Bangalore District Court
Ramu @ Ramachari vs The Manager on 4 February, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.6923/2013
Dated this the 4th day of February 2015
Petitioner/s : Ramu @ Ramachari
S/o Narayanappa @ Narayanachari
Aged about 21 years,
C/o Vinod, No.145/11,
5th 'B' main,
Allamaprabhu road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore-560 019.
(By pleader Sri BKK)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. The Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Ins., Co,Ltd.,
Ground floor nO.31,
TBR Tower, 1st cross,
New Mission road,
Near Bangalore Stock Exchange,
Bangalore-560 027.
(Insurer of the Autorickshaw)
(By pleader Sri RSS)
2. Smt. Chikkamuniyamma @
Chikkamma
W/o Kariyappa,
No.3761, 14th cross,
Gayathrinagar,
Bangalore-21.
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.6923/2013
(Owner of the
Autorickshaw)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 10.11.2013 at about 03.15 P.M., the petitioner was standing on the side of the Banglore-Kanakapura main road, near Siddaganga High School, Dasappa Yellamma College, Raghuvanahalli, in order to cross the road, very carefully, cautiously and observing all the traffic rules. At that time, Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583 driven by its driver at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as endangering to human life came from the left side of BMTC bus and dashed against the petitioner. Due to impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained compression fracture of L3 with paraplezia, fracture of ankle joint and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and then, he was shifted to Sevabhai Hospital, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient. The petitioner underwent surgery for internal fixation and he was discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest. The petitioner spent huge amount for his treatment. The petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was a LIC Sub-Agent and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., Due to accidental injuries, he could not attend his work and he became SCCH-14 3 MVC No.6923/2013 permanently disabled as a result loss of earning and earning capacity. He suffered pain and undergoing deep mental shock. Thalaghattapura police have registered Cr.No.715/2013 against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279 and 337 of IPC. The respondents are the insurer and the owner of the Autorickshaw and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed his statement of objections. Inspite of service of notice by RPAD, the respondent no.2 remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. The respondent no.1 has denied the averments of the petition as false, but he has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583. He has contended that the petition is not maintainable, that the insured and concerned police have not complied with the mandatory provisions of law, that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, that the insured vehicle was not having a valid permit and was plied outside the permissible area, that the accident was due to negligence of the petitioner, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost.
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.6923/20134. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 10.11.2013 at about 03.05 P.M., near Siddaganga High School, on Bangalore-Kanakapura road, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and examined a doctor as PW.2. He has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 14. The respondent no.1 has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In Affirmative. For Rs.5,68,000/-
from the respondent no.1.
Issue No.3: As per final order:
for the following:
REASONS SCCH-14 5 MVC No.6923/2013
8. ISSUE NO.1: In order to prove this issue, the petitioner has relied upon his own evidence, oral evidence of PW.2 and contents of Ex.P1 to 8. The respondent no.1 is not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disprove the case of the petitioner.
9. PW.1 Ramu @ Ramachari has reiterated the averments of the petition and stated about the manner of accident and its result. He has stated that on 10.11.2013 at 03.15 P.M., Bangalore-Kanakapura, near Siddaganga High School on main road, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore the driver of autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583 drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, that due to impact he sustained fracture injuries and underwent surgery with implants in Sevabhai Hospital, Bangalore. PW.2 Dr.Mohan has stated that the petitioner sustained fracture injury and abrasion injury on or about 10.11.2013 and he was admitted Sevabhai Hospital, Bangalore. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from them in respect of manner of accident and injury caused to the petitioner. Hence, evidence of PW.1 and 2 in that regard is believable.
10. The petitioner has produced copies of FIR, Seizure panchanama, Mahazar, IMV report and statement of eye witness, police intimation, chargesheet and wound certificate which are marked as Ex.P1 to 8. On perusal of these documents, it reveals that Thalaghattapura Police have registered in Cr.No.715/13 against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-258 on the basis of information given by the petitioner on 11.11.2013 at SCCH-14 6 MVC No.6923/2013 9.00 P.M., while he was under treatment at Sevabhai Hospital, that the police have conducted panchanama, recorded statement of eye witness, detained Autorickshaw involved in the accident and subjected it to IMV inspection. The police have filed chargesheet against one Kariyappa, the driver of autorickshaw bearing No. KA-02-2583 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 338 of IPC and U/Sec.187 of MV Act. IMV report discloses that there were no damages to the autorickshaw, that the brake system of the vehicle was in order. It was opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle. Wound certificate at Ex.P8 goes to show that the petitioner was taken to Savabhai Hospital on 10.11.2013 at about 10.15 P.M., with history of RTA, that the petitioner sustained fracture of injuries in the accident. There is nothing on record to believe that the investigation done by the police is defective or collusive. The spot was panchanama drawn on 11.12.2013 and statement of eye witness Ramadasegowda was recorded on the same day i.e., about one month after the date of accident. Though it appears abnormal on the part of the police to draw spot panchanama and record statement of eye witness after lapse of one month, but the medical records clearly reveal that the petitioner was admitted to the hospital with the history of RTA, that autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583 has caused accident and the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to impact. Since, there are doubtful circumstances in respect of medical records, the delay in drawing panchanama and regarding the statement of eye witness can be ignored. There is no delay in lodging FIR. Oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 is SCCH-14 7 MVC No.6923/2013 corroborated by the contents of Ex.P1 to 8 which collectively substantiate the averments of the petition. The respondent no.2 has contended that the accident was due to negligence on the part of the petitioner. In cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the accident has occurred while crossing the road. Only on the basis said admission, it cannot be held the accident was due to negligence of the petitioner. The driver of autorickshaw is the best witness to depose about the same. The respondent no.1 has not made any efforts to examine the said driver. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent no.1 has failed to disprove the case of the petitioner. Even, there is no evidence to believe that the petitioner was also negligent and contributed to the accident. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has proved this issue and I answer the same in affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.2: PW.1 Ramu @ Ramachari has deposed about the injuries caused to the accident, about the treatment given to him in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and Sevabhai Hospital, about the amount spent by him for treatment. He has stated that he was aged 21 years, was working as a LIC Sub agent and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., that he was hale and healthy prior to the accident and due to accidental injuries, he could not attend his work and he has become permanently disabled. He has narrated his difficulties after the accident. He has stated that he has to undergo one more surgery for removal of implants which costs about Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/-, that due to accidental injuries his earning capacity is lost. Hence, he has sought for awarding compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. In cross-examination, SCCH-14 8 MVC No.6923/2013 he has admitted as to removal of K-wire from his right leg, but maintains that plate in left leg and back are not removed, that he has not obtained any licence regarding sub agency and not produced any document regarding income. He has denied that he sustained simple injuries in the accident and he did not suffer any difficulties and financial loss as stated in the affidavit.
12. PW.2: Dr. Mohan has deposed that the petitioner sustained following injuries:
1. Compression fracture of L3 with paraplegia
2. Fracture of both calcanium
3. Abrasion injuries over right shoulder and forehead He has further stated that the petitioner underwent surgery with implants and was discharged on 30.11.2013, that the petitioner was on follow up treatment on OPD basis and K-
wire from his right leg was removed on 22.12.2013. He has stated about difficulties of the petitioner and assessed the permanent disability of the petitioner at 60% to the whole body. He has stated that the petitioner has undergo few more surgery for removal of implants which may cost around of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- in Sevabhai Hospital. In cross-examination, he has stated that implants of left leg of the petitioner is not removed, that the petitioner was advise to take physiotherapy treatment for improvement of difficulties, that continuous physiotherapy and other treatment, the extent of disability will be reduced. He has denied that the petitioner is not suffering from permanent disability to the extent of 60% to his whole body, that the cost of future surgery will not be Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and that he is deposing falsely to help the petitioner.
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.6923/201313. Copy of wound certificate is at Ex.P8, OPD sheet of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital is at Ex.P9 and discharge certificate of Sevabhai Hospital is at Ex.P10. The contents of these documents corroborate the evidence of PW.1 and 2 regarding the nature of injury caused to the petitioner and nature of treatment given to him. The petitioner was in the hospital for about 21 days. On 22.12.2013, internal fixation of right leg of the petitioner was removed. Thus, the period of hospitalization of the petitioner is 22 days. Case sheet at Ex.P13 discloses that the petitioner was on follow up treatment after discharge. X-rays at Ex.P14 confirm fractures and existence of implants. The petitioner has produced medical bill for Rs.1,73,600/- which is supported by receipts at Ex.P12. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the medical records produced by the petitioner. The respondent no.1 has not produced any evidence to believe that the medical bill at Ex.P11 and receipts at Ex.P12 are created for this case. The nature of injury caused to the petitioner indicates that he was under bed rest for about 2 months. During the said period and during the hospitalization, the petitioner might have spent amount towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. He might have lost income for atleast 3 months. He requires to undergo surgery for removal of implants. The accidental injuries have resulted in many difficulties which may persist in future. Therefore, I award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.1,75,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities.
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.6923/201314. PW.1 has stated about his age, occupation and income. The police record and medical records reveal that the petitioner was aged 21 years on the date of accident. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the contents of these records pertaining the age of the petitioner. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was aged 21 years as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier for the said age is 18.
15. PW.1 has deposed that he was working as sub agent of LIC and was earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., There is no corroboration to his evidence regarding occupation and income. He has admitted in cross-examination that he has not obtained licence as sub agent. FIR at Ex.P1 reveals that the petitioner has stated before the police that he was working under LIC agent. Nothing is on record to disbelieve the contents of FIR. Hence, it can be said the petitioner was an employee under LIC agent. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 as to income. In the absence of positive evidence, I am inclined to assess his income @ Rs.6,000/- p.m., He was under treatment and bed rest for a period of 3 months and lost income. Therefore, He is entitled for a compensation of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of past income.
16. PW.2 Dr. Mohan has deposed that the petitioner suffered fracture injuries and paraplegia and he is permanently disabled. He assessed that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of right lower limb is @ 30% and of left lower limb @ 36% and of fracture of L3 @ 60% and his whole body disability is 60%. I have carefully gone through the evidence of PW.2. He has not mentioned range of movement of SCCH-14 11 MVC No.6923/2013 lower limb. He has not given detailed calculation of assessment of disability. He has not produced disability assessment form. Under circumstances, I am of the opinion that the extent of disability, the assessed by the doctor is on the higher side. It is admitted that the fractures are united and K-wire from right leg is already removed. There is no injury to spinal cord. Therefore, I am inclined to assess the permanent disability of the petitioner to the extent of 18% to the right leg, to the extent of 30% to the left leg and extent of 40% to L3. The whole body disability of the petitioner comes to 36%. It is stated that the petitioner was working as an employee under LIC agent. His work does not require hard manual labour. Hence, I am of the opinion that occupational and functional disability of the petitioner will be 20% to the whole body. The said disability results in loss of earning capacity to the extent of 20%. The annual income of the petitioner comes to Rs.72,000/- which attract no income tax. Therefore, loss of future income of the petitioner would be Rs.72,000X18X20%= Rs.2,59,200/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.1,75,000/- 3 Nourishment, conveyance and Rs. 15,000/-
attendant charges 4 Future medical expense Rs. 25,000/- 5 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/- 6 Loss of past income Rs. 18,000/- 7 Loss of future income Rs.2,59,200/-
Total Rs.5,67,200/-SCCH-14 12 MVC No.6923/2013
Rounded off to Rs.5,68,000/-. The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% pa, from the date of petition till the date of payment.
17. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-2583. The policy was in force on the date of accident. There is nothing on record to believe that the driver of autorickshaw was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was not having a valid permit as on the date of accident. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and interest as calculated above. In view of the policy, the respondent No.1 is liable to deposit the amount before the court. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
18. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.SCCH-14 13 MVC No.6923/2013
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- to the petitioner with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award. Amount of future medical expenses does not carry interest After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 4th day of February 2015.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE & MACT., Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.SCCH-14 14 MVC No.6923/2013
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Ramu @ Ramachari
PW.2 Dr. Mohan
Respondent' s Nil
Ex.P1 Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 Copy of Vehicle detention Panchanama
Ex.P3 Copy of Spot Panchanama
Ex.P4 Copy of IMV report
Ex.P5 Copy of Statement of eye-witness
Ex.P6 Copy of police intimation
Ex.P7 Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 Copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P9 OP records.
Ex.P10 Admission and discharge certificates
Ex.P11 Medical bill amounting to Rs.1,73,600/-.
Ex.P12 Receipts (2 in nos).
Ex.P13 Case Sheet
E.xP14 X-rays (3 in nos)
Respondent's Nil
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.6923/2013
Dt.4.02.2015
P-BKK
R1-RSS
R2-Exparte
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.6923/2013
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- to the petitioner with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award. Amount of future medical expenses does not carry interest After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BANGALORE.SCCH-14 17 MVC No.6923/2013
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.6923/2013 Petitioner/s : Ramu @ Ramachari S/o Narayanappa @ Narayanachari Aged about 21 years, C/o Vinod, No.145/11, 5th 'B' main, Allamaprabhu road, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore-560 019.
(By pleader Sri BKK) V/s Respondent/s 1. The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins., Co,Ltd., Ground floor nO.31, TBR Tower, 1st cross, New Mission road, Near Bangalore Stock Exchange, Bangalore-560 027.
(Insurer of the Autorickshaw) (By pleader Sri RSS)
2. Smt. Chikkamuniyamma @ Chikkamma W/o Kariyappa, No.3761, 14th cross, Gayathrinagar, Bangalore-21.
(Owner of the Autorickshaw) (Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying SCCH-14 18 MVC No.6923/2013 for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a
motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small
Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,68,000/- to the petitioner with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before the court within one month from the date of award. Amount of future medical expenses does not carry interest After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of SCCH-14 19 MVC No.6923/2013 the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
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 No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ---------------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.6923/2013
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR