was the reason to record the statement immediately after admission of patient that too in ICU when the patient himself was under

shock and needed treatment. In Ex.P.22 there is no mention about the condition of the patient but it is clear that some injections were administered to Mr.Ajij under treatment.

28. The Ex.P.25/Transfer out Form issued by St. John's Medical college Hospital, pertaining to Mr.Ajij who transferred on 15.6.2016 at 2.00 p.m., diagnosed with fracture posterior fracture dislocation + fracture public rami. In Ex.P.25 it is clearly mentioned history in brief as, "24 y M was one 42 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 among 3 pillion riders was hit by a truck.......", which clearly supports the case of the petitioners and the point to be considered and appreciated is that the Ex.P.25 is the document written by the doctor in an undisputed point of time and if at all the Ex.P.2 was recorded as alleged in it, then what made the history of accident to be got changed in the very next hospital records needs to be appreciated in favour of the petitioners that Mr.Ajij did not give any statement as per Ex.P.2 though the history of accident is correct as mentioned in Ex.P.25 but it was reversed and twisted in Ex.P.2 by the concerned to the interest what they have best known to them.

Further, at the time of examination the patient HR 125/min, RR 21/min, BP unrecordable, it means the patient was restless, after investigation by doctors, treatment given by injections Morphine, IVF, Reflin, Metro, Genta, ketamine, fentanyl were given and due to non availability of ICU beds the patient 43 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 transferred to Primus hospital, and condition at the time of discharge pulse 118/min, BP 120/60, Respiratory rate 21/min, GCS 15/15. The counsel for the petitioner argued that as the above mentioned injections were given the petitioner could not have given Ex.P.2 but the point to be noted is the said injections were given in second hospital and as appreciated above the patient Mr.Ajij was under

shock and restlessness when admitted to Ex.P.22 hospital and hence as appreciated above there was no chance for recording Ex.P.2 without mentioning the condition of the patient by the doctor and without there being any translator. Further, the counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that as the GCS value of petitioner/patient was 15/15 and hence was able to give statement, the said contention cannot be considerable for the reason that the patient was in ICU and medication was given with several injections and the competent 44 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 person to testify the capacity of patient to give statement was the doctor and the important point is to be considered is that the patient was not knowing Kannada Language and the another person who needed to assist for recording his statement was translator, which has not been mentioned in Ex.P.2.

29. The Ex.P.24/discharge summary (DAMA) of Primus Hospitals, which shows that Mr.Ajij admitted on 15.6.2016 at 4.00 p.m. and discharged against medical advise on 16.6.2016 at 1.30 p.m. and it is also mentioned that MLC was done by said hospital. It is mentioned in it that the patient came under Haemorrhagic shock and medication given was mentioned therein. From this document it is clear that the patient/petitioner Mr.Ajij was under

shock, when at the time of shifting to third hospital and even at the time of coming to second hospital as per Exs.P.24 and P.25 it is clear that the patient was under shock, then what would have been his 45 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 condition immediately after the accident and shifting to first hospital i.e. Prashanth hospital, one could clearly gather that the patient Mr.Ajij was under shock and there was no fit state existed to Mr.Ajij in order to understand the questions put by the person who alleged to have taken the first information from Mr.Ajij and hence this condition of the patient Mr.Ajij also clearly supports his claim that he did not give any statement to police as per Ex.P.2 as he was unconscious and affirms the case of the petitioners in this regard.

30. The Ex.P.23/discharge summary issued by Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain hospital of Mr.Ajij, which shows admission of Mr.Ajij on 16.6.2016 and discharged on 01.07.2016 and the history mentioned as RTA and there is no details of RTA as to how and between which vehicles accident occurred. If the accident occurred as alleged in Ex.P.2, then what prevented to note the same in Ex.P.23 and if at all it 46 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 was mentioned in Ex.P.23 the manner of accident as mentioned in Ex.P.2, then it could not have supported to the case of the petitioners but non mentioning of the details and involvement of lorry makes it clear that the manner of accident alleged in Ex.P.2 was not the case.

31. The Ex.P.27/CT Scan of abdomen and Pelvis, points out the fractures are noted;

Comminuted fracture left sacral ala with displaced fracture fragments, Displaced fracture of sacral body at S3S4 with anterior displacement of the superior fragment, Comminuted fractures bilateral superior and inferior public rami with displaced fracture fragments, Comminuted fracture left acetabulum with displaced fracture fragments and posteroscuperior displacement of emoral head. Impression; AAST grade 4 liver injury, No e/o obvious active extravasation at the time of scan, Mild haemoperitoneum, Abdominal wall haemotoma as 47 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 described, Haematoma adjacent to root of penis as described, Multiple pelvic fractures as described, Right middle lobe consolidation ? contusion. Suggested CT Urogram to rule out urinary bladder injury. This Ex.P.26 of St. John's Medical College Hospital, clearly shows the condition of the patient Mr.Ajij on 15.6.2016.

32. The Ex.P.27/wound certificate of Mr.Ajij issued on 01.07.2016 by Prashanth Hospital which received by the I.O. on 18.8.2016. This is the document came into existence after Ex.P.22, in Ex.P.22 there is no mention about GCS score but in Ex.P.27 GCS mentioned 15/15, there is no document produced on which basis the said GCS mentioned as it is not found in Ex.P.22. The Ex.P.22 is appreciated above and same holds good and hence Ex.P.27 being the document came at later stage needs no much appreciation.

48 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25 and 7053/2019

33. The Ex.P.32 are the discharge summaries of Mr.Bajrang Lal issued by Prashanth hospital, wherein the history mentioned as only RTA and details of RTA not mentioned even though as per Ex.P.2 it was recorded at 8.30 a.m. from first informant before the doctor then what made the hospital authorities to not to mention the history as mentioned in Ex.P.2 in the discharge summaries, if this is considered it is clear that there was no statement given by the first informant as per Ex.P.2 and hence no details history of RTA mentioned in Ex.P.32 and P.22. Ex.P.33 is the discharge summary of Mr.Bajrang Lal issued by Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain hospital and it needs no much appreciation at this stage but the point to be considered in the said document is only that there is also no details of accident mentioned. The Ex.P.34 is the wound certificate of Mr.Bajrang Lal issued by Prashanth hospital, history mentioned as only RTA 49 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and no details of history mentioned even though it is mentioned in Ex.P.2 alleged to have recorded before doctor of said hospital.

34. The counsel for the petitioners got examined the PW.5/MVA Inspector who did give Ex.P.5. This witness deposed supporting his report Ex.P.5 and nothing much favourable elicited from the mouth of this witness to support of the case of petitioners as the PW.5 denied the suggestions of petitioners that there was chance of damage to the lorry if the accident occurred in the manner as alleged in Ex.P.2. The Ex.P.5 is already appreciated above and even if the PW.5 denies the suggestions also the Ex.P.5 itself speaks and denial by said witness does not affect the above appreciation of Ex.P.5 by this Tribunal.

50 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25                                            and 7053/2019

     35.    The    counsel     for   the     petitioners    took

summons to the I.O. but the witness/I.O. did not turn up to give evidence and upon deputation one P.C.15991 (Avinasha J.P.) of Madivala Traffic P.S. present on 22.04.2021 and produced true copy of case record in Cr.No:121/2016, which is taken on record and thereafter the counsel for the petitioners submitted that he does not require I.O.'s evidence and same is considered and their side closed. The true copy of case record in Cr.No:121/2016 is on record and on its perusal it contains police information report sent on 15.06.2016 by Prashanth hospital with regard to MLC case of patient Mr.Ajij and on its perusal it is clear that the history mentioned first as only 'RTA on Hosur Road near Silk board' later there is insertion by adding 'by bike to lorry he was a pillion', it can be firmly said that the said part is a later inserted sentence as in Ex.P.22, P.32 there is no such mention of details of 51 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 history which are also the documents of said hospital came into existence on the very date of admission of Mr.Ajij and Mr.Bajrang Lal. Another police information report pertaining to Mr.Bajrang Lal, dated 15.6.2016 wherein in history column it is mentioned in history as, "RTA on Hosur Main road near Silk Board", later a sentence inserted beneath and upper side in continuation of end of said handwriting stating that, 'he was a rider hit... to lorry', which was not mentioned in the documents of similar hospital which also came into existence on the very same day i.e. Ex.P.22 and P.32. Further, in the said case record there is a report by P.I. of Madivala Traffic P.S. to Asst. Commissioner of police which is dated 02.12.2017, on its perusal it is clear that after receipt of Ex.P.21 by the Commissioner of police he called report from the concerned police station and accordingly the said report filed by the P.I., who filed report supporting the chargesheet filed 52 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 in Cr.No:121/2016 on the basis of police documents. As discussed above non filing of chargesheet on Ex.P.21 is not criteria to disbelieve the present case of the petitioners believing the police documents as gospel truth when there are much evidence available against the police documents supporting the case of the petitioners. From this report of P.I. it is clear that report called for on Ex.P.21 but the proper re investigation was not done but again affirmed the chargesheet filed in the said case cannot be ground to reject the case of the petitioners. From this it can be said that some action taken on Ex.P.21 which is clear from filing report by the P.I. concerned. In the said case record MLC intimation copy of St. John's hospital dated 15.6.2016 is also there which clearly shows the Mr.Sawant Ram admitted in MICU with history of RTA and the site of accident shown 'near silk board signal towards Marthallai', it clearly shows the place of accident. The very important document 53 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 of second hospital i.e. death summary of Mr.Sawarlal Godara issued by St. Johns Medical College hospital is also in the said case record, on its perusal in the History column it is clearly mentioned as, "Patient is a 20 years old male came with alleged history of RTA on 15.6.2016 at 6.30 p.m., was the pillion rider of a 2 wheeler & was hit by a truck from behind and run over by the truck....". This history which was written on the date of death of deceased Mr.Sawarlal Godara on 15.6.20216 itself clearly supports the case of the petitioners. This document is suppressed by the police and not taken into consideration but the history of accident twisted and traversed against the petitioners by falsely creating Ex.P.2 in favour of lorry driver that too when first informant was admitted at hospital at 8.00 p.m. in utter shock condition in ICU unit the Ex.P.2 alleged to have recorded at 8.30 a.m. which document is turned down for the reasons of nonpossibility of 54 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 recording it as alleged and more over the Ex.P.2 contents with regard to manner of accident is against the hospital record which mentioned the history of said accident as narrated above which clearly supported to the case of the petitioners. Further, as per the evidence on record i.e. discharge summary of Primus hospital it is clear that it also sent MLC intimation to police but it is not placed on record but the said document is also in the case record filed by Madivala police. On perusal of police intimation issued by Primus hospital dated 15.6.2016 timed 4.00 p.m. pertaining to Mr.Ajij clearly mentioned the history as, 'A/H/O RTA, hit by truck @ u.30 a.m. on 15.6.2016 at silk board. Victim was on bike (3 pillion riders) sustained injury over the pelvic' admitted in ICU. This document clearly supports the case of the petitioners and falsifies the contents of manner of occurrence of accident mentioned in Ex.P.2 and this document is 55 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 also came into existence immediately after the admission of the petitioner Mr.Ajij on 15.6.2016 4.00 p.m. itself. From over all appreciation of said case record in Cr.No:121/2016 Madivala police caused its production upon receipt of summons, it is clear that from the case records of police itself the case of the petitioners proved from the medical records which are part of said record and they clearly support the case of the petitioners and the appreciation of this Tribunal made on the police documents as discussed above in turning down the police documents which are built up contrary to the case of petitioners only to implicate them and to save the lorry driver.

36. At this stage it is proper to rely upon decision of Hon'ble Apex court in C.A.No:6151/2021 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Chamundeshwari & Ors., wherein at para 8 the Hon'ble Apex court held that 'if any evidence before 56 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the FIR, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the FIR.', same is aptly applicable to this case. Further, it is also proper to rely on the decision in C.A.No:3171/2009 in NWKRTC Vs. Gourabai & Ors., wherein it is held that '...This conclusion overlooks from the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct...'. Further, the decision in MFA.No:7279/2016 (MVI) C/W MFA.No:7110/2016 (MVI) between The Divisional Manager M/s. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Rayan Fernandes & Anr., wherein our Hon'ble H.C. (D.B.) observed at para 11 that, .... It is a trite proposition of law that the Tribunals are required to take a holistic view while assessing the police records relating to the registration of the crime in motor accident cases....", is also aptly applicable to the 57 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 present case as the previous I.O. without considering the medical records filed chargesheet and when re investigation prayed also no reinvestigation done.

37. Therefore, on over all appreciation of entire materials on record as discussed above the case of the petitioners stand proved with regard to their claim of manner of occurrence of accident as averred by them in the petitions and they have successfully proved that the driver of the lorry bearing NO:KA42A2655 drove his lorry in rash or negligence manner and in high speed and hit from hind side of bike of the petitioners bearing No:KA05 HU6282 and made it to fell down and ran over the deceased resulting grievous injuries to the deceased and the petitioners Mr.Ajij and Bhajranglal. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and upon appreciation of each and every documents in details as discussed above this court/Tribunal is of the opinion that, the driver of 58 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 the offending Lorry bearing No.KA42A2655 has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, result of which the Petitioners - Ajij and Bajarang Lal have sustained grievous injuries and Sawarlal Godara @ Srawanthram has got fatal injuries, in spite of better treatment, he succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. Accordingly Issue No.2 in MVC No. 5180/2018 and Issue No.1 in both MVC Nos.5181/2018 and 7503/2019 are held in the affirmative.

38. Issue No.3 in MVC No.5180/2018: The PW.1 has specifically deposed before this court that due to the untimely death of the deceased, Petitioners have lost the bread earner of their family and their loving person. They have averred that deceased Sawarlal Godara @ Srawanthram was getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/ by working as Carpenter. This Tribunal while discussing the 59 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 issue No.2 has come to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry driver. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners are entitled for compensation.

Monthly income According to the Petitioners the deceased was working as Carpenter and getting a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month. In this regard they have not examined any witness and no documents like Bank Account statement etc., are produced to show the income of the deceased. In the absence of specific documents for proof of income, the version of the Petitioners that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000/ per month is not acceptable. Under such circumstances, this court has to consider the income of the deceased notionally for calculating the compensation. At the time of accident the deceased 60 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 was a young person aged about 20 years as per T.C./Ex.P.13. He was hale and healthy before accident. The accident took place in the year 2016. Therefore, having regard to the age of the deceased, his work and also relying the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda &Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the monthly notional income of the deceased is considered as Rs.9,500/ per month.

Age of the deceased In so far as age of the deceased is concerned, the Petitioners have produced T.C. of the deceased as per Ex.P.13. As per Ex.P.13 date of birth of the deceased is mentioned as 07.08.1996 and as per that the age of the deceased was 20 years as on the 61 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 date of accident. As such, as on the date of accident, his age is considered as 20 years. The Respondents have not placed any other contrary document. Therefore, as per Ex.P.13 his age is considered as 20 years.

i) LOSS OF DEPENDENCY AND FUTURE PROSPECTS: As per principles of law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation, appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 18. The counsel for the petitioners argued that 1/3rd of income of the deceased to be deducted as the deceased had parents and minor siblings. In this case, no doubt the deceased has aged parents and minor siblings and hence as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Pranay Sethi and Ors., observing the decision in Sarla Verma's case it is observed that 'even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be 62 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger nonearning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to onethird and contribution to the family will be taken as two third. In this case the petitioners are parents and minor siblings and as the father is alive and hence as per the aforesaid decision the minor siblings are to be treated as dependents on the father and hence the mother is only to be treated as dependant on the deceased and accordingly 50% needs to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Further, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs Pranay Sethi and 63 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 others, even in case of the self employed and fixed salary also the Petitioner is entitled for future prospects. As mentioned above, in the present case since the deceased was below 40 years age, 40% future prospects have to be added to his monthly income. As per the Sarala Verma case, half of his income has to be deducted towards his personal and living expenses. If 40% income is added to his monthly income, it comes around Rs.13,300/ (Rs.9,500/ + Rs.3,800/) and half of his income is deducted towards his living and personal expenses, balance comes to Rs.6,650/. Therefore, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.14,36,400/ (Rs.6,650/ X 12 X 18 = Rs.14,36,400/).

ii) TRANSPORTATION, MEDICAL AND FUNERAL EXPENSES In so far as the funeral and transportation expenses are concerned, the Petitioners have pleaded 64 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 that they have spent Rs.2,00,000/ amount towards transportation of dead body, funeral obsequies and medical expenses. In this regard they have produced Ex.P.19/4 medical bills for Rs.68,325/ and not produced any documents to show the other expenses. The respondents have not lead contrary evidence to Ex.P.19 and further looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to award compensation of Rs.83,325/ (Rs.15,000/+Rs.68,325/) towards medical, funeral and transportation expenses.

iii) LOSS OF ESTATE:

As mentioned above, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.9,500/ per month. Out of this, he was getting half of his income towards personal expenses. Such being the case, out of this, certainly he would have saved some amount and created estate in favor of the Petitioners. Therefore, the 65 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/ under the head of loss of estate.

iv) LOSS OF CONSORTIUM The Petitioners are the parents and minor siblings of the deceased. In Magma General Insurance company Limited the Hon'ble Apex court has considered the compensation under head of loss of consortium. The Hon'ble Apex court in three judge Bench in United Indian Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satvinder Kaur and others, (2020) SCC online 410, had reaffirmed the view of the two judge Bench in Magma General Insurance company Ltd. In Paragraph 53 to 65, dealt with three conventional heads and discussed about "Consortium" to be a compendious term, which encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, 66 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Filial Consortium - A child's society, affection and companionship given to a parent. Therefore, the claimants are also entitled for compensation under the head of consortium. As such, the Petitioners are entitled a sum of Rs.1,60,000/ (Rs.40,000/ each) under this head. As such, in total, the compensation amount comes to Rs.16,94,725/. If it is rounded off, it comes to Rs.16,94,800/ and therefore, the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,94,800/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Accordingly, the issue No.3 is held partly in the affirmative.

39. ISSUE No.2 in MVC.No.5181/2018: It is the further case of the Petitioner - Mr.Ajij that due to the accident, he has sustained comminuted fracture left sacral ala with displaced 67 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 fracture fragments, displaced fracture of sacral body at S3S4 with anterior displacement of the superior fragments, comminuted fractures bilateral superior and inferior pubic rami with displaced fracture fragments, comminuted fracture left acetabulum with displaced fracture fragments and posterior displacement of femoral head, thereafter referred to Primus hospitals, then to Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, wherein on diagnosis revealed B/L Superior and inferior pubic rami fracture with both column fracture - left hip with reduced posterior dislocation of left hip with haemoperitoneum with acute liver injury scrotal injury with SI joint subluxation (Lt), due to which he underwent surgery i.e. open reduction internal fixtion + posterior column and wall with ORIF (Lt) SI joint with scrotal skin suturing. Due to the accidental injuries now he has become permanently disabled and he is unable to do his earlier work. As such, he has lost all his income. The Petitioner to 68 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 prove these contentions apart from examining himself as PW.2, has also examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.4. PW.4 also has deposed supporting the version of the Petitioner. This court while considering issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.

Monthly income According to the Petitioner, he was working as Carpenter and earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month. In this regard, the Petitioner has not produced any relevant documents such as Bank pass book and also not examined his employer. Under these circumstances, this court has to take the notional income of the Petitioner for calculating the loss of future income. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 24 years as could be make 69 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 out from Ex.P.28 notarized copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner. He was hale and healthy before accident. The accident took place in the year 2016. Therefore, having regard to the age of the petitioner and also relying the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda & Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the monthly notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.9,500/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for the following compensation: Quantum of Disability:

The PW.4 - Dr.Nagaraj B.N. in his chief examination has deposed supporting the version of the Petitioner. He has stated that the Petitioner sustained left posterior fracture dislocation with 70 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 fracture of the both pubic rami with left SI joint sublxation, from Prashanth hospital petitioner was taken to Primus hospital admitted for a day and later shifted to St. John's Hospital and finally got admitted to Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital where he underwent ORIF of the posterior column & wall of the left hip joint, ORIF of the left SI joint with scrotal skin suturing. He was finally discharged on 01.07.2016 with an advice of medication and regular follow up, which he did. PW.4 further deposed that petitioner now complains of limping gait, need a support, pain in the left hip and back, unable to stand for long time, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg. On examination the petitioner has limping gaint, wasting of the left gluteal and thigh muscles, healed scar over the posterior gluteal region, absence of rotation in the left hip joint, shortening of the left lower limb 3"

(Right 36", left 33"). Xray shows united fracture of the acetabulum with OA changes in the left hip joint 71 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and reduced S I Joint with implant in situ. PW.4 further deposed that, petitioner was examined clinically, radiologically and assessed the disability, the petitioner has disability of the left lower limb 62% and whole body disability 20%. However, it is relevant to note that this witness has not deposed anything about the functional disability of the Petitioner having reference to the nature of work he does and how it would effect his work. As such, it appears the whole disability stated by the PW.4 is on higher side. In the cross examination of the PW.4 it is brought out that he has not seen the follow up treatment, records of petitioner, the heel movement is normal. Therefore, relying upon expert evidence, nature of injuries and nature of his work, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is suffering 18% whole body disability.

72 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25                                       and 7053/2019

      i)     PAIN AND SUFFERING:

      As per the    Wound Certificate      - Ex.P.27 the

Petitioner has sustained (1) Injury over the scrutum because of lacerated wound, inability to move the both lower limbs which are grievous in nature. After the accident the Petitioner was shifted to the Prashanth Hospital, thereafter to St. John's hospital, thereafter to Primus Hospital and later to Bhagvan Mahaveer Jain Hospital and taken treatment as an inpatient. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment that he has underwent, a sum of Rs.40,000/ is awarded under head of pain and suffering.

ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:

The Petitioner stated that, he has incurred Rs.4,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance and other expenses. But, he has produced medical bills only for a sum of Rs.2,91,564/ as per Ex.P.29. There is 73 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 nothing contrary elicited in the cross examination about the bills. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the said amount under this head.

iii) AGE AND LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: As per Ex.P.28 - Notarized copy of Aadhar Card, the Petitioner's date of birth is 01.01.1992 and the accident was occurred on 15.06.2016. As such he was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident.

The appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 18. However, having regard to the age and the disability definitely have affected his day to day life and to his avocation to some extent. As such, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,69,360/ (Rs.9,500/ x 12 x 18 x 18% = Rs.3,69,360/).

     iv)    LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP
            PERIOD:

As discussed above, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment in the different 74 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 hospitals as mentioned above. Considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment, it can be said that the Petitioner was required at least two months time for recovering from the grievous injuries sustained by him. Hence, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.19,000/ under this head.

     v)      LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
             HAPPINESS:

On account of the accident the Petitioner has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned above. As per the discussion made above, the Petitioner is suffering from 18% of whole body permanent disability. The Petitioner is aged about 24 years. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability throughout his life. This would certainly cause him to lose lot of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner a sum of Rs.17,000/ is awarded under this head.

75 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25                                      and 7053/2019



     vi)    ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND
            NOURISHMENT CHARGES:

The Petitioner, in the accident, has sustained Injury over the scrutum because of lacerated wound, inability to move the both lower limbs which are grievous in nature and taken treatment in the different hospitals as mentioned above. During said period he would have certainly spent considerable amount on his conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment. For this, he is entitled a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head.

vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:

In the chief examination, PW.4 has stated that the Petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant and total hip replacement which may cost to Rs.1,60,000/. But, there is no estimation bill produced by the Petitioner or PW.4. Looking to the earlier treatment cost and nature of injury, it appears 76 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 it would be justified if an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ is awarded to the Petitioner under this head. Therefore the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/ under this head.

viii) MARRIAGE PROSPECTS: The petitioner is unmarried and as he sustained grievous injury as mentioned above, the same will affect on the marriage life of the petitioner which cannot be compensated. Therefore, if a sum of Rs.50,000/ is awarded under this head will be in the interest of justice.

The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:

1. Pain & suffering Rs.40,000/

2. Medical expenses Rs.2,91,564/

3. Loss of income during laid Rs.19,000/ up period

4. Loss of future income Rs.3,69,360/

5. Loss of future amenities Rs.17,000/ and happiness

6. Attendant, conveyance, food Rs.20,000/ and nourishment charges 77 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019

7. Future medical expenses Rs.1,20,000/

8. Marriage Prospects Rs.50,000/ TOTAL Rs.9,26,924/ If it is rounded off it comes around Rs.9,27,000/ and same is awarded under different heads to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.

40. ISSUE No.2 in MVC.No.7053/2019: It is the further case of the Petitioner - Mr.Bajarangi Lal that due to the accident, he has admitted in Prashanth Hospital, took first aid and referred to Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 16.06.2016 to 28.06.2016, wherein during the course of treatment the Xrays revealed that he sustained pubic distasis with fracture right acetabulum with fracture left pubic ramus with fracture right second MT and underwent surgery. Due to the accidental injuries now he has become permanently disabled 78 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 and he is unable to do his earlier work. As such, he has lost all his income. The Petitioner to prove these contentions apart from examining himself as PW.3, has also examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N. as PW.4. PW.4 also has deposed supporting the version of the Petitioner. This court while considering issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.

Monthly income According to the Petitioner, he was working as Masion and earning a sum of Rs.750/ per day. In this regard, the Petitioner has not produced any relevant documents such as Bank pass book and also not examined his employer. Under these circumstances, this court has to take the notional income of the Petitioner for calculating the loss of 79 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 future income. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 24 years as could be make out from Ex.P.35 notarized copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner. He was hale and healthy before accident. The accident took place in the year 2016. Therefore, having regard to the age of the petitioner and also relying the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda & Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the monthly notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.9,500/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for the following compensation: Quantum of Disability:

The PW.4 - Dr.Nagaraj B.N. in his chief examination has deposed supporting the version of 80 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 the Petitioner. He has stated that the Petitioner sustained pubic diastasis with fracture of the right acetabulum with left pubic ramus fracture and right 2nd metatarsal left, from Prashanth hospital he was taken to and got admitted at Bhagwan Mahaveer Hospital where he underwent ORIF of the pubic symphysis, ORIF of the right acetabulum with ORIF of the left pubic rami on 22.06.2016 and later discharged on 28.06.2016 with an advie of medication and regular follow up which he did. PW.4 further deposed that the petitioner complains of limping gait, need a support, pain in the right hip and back, unable to stand for long time, unable to sit down, squat and sit cross leg. On examination the petitioner has a limping gait, wasting of the right gluteal and thigh muscles, healed scar over he posterior gluteal region, decreased rotation in the right hip joint. Xray shows united fracture of right acetabulum and reduced pubic diastasis. After 81 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 examining the petitioner clinically, radiologically and for disability on 05.01.2018 the petitioner is suffering from disability of the right lower limb 45% and whole body disability 15%. However, it is relevant to note that this witness has not deposed anything about the functional disability of the Petitioner having reference to the nature of work he does and how it would effect his work. As such, it appears the whole disability stated by the PW.4 is on higher side. In the cross examination of the PW.4 it is brought out that the fracture is united, heel movement is normal. Therefore, relying upon expert evidence, nature of injuries and nature of his work, this court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is suffering 12% whole body disability.

     i)    PAIN AND SUFFERING:

     As per the     Wound Certificate      - Ex.P.34 the

Petitioner has sustained         bilateral superior and
                            82     MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                       and 7053/2019

inferior pubic rami communitted fracture which is grievous in nature. After the accident the Petitioner was shifted to the Prashanth Hospital, thereafter to Bhagvan Mahaveer Jain Hospital and taken treatment as an inpatient. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment that he has underwent, a sum of Rs.30,000/ is awarded under head of pain and suffering.

ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:

The Petitioner stated that, he has incurred Rs.3,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance and other expenses. But, he has produced medical bills only for a sum of Rs.1,96,529/ as per Ex.P.36. There is nothing contrary elicited in the cross examination about the bills. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the said amount under this head.

iii) AGE AND LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: As per Ex.P.35 - Notarized copy of Aadhar Card, the Petitioner's date of birth is 07.03.1992 and the 83 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 accident was occurred on 15.06.2016. As such he was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident.

The appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 18. However, having regard to the age and the disability definitely have affected his day to day life and to his avocation to some extent. As such, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,46,240/ (Rs.9,500/ x 12 x 18 x 12% = Rs.2,46,240/).

iv) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD: As discussed above, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and taken treatment in the different hospitals as mentioned above. Considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment, it can be said that the Petitioner was required at least one and half month time for recovering from the grievous injuries sustained by him. Hence, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.14,250/ under this head. 84 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25                                       and 7053/2019

     v)      LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
             HAPPINESS:

On account of the accident the Petitioner has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned above. As per the discussion made above, the Petitioner is suffering from 12% of whole body permanent disability. The Petitioner is aged about 24 years. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability throughout his life. This would certainly cause him to lose lot of amenities and comforts in life. Therefore, considering the age and nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner a sum of Rs.17,000/ is awarded under this head.

vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT CHARGES:

The Petitioner, in the accident, has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned above and taken treatment in the different hospitals as mentioned above. During said period he would have certainly 85 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 spent considerable amount on his conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment. For this, he is entitled a sum of Rs.15,000/ under this head.

vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:

In the chief examination, PW.4 has stated that the Petitioner needs another surgery for removal of implant which may cost to Rs.60,000/. But, there is no estimation bill produced by the Petitioner or PW.4. Looking to the earlier treatment cost and nature of injury, it appears it would be justified if an amount of Rs.40,000/ is awarded to the Petitioner under this head. Therefore the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/ under this head.

The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:

1. Pain & suffering Rs.30,000/

2. Medical expenses Rs.1,96,529/

3. Loss of income during laid Rs.14,250/ up period

4. Loss of future income Rs.2,46,240/ 86 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019

5. Loss of future amenities Rs.17,000/ and happiness

6. Attendant, conveyance, Rs.15,000/ food and nourishment charges

7. Future medical expenses Rs.40,000/ TOTAL Rs.5,59,019/ If it is rounded off it comes around Rs.5,59,100/ and same is awarded under different heads to the Petitioner. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.

LIABILITY (IN ALL CASES):

41. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 in MVC 5180/2018 and 5181/2018 are the owner and insurer of motorbike bearing No.KA05HU6282, as per the finding on Issue No.1 with regard to occurrence of accident this Tribunal has held that there was negligence on the part of driver of Lorry and hence the defence taken out by the Respondent No.4 that the pillions are not covered under policy is not appreciated as the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are 87 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 not at all liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. As discussed above, the Respondent No.2 has failed to prove their defence that there is no negligence on the part of Lorry and hence the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. As the policy existed, the Respondent No.2 is directed to indemnify the Respondent No.1 and directed to pay the compensation to the petitioners. The Petitioners in MVC No. 5080/2018 have claimed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/, but he is entitled for a sum of Rs.16,94,800/. The Petitioner in MVC No.5081/2018 has claimed a sum of Rs.25,00,000/, but he is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,27,000/. The Petitioner in MVC No.7053/2019 has claimed a sum of Rs.12,00,000/, but he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,59,100/. Therefore, all the petitions deserved 88 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 to be allowed in part with above compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a..

42. ISSUE NO.4 in MVC NO.5180/2018 & ISSUE NO.3 IN BOTH MVC 5181/2018 & 7053/2019:

In view of above answers to issue Nos.1 to 4, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petitions in MVC.

Nos.5180/2018, 5181/2018 and 7053/2019 are hereby partly allowed.

In all the cases, the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 - insurer shall indemnify the Respondent No.1 and deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of award in all the petitions.

The Petitioners in MVC.No.5180/2018 are entitled for total compensation of 89 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Rs.16,94,800/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing the award amount.

On deposit of award amount and interest, 20% of amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalized or schedule bank in favour of petitioner No.1 for a period 3 years with a liberty to withdraw interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ each shall be released in the names of Petitioners 2 to 4 and remaining compensation amount be released in favour of petitioner No.1 by way of epayment proper identification and following necessary finance rule/code.

The Petitioner in MVC.No.5181/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,27,000/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till the date of depositing the award amount.

90 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 On deposit of award amount and interest, 20% of amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period 3 years with a liberty to withdraw interest and balance shall be released in the name of the Petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification and following necessary finance rule/code.

           The        Petitioner             in         MVC.
     No.7053/2019       is    entitled           for    total

compensation of Rs.5,59,100/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.

On deposit of award amount and interest, 20% of amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period 3 years with a liberty to withdraw interest and balance shall be released in the name of the 91 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 Petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification and following necessary finance rule/code.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.

Office to draw separate awards accordingly.

The original of this judgment be kept in MVC.5180/2018 and copies be kept in MVC.5181/2018 & 7053/2019. (Typed to my dictation directly on computer by the stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 11 th day of January 2021.) (B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) Addl.C.M.M.& Member MACT, Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:

PW.1                 Mr. Asharam Godara @ Asharam
PW.2                 Mr. Ajij
PW.3                 Mr. Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang Lal
                     Godara
                           92   MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                    and 7053/2019

PW.4          Dr. Nagaraj B.N.
PW.5          Mr. A.V.Prasad

List of Documents marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P.1        FIR
Ex.P.2        Complaint
Ex.P.3        Sketch
Ex.P.4        Mahazar
Ex.P.5        IMV report
Ex.P.6        Inquest
Ex.P.7        PM report
Ex.P.8        Charge sheet
Ex.P.9        Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
              Petitioner No.1
Ex.P.10       Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
              Petitioner No.2
Ex.P.11       Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
              Petitioner No.3
Ex.P.12       Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
              Petitioner No.4
Ex.P.13       Original T.C. of deceased
Ex.P.14       Cause of death certificate
Ex.P.15       NOC of shift body by Aircraft
Ex.P.16       Embalming certificate issued by
              St.John Medical College
Ex.P.17       Coffin Maker Certificate
Ex.P.18       Prescriptions
                       93    MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                 and 7053/2019

Ex.P.19    4 medical bills for Rs.68,325/
Ex.P.20    Certified copy of Judgment in CC
           3547/2017

Ex.P.21    Endorsement issued by
           Commissioner of police
Exs.P.22
to P.24    Discharge summaries (3 in Nos.)
Ex.P.25    Transfer out form
Ex.P.26    CT Scan report
Ex.P.27    Wound Certificate
Ex.P.28    Notarised copy of Adhar cards
Ex.P.29    62 Medical bills for Rs.2,91,564/
Ex.P.30    27 prescriptions
Ex.P.31    4 Xrays
Ex.P.32    Discharge summary issued by
           Prashanth Hospital (2 pages)
Ex.P.33    Discharge summary issued by
           Mahaveer Jain Hospital (2 in Nos.)
Ex.P.34    True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.35    Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of
           petitioner in MVC No.7053/2019
           (Compared with original and
           returned)
Ex.P.36    35 Medical bills amounting to
           Rs.1,96,529/
Ex.P.37    16 medical prescriptions
Ex.P.38    4 Xrays
                         94     MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018
SCCH-25                                    and 7053/2019

Ex.P.39       Clinical examination report of
              Mr.Ajij
Ex.P.40       One Xray film
Ex.P.41       Clinical examination report
              Mr.Bhajarang Lal
Ex.P.42       One Xray film

List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:

RW.1          Smt. Shobha Appaiah
RW.2          Savitha

List of documents exhibited for Respondent:

Ex.R.1 Certified copy of petition, ordersheet, objections, memo in MVC No.6244/2016 Ex.R.2 Authorization letter Ex.R.3 True copy of policy Ex.R.4 Certified copy of ordersheet, petition, objection and memo in MVC 6243/2016, Addl.C.M.M.& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.

95 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018

SCCH-25                                     and 7053/2019




For Judgment
11.01.2022

Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:


                      ORDER


          The      petitions        in        MVC.
     Nos.5180/2018,          5181/2018         and

7053/2019 are hereby partly allowed.

In all the cases, the Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. However, the Respondent No.2 - insurer 96 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 shall indemnify the Respondent No.1 and deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of award in all the petitions.

The Petitioners in MVC.No.5180/2018 are entitled for total compensation of Rs.16,94,800/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of depositing the award amount.

On deposit of award amount and interest, 20% of amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalized or schedule bank in favour of petitioner No.1 for a period 3 years with a liberty to withdraw interest and in balance a sum of Rs.40,000/ each shall be released in the names of Petitioners 2 to 4 and remaining compensation amount be released in favour of petitioner No.1 by way of epayment 97 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 proper identification and following necessary finance rule/code.

The Petitioner in MVC.No.5181/2018 is entitled for total compensation of Rs.9,27,000/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing this petition till the date of depositing the award amount.

On deposit of award amount and interest, 20% of amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period 3 years with a liberty to withdraw interest and balance shall be released in the name of the Petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification and following necessary finance rule/code.

           The        Petitioner          in         MVC.
     No.7053/2019       is    entitled     for       total

compensation of Rs.5,59,100/ along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of 98 MVC No.5180 and 5181/2018 SCCH-25 and 7053/2019 filing of petition till the date of depositing the award amount.

On deposit of award amount and interest, 20% of amount shall be kept in FD in any nationalized or schedule bank for a period 3 years with a liberty to withdraw interest and balance shall be released in the name of the Petitioner by way of epayment with due acknowledgment and proper identification and following necessary finance rule/code.

Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/ in each case.

Office to draw separate awards accordingly.

The original of this judgment be kept in MVC.5180/2018 and copies be kept in MVC.5181/2018 & 7053/2019.

Addl.C.M.M.& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

Mr.Ajij And Mr.Bajarang Lal @ Bajarang vs Being The Rc Owners And The The on 11 January, 2022