Bangalore District Court
Syed Sadiya @ Shabira Banu vs Sri.Krishnaiah P on 8 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated : This 8th day of January 2015.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.5273/2013
PETITIONER: Syed Sadiya @ Shabira Banu
@Sadiaya Fathima,
W/o.Syed Imtiyaz,
Age: 31, Occ: Maid,
R/at New Address:No.171,
IInd Cross, Mysore Road, Tippu Nagar,
Bangalore-560026.
Old Address:No.483,
4th Block, HBR Layout,
Hennur Cross,
Bangalore-560043.
(By Pleader
Sri.SML)
/Vs./
RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Krishnaiah P.,
S/o.Puttaswamy Naik
R/at No.32, Ganapathi Nagar,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore-560062.
(Exparte)
2 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
2. The Manager,
Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
1st Floor, Ferms Icon, Survey No.28,
Doddanakundi Village, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore-560037.
(By pleader
Sri.HKR)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition against the respondents U/Sec.166 of M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and cost, for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief contents of the petition averments are as under:
That on 21-08-2013 at about 2.45 p.m., the petitioner was traveling in an Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-05-AC-9479 from Arakere Gate Junction towards Bannerughatta, when the auto reached near Shani Mahatma Temple Basavanapura. At that time, the driver of the Autorickshaw drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly took the vehicle towards left side and as a result, he has lost the control over the rickshaw and turned turtle on the side of the road. As a result of the said accident, the petitioner has sustained simple as well as 3 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 grievous injuries. Thereafter the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to VijayaShree Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she was taken first aid, and thereafter she was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she has taken treatment as an inpatient. After discharge from the hospital till today, she is taking treatment as an outpatient. The petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. The contention of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at the time of accident and she was working as a House maid and earning Rs.9,000/-p.m. Due to the injuries sustained by her she is not in a position to work as she was doing earlier to the accident and she has suffered disablement. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs with interest and cost.4 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
3. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the objection statement. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly he placed exparte.
4. The brief contents of the objection statement of the respondent No.2 is as under:
The respondent No.2 has contended in the objection statement that, the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has contended that on the date of accident the driver of the Autorickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the said auto. Hence the respondent No.2 has violated the policy condition. Hence the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Further the respondent No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also disability suffered by her and also medical 5 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 expenses incurred by her. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the entire contents of the petition averments in toto. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the claim petition against the respondent no.2.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto Rickshaw bearing Reg. No.KA-05-AC-9479 on 21-8-
2013 at about 2.45 p.m. near Shani Mahathma Temple, Basavanapura, B.G. Road, Bangalore?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 7. In support of her evidence, one witness i.e. doctor she has examined as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-8 to 10.
7. On the other hand, to disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence of the respondent No.2 the Legal Manager of the respondent No.2 company has got 6 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 examined himself as R.w.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R.1 to 3. In support of his evidence, the investigation officer i.e., P.S.I has been examined as R.w.2, but not produce any documents.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
10. ISSUE NO.1: During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by reiterating the contents of the petition averments and also the evidence put forth by the PW-1 & 2. Further the counsel for the petitioner has argued that, the petitioner has proved the disability suffered by him, by examining the doctor and as per the version of the doctor, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 16.85% to the whole body.
Further the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that the driver of the Autorickshaw is not having valid and effective driving license to drive the said auto. To prove said fact, though 7 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 the respondent No.2 has examined the investigation officer as R.w.2, but his evidence is not supported with proper documents. Hence the respondent No.2 has not discharged his initial burden.
11. Further as per the version of the respondent No.2 is that, after receipt of the petition notice from the court, the insurance company had issued the notice to the owner of the vehicle, but the respondent No.2 has not produced any documents to show that the said notice is served on the respondent No.1. Further the counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has proved her age, occupation and income by producing oral and documentary evidence. Further he argued that the petitioner has proved her case by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
In support of his argument, the counsel for the petitioner has relied the citations reported in 2011 ACJ 2436 (SC), Civil appeal No. 9205/2013 (arising out of SLP (C) No.244418/11, 2012 ACJ 191 (SC), 2011 ACJ 1434 (SC), 2014 ACJ 2550 (SC), 2014 AAC 2019 (KAR), 1999 ACJ 171 (SC), 2004 ACJ 677 (KAR) and an unreported judgment of 8 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 the our Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.9205/2013.
12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued by reiterating the contents of the objection statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by R.w.1 and 2. Further he argued that, as per the Ex.R.1 i.e., copy of charge sheet it is clear that, the driver of the offending vehicle is not having driving license to drive the offending vehicle. Further he argued that the insurance company has examined the investigation officer as R.w.2 and as per the version of the R.w.2 is also it is clear that, the driver of the offending vehicle is not having valid driving license to driver the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondent No.1 has violated the policy conditions. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly he prays to dismiss the petition against the respondent No.2.
13. On rival contentions urged by both the counsels, I intend to discuss the merits of the case. On perusal of the record, it appears that, the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 and she has stated in her evidence by reiterating 9 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 the contents of the petition averments. In support of her evidence, she has produced the documents and same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 7.
14. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. On perusal of the entire evidence of P.w.1, it appears that, though the respondent No.2 has cross examined the P.w.1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve the version of the petitioner regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto.
15. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, the petitioner has relied police documents. On perusal of Ex.P.1 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint it appears that, the Ulimavu Traffic police have registered a case against the driver of the Autorickshaw and conducted the investigation.
Further on perusal of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with ExP-2 i.e. copy of statement of injured, it appears that, the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the driver of the Auto.
10 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18 Further on perusal of Ex.P.5 i.e., copy of wound certificate, it appears that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of shaft of right femur middle third in the above accident.
16. On appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has proved this issue by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer the issue No.1 is in affirmative.
17. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific case of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at the time of accident and working as a house maid servant and earning Rs.9,000/-p.m. Due to the injuries sustained by her, she has suffered disablement and she is not in a position to work as she was doing earlier to the accident. To prove age, occupation and income, the petitioner has not produced proper documents. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive evidence, I am of the opinion that if the monthly income of the petitioner is fixed of Rs.6,000/- certainly it would meet the ends of the justice. 11 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18 Further on perusal of Ex.P.5 i.e. copy of wound certificate, wherein, the age of the petitioner is mentioned as 24 years. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. Hence I hold that the petitioner was aged about 24 years as on the date of accident. Hence, the proper multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18.
Further to prove the disability suffered by the petitioner, she has examined the doctor as Pw.2, who has stated in his evidence regarding the disability suffered by the petitioner and he has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 16.85% to the whole body.
Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the P.w.2 at length. In the cross- examination, the PW-2 has admitted that "UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀévÉæUÉ aQvÉìUÉ §AzÁUÀ CªÀ½UÉ DzÀ UÀÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÀë-QgÀt vÉUÉ¢zÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤.¦. 8 gÀ°è UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«UÉ ²æÃ. qÁ. ¢Ã¥ÀPï J£ÀÄߪÀªÀgÀÄ aQvÉì ¤ÃrzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆ ¢¹gÀĪÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB 12 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ CxÉÆðÃ¥ÉÃrPï «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÝjzÀÄÝ, DPÁgÀt ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÉÊzÀågÀÄ aQvÉì ¤ÃrzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß aQvÉì ¤ÃrzÀ ªÉÊzÀågÉÆA¢UÉ PÁtô¸ÀĪÀgÉAzÀÄ «ªÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤.¦. 8 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ®Æ UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«UÉ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
18. On perusal of the above evidence, it appears that, the P.w.2 is a treated doctor and the fracture is already united. Further the P.w.2 has stated at Para No.6 of his evidence that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 33.7% to right lower limb and 16.85% to the whole body. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if the 1/3rd of the total disability is considered as disability to the whole body certainly it would meet the ends of the justice.
Further as stated above that as per the version of the P.w.2, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 33.7% to right lower limb and if 1/3 rd of the same as taken as disability to the whole body of the petitioner, then it would come to 11.2% and the same is rounded off and 13 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 taken as 12% to the whole body certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Further as stated above that, the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.6,000/-p.m. and the disability is considered as 12%, then the loss of income due to disability comes to Rs.8,640/-P.A. (Rs.6,000x12x12/100). Further Rs.8,640/- is multiplied by 18, then it would comes to Rs.1,55,520/-. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.1,56,000/- under the head of loss of future income.
19. Further on perusal of Ex-P-5 i.e. wound certificate it appears that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of middle 1/3rd of right femur and also deformity of right lower limb. Looking to the age of the petitioner and nature of injuries, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head of pain and suffering.
20. Further looking to the age of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the head of loss of amenities. 14 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
21. Further on perusal of Ex.P.6 i.e. discharge card, it appears that, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 18 days at Bowring and Curzon hospital Bangalore. Looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of nourishment, attendant and incidental charges.
22. The petitioner has contended in the petition and stated in her evidence that, she has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. To prove the said fact the petitioner has relied upon the document at Ex.P.7 i.e. medical bills. On the other hand the respondent No.2 disputed the bills and to that effect, the counsel of the respondent No.2 has cross examined the Pw.1 at length but nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve those medical bills. On perusal of Ex.P.7 it appears that, petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.18,345/-towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of medical expenses. 15 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
23. Further due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner, she might not have attended her regular work atleast for a period of 3 months as she was in the hospital for a period of 18 days. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.22,000/-under the head of loss of income during the laid up period and rest period.
The P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner has to undergo another operation for removal of implants from right femur. Further the PW-2 has not stated regarding the cost of the said surgery. On the other hand, the Petitioner has not produced any documents regarding the cost of the said surgery. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of Rs.10,000/-under the head of future medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,83,000/-under the following heads:
Sl.No Compensation heads Amount
.
1. Loss of future income Rs.1,56,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
16 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
3. Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
5 Future medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
6. Conveyance and nourishment Rs.20,000/-
7. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.22,000/-
and rest period
Total Rs.2,83,000/
-
24. LIABILITY: On perusal of the content of the petition averments and also contents of objection statement, it appears that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The specific contention of the respondent No.2 is that on the date of accident the driver of the Autorickshaw was not having driving license to drive the vehicle. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 company has examined his official as R.w.1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of the objection statement and also above said defence. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the same are marked as Ex.R1 to 3. Further the respondent No.2 has examined the investigation officer i.e., PSI and he has stated in his evidence that he has conducted the 17 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 investigation in respect of the accident shown in the petition and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle.
Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner has cross- examined the R.w.2 at length. In the cross-examination, he has clearly stated that:
"£ÁªÀÅ ªÁºÀ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀjUÉ
£ÉÆöÃn¸ï ¤ÃrzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ
zÁR¯É MzÀV¹zÉà EzÀÝ°è,
CzÀPÀÌ£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV £ÁªÀÅ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ
ZÁ®PÀ¤UÉ ZÁ®£À ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV
E®èªÉAzÀÄ zÉÆõÀgÉÄÁÃ¥ÀuÉ
¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÁtô¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ
¸À°è¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
ªÁºÀ£À ZÁ®PÀ¤UÉ ZÁ®£À ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV
EgÀzÀ §UÉÎ w½zÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä Dgï.n.N
PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è «ZÁj¹®è, PÁgÀt ªÁºÀ£À
ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÁ®PÀ ZÁ®£À
¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV E®èªÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆöÃn¸ïUÉ
GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
18 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, at the time of investigation, the RW.2 has issued the notice to the owner of the offending vehicle as required U/S 133 of M.V.Act and after receipt of the said notice, the owner of the offending vehicle has replied the said notice stating that the driver of the Autorickshaw was not having driving license at the time of accident. On the other hand, to disprove the said version, the petitioner has not produced any rebuttal documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the Ex.R.1 i.e., copy of charge sheet it appears that, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Autorickshaw for the offence punishable under Section.279,337,338 of IPC and Section 3 R/w Sec. 181 of M.V.Act.
At this stage I have gone through the citation relied by the counsel for the petitioner reported in 2004 ACJ 677 and also citation reported in 2014 AAC 2019 KAR (The branch manager national insurance Co., Ltd, Bijapur V/s. Basavaraj and another). Further on going through the citation reported in 2004 ACJ page 677 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under.
19 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149 (2) (a) (ii)
-Motor insurance - Driving licence -Defences available to insurance company -Insurance company disputed its liability on the plea that driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident -Insurance company examined Investigating Officer in criminal case in which driver was charge-sheeted for not possessing licence but his evidence does not finally establish that driver had no licence--Insurance company examined its officer to prove that notices were sent to driver and owner of the vehicle calling upon them to produce the licence but there was no evidence of service of letters to the addressees-- Whether the insurance company has substantiated its contention in order to escape from liability.- Held:No. On the other hand the citation reported in 2014 AAC 2019 (KAR) wherein the Hon'ble High Court observe as under...
(A) Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.147 - Liability of insurer - Plea raised by insurer that driver had no valid licence -Mere framing of charge- sheet against driver of offending vehicle is not sufficient to hold that he was not holding valid driving licence - As per provision of S.133 it is duty of owner of offending vehicle to give information of insurer making claim of breach of conditions of 20 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 policy -No application filed by insurer either against owner or driver to produce driving licence - No particulars obtained from concerned Regional Transport Authority to prove driver not holding valid licence - Insurer liable to pay compensation. On going through the above observation of the Hon'ble High Court in the above mentioned citations, the said observation of the Hon'ble High Court is not aptly application to the case on hand as the facts involved in the above said citation and the facts of the present case are different one.
25. Further as stated above that, in this case the respondent No.2 insurance company has examined the investigation officer as R.W.2 and he has categorically stated that at the time of investigation he has issued the notice to the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle has replied the notice stating that, on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license to drive the autorickshaw.
26. Further on perusal of Ex.R.3 it appears that, after receipt of the petition notice, the respondent No.2 insurance Company has issued the notice to the owner of the vehicle. 21 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18 Further the address shown in the said copy of notice and address shown in the Ex.R.2 i.e. copy of policy are one and the same. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, when the insurance company has issued the notice to the proper address and the same is not returned, then it is presumed that the said notice is served on the owner of the offending vehicle. Further on perusal of the paper, it appears that, in this case the owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the court and not produce the document to show that the driver of the offending vehicle is having driving license to drive the vehicle. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the respondent No.2 has proved his defence by producing oral and documentary evidence. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the policy condition, hence the respondent No.2 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- with 8% interest from the 22 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 date of petition till and date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative.
27. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issues Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed with cost against the respondent No.1 i.e. the owner.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- with interest @8% p.a. (future medical expenses does not carry interest) from date of the petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 i.e. the owner is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation awarded, the 50% of the compensation amount shall be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized/Schedule bank of the petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
The claim petition as against respondent No.2 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
23 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18 Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 8 th day of January 2015).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Syed Sadiya @ Shabira Banu, @ Sadiaya Fathima P.W.2. Dr.S.Ramachandra List of documents exhibited on petitioner`s side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 True copy of Statement of Petitioner Syed Sadiya Ex-P3 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex-P4 True copy of sketch Ex-P5 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P6 Discharge cum Identity Card Ex-P7 32 Medical Bills Ex-P8 Admission sheet Ex-P9 OPD Ex-P10 One X-ray List of witnesses examined on respondents side: R.W.1. Sandeep.S.R R.W.2. M.Shivanna List of documents exhibited on respondents side: Ex.R-1 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.R-2 Copy of Policy Ex.R-3 Copy of notice.
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE 24 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 & XXIX ACMM.25 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18 SCCH-18 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.5273/2013 PETITIONER: Syed Sadiya @ Shabira Banu @Sadiaya Fathima, W/o.Syed Imtiyaz, Age: 31, Occ: Maid, R/at New Address:No.171, IInd Cross, Mysore Road, Tippu Nagar, Bangalore-560026.
Old Address:No.483, 4th Block, HBR Layout, Hennur Cross, Bangalore-560043.
(By Pleader Sri.SML) /Vs./ RESPONDENTS: 1. Sri.Krishnaiah P., S/o.Puttaswamy Naik R/at No.32, Ganapathi Nagar, Konanakunte, Bangalore-560062.
(Exparte)
2. The Manager, Bharti AXA General Insurance Co.Ltd., 1st Floor, Ferms Icon, Survey No.28, Doddanakundi Village, K.R.Puram, Bangalore-560037.
(By pleader Sri.HKR) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/s.110-A/166 of the M.V.Act praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by 26 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 the petitioner/ Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Veeranna Somasekhara, III Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri./Smt. Advocate for respondent.
O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed with cost against the respondent No.1 i.e. the owner.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- with interest @8% p.a. (future medical expenses does not carry interest) from date of the petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 i.e. the owner is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation awarded, the 50% of the compensation amount shall be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner in any 27 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 nationalized/Schedule bank of the petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
The claim petition as against respondent No.2 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
_____________________________
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on
Petition
Court fee paid on
Power
Court fee paid on I.A.,
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T
METROPOLITAN AREA:BANGALORE.
28 MVC.No.5273/2013
SCCH-18
O R D E R
The petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed with cost against the respondent No.1 i.e. the owner.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,83,000/- with interest @8% p.a. (future medical expenses does not carry interest) from date of the petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 i.e. the owner is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and he is directed to deposit the compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of the compensation awarded, the 50% of the compensation amount shall be kept in FD in the name of the petitioner in any 29 MVC.No.5273/2013 SCCH-18 nationalized/Schedule bank of the petitioner's choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
The claim petition as against respondent No.2 stands dismissed without cost.
Advocate fees is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.