Bangalore District Court
Sri.K.N.Mahadevi vs Sagay Raj on 30 January, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF JANUARY 2016
(SCCH-25)
Present:Sri.DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY
M.A., LL.M.
XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, Bengaluru.
MVC Nos.7456/2008 to 7463/2008
PETITIONER/S 1. Sri.K.N.Mahadevi
IN MVC. 7456/08 W/o.Late D.L.Srinath
Aged about 30 years
2. Kum.Neha Reddy
D/o. D.L.Srinath
Aged about 12 years
3. Kum.Ooha Reddy
D/o. D.L.Srinath
Aged about 10 years
Petitioner no.2 & 3 minors
Guardian mother petitioner no.1
All are residing at
Murali Layout
Near Shankar Vidyalaya
Kolar town & Taluk
Kolar.
PETITIONER Kum. Neha Reddy
IN MVC.7457/08 Since minor
Rep. by her mother
as Natural guardian
K.N. Mahadevi
W/o. Late D.L.Srinath
2 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Aged about 30 years
Murali Layout
Near Shankar Vidhyalaya
Kolar town & Kolar Taluk
Kolar,
PETITIONER Mahadevi.K.N.
IN MVC.7458/08 W/o. Late D.L.Srinath
Aged about 30 years
R/at Murali Layout
Near Shankar Vidhyalaya
Kolar Town & Taluk
Kolar.
PETITIONER/S 1. Sri.D.L.Ramesh Babu
IN MVC.7459/08 S/o.Late Lakshman Reddy D.S.
Aged about 38 years
2. D.L.Srinivas
S/o.Late Lakshman Reddy D.S.
Aged about 32 years
3. K.N.Mahadevi
W/o. Late D.L.Srinath
Aged about 30 years
Now all are residing at
Vinay Nilaya
Near Shankar Vidyalaya
Murali Layout
B.Pet Road
Kolar 563 101
PETITIONER/S 1. D.L. Ramesh Babu
IN MVC.7460/08 S/o.Late Lakshman Reddy D.S.
Aged about 38 years
2. D.L.Srinivas
S/o.Late Lakshman Reddy D.S.
3 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Aged about 32 years
3. K.N.Mahadevi
W/o. Late D.L.Srinath
Aged about 30 years
Now all are residing at
Vinay Nilaya
Near Shankar Vidyalaya
Murali Layout
B.Pet Road
Kolar 563 101
PETITIONER Sunitha
IN MVC.7461/08 Aged about 33 years
W/o. Late D.L.Ramesh
R/at Vinay Nilaya
Near Shankar Vidhyalaya
Opp: RTO Office
Murali Layout
Kolar 563 101
PETITIONER Charulatha
IN MVC.7462/08 D/o. D.L.Ramesh
Aged about 10 years
Since minor
Rep. By her mother
Natural guardian
Sunitha
Aged about 33 years,
W/o. Late D.L.Ramesh
R/at Vinay Nilaya
Near Shankar Vidhyalaya
Opp: RTO Office
Murali Layout
Kolar 563 101
4 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
PETITIONER Vinay
IN MVC.7463/08 S/o. D.L.Ramesh
Aged about 9 years
Since minor
Rep. By his mother
Smt.Sunitha
W/o. D.L. Ramesh
Aged about 33 years
R/at Vinay Nilaya
Near Shankar Vidyalaya
Murali Layout
B.Pet Road
Kolar
-Vs-
RESPONDENT/S 1. Sagay Raj
COMMON IN S/o Late Joseph
ALL THE CASES Aged about 33 years
R/at Lake C.B.Layout
Thambuchettypalya
Virgonagar post
Bangalore 49.
2. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Co.Ltd.
Sudha Commercial Complex
Opp: Coffee Café Day
Rajajinagar Entrance
Bangalore 10.
3. S.P.Nisar Ahmed
S/o Pyaro Saab,
Aged about 42 years,
Zam Zam Enterprises,
Near clock tower,
Kolar - 563101.
5 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
4. The New India Assurance
Company Limited,
Rep.By its branch Manager,
Off. At: Bagalur Mansion,
Kolar - 563101.
COMMON JUDGMENT
These claims have arisen out of a common accident. All
the petitions are filed under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act. seeking
compensation.
2. The brief fact of the petitioners in all the cases is as
follows:
On 06.02.2008 at about 9.00 p.m., D.L.Srinath,
S/o.Lakshmana Reddy of MVC.7456/2008, Kumari Neha
Reddy, D/o.D.L.Srinath of MVC.7457/2008, Mahadevi W/o.
D.L.Srinath of MVC.7458/2008, B.S.Lakshman Reddy D.S.
S/o. Seethappa of MVC.7459/2008 Rathnamma W/o
Lakshmana Reddy of MVC.7460/2008, Sunitha W/o D.L
Ramesh of MVC.7461/2008, Charulatha alias Deeksha D/o
D.L.Ramesh of MVC 7462/2008, Vinay S/o D.L.Ramesh of
MVC.7463/2008 were traveling in a Car bearing No.07-M-1972
to visit a temple at Vellore. D.L Srinath was the driver of the car
bearing No.KA-07-M-1972, after visiting a temple was returning
6 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
from Vellore and when they were proceeding near Thambihalli,
NH-4, Opp. to petrol bunk, at that time the driver of the lorry
bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 which was parked without giving any
signal, indicator and light, thereafter took reverse without
giving any indicator suddenly drove the vehicle and dashed
against the car. It is thus the passengers of the Car all of them
fell down and sustained injuries. Due to impact Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy & Rathnamma were succumbed to death
and rest of the Petitioners were shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Kolar then shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore and they were
treated. Thereby the petitioner of MVC.No.7457/2008 has spent
an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-, In MVC No.7458/2008 has spent
an amount of Rs.50,000/-, in MVC No.7461/2008 has spent an
amount of Rs.42,000/-, in MVC 7462/2008 has spent an
amount of Rs.70,000/- & in MVC No.7463/2008 has spent an
amount of Rs.20,256/- towards their treatment.
Due to accident Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy and
Rathnamma were succumbed, due to fatal injury the
postmortem was conducted and body was handed over to the
relatives thereby they have spent huge amount for funerals and
7 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
transportation of dead body. Due to the death of deceased they
lost income. The petitioners are the LRs. of the deceased. The
Petitioners were/are facing lot of mental shock and lost love,
and affection, untold misery caused to them and prayed for
compensation.
The Kolar Rural Police have registered a case against the
driver of the lorry in crime No.33/08 under sections 279, 337,
338, 304(A) of IPC r/w section 177 of 187 of M.V.Act.
3. The deceased Sri.D.L.Srinath of MVC. No.7456/2008
was aged about 35 years and he is an Electrical Contractor
and the income of the deceased is Rs.5,000/- per month. The
petitioners are the LRs. of the deceased, no other LRs. other
than these Petitioners, they were/are depending upon the
income of the deceased.
Respondent No.1 is the RC holder and Respondent No.2 is
the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249, the
Respondent No.3 is the owner and the Respondent No.4 is the
Insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972 all are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for
compensation.
8 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
The petitioner Kum.Neha Reddy (Injured) D/o Late
D.L.Srinath of MVC.No.7457/2008 was aged about 12 years,
bright student and she was good in cultural dances and she
has staged many dance programs and was also earning not less
than Rs.5,000/- per program. Due to accident she cannot
stand, sit, walk, dance and lost her academics as well as future
prospects and marriage prospects.
Respondent No.1 is the RC holder and Respondent No.2 is
the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249, the
Respondent No.3 is the owner and the Respondent No.4 is the
Insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972 all are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for
compensation.
The Petitioner Mahadevi (Injured) W/o Late D.L.Srinath in
MVC No.7458/2008 was aged about 30 years, house wife doing
Tailoring earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to
accident she cannot stand, sit, walk, do tailoring and earn.
Respondent No.1 is the RC holder and Respondent No.2 is
the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249, the
Respondent No.3 is the owner and the Respondent No.4 is the
9 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972 all are jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation and prayed for
compensation.
4. The Respondent No.2 was appeared through counsel
and filed objection wherein stated that, the application filed by
the Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither
police nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that,
the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills, RC and DL and admitted the policy
and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
Respondent No.3 appeared through their counsel and
filed written statement wherein stated that, the application filed
by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is false
that, the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation and expenses and
admitted the policy. Further stated that, the driver of the lorry
drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner without giving
10 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
indicator and suddenly took reverse therefore the accident was
caused and prayed for dismiss the petition with cost.
The Respondent No.4 was appeared through counsel and
filed objection wherein stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills, RC and DL and admitted the policy.
The driver of the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator
and caused the accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the
accident and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
Respondent No.1 placed ex-parte.
5. Based on the said pleadings in all the cases issues
have been framed are as follows:
MVC 7456 to 7458/2008
1. Whether the petitioner proves
that, on 06.02.2008 at about
9.00 p.m., D.L.Srinath,
S/o.Lakshmana Reddy of
11 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
MVC.7456/2008, Kumari Neha
Reddy, D/o.D.L.Srinath of
MVC.7457/2008, Mahadevi W/o.
D.L.Srinath of MVC.7458/2008,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy D.S. S/o.
Seethappa of MVC.7459/2008
Rathnamma W/o Lakshmana
Reddy of MVC.7460/2008,
Sunitha W/o D.L Ramesh of
MVC.7461/2008, Charulatha
alias Deeksha D/o D.L.Ramesh
of MVC 7462/2008, Vinay S/o
D.L.Ramesh of MVC.7463/2008
were traveling in a car bearing
No.KA-07-M-1972, when they
reached by Tambihalli Gate,
Opp., petrol bunk the driver of
the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-
3249 drove the vehicle without
indicator and took sudden
reverse and caused the accident
as a result Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy and
Rathnamma were succumbed
and rest of the Passengers were
sustained injured as alleged in
the petition?
2 . Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation? If so, what is
the quantum? From whom
payable?
3. What order or award?
6. Petitioners to prove their case, the Petitioner No.1 in
MVC 7456/2008 examined as PW.1 and got marked 18
12 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
documents under Exs.P.1 to P.15 and Exs.P.41 to P.43 closed
their side.
The guardian of the Petitioner in MVC No.7457/2008
examined as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents under
Exs.P.16 to P.28 and one more witness examined as PW.2 and
got marked 10 documents under Exs.P.31 to P.37 and Exs.P.44
to P.46 and one more witness examined as a PW.4 and got
marked 2 documents under Exs.P.47 & P.48 and closed their
side.
The Petitioner in MVC No.7458/2008 examined herself as
PW.1 and got marked 5 documents under Exs.P.29 & P.30 one
more witness examined as PW.3 and got marked 3 documents
under Exs.38 to P.40 and closed their side.
Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined its official as
RW.1 and got marked 2 documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and
Respondent No.4 examined its official as RW.2 and got marked
2 documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
The Petitioner No.2 son of the deceased in MVC
No.7459/2008 examined as a PW.1 and got marked 12
documents under Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed their side.
13 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
The Petitioner No.2 son of the deceased in MVC
No.7460/2008 examined as a PW.1 and got marked 6
documents under Exs.P.13 to P.18 and closed their side.
The Petitioner in MVC No.7461/2008 examined herself as
PW.2 and got marked 4 documents under Exs.P.19 to P.22 and
one more witness examined as PW.3 and got marked 3
documents under Exs.32 to P.34 and closed their side.
The Petitioner in MVC No.7462/2008 examined his
guardian as a PW.2 and got marked 3 documents under
Exs.P.23 to P.25 and one more witness examined as PW.4 and
got marked 3 documents under Exs.P.38 to P.40 and closed
their side.
The Petitioner in MVC No.7463/2008 examined her
guardian as a PW.2 and got marked 6 documents under
Exs.P.26 to P.31 and one more witness examined as PW.3 and
got marked 3 documents under Exs.35 & P.37 and closed their
side.
Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined its official as
RW.1 and got marked 2 documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and
14 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Respondent No.4 examined its official as RW.2 and got marked
2 documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
7. I have heard the arguments on both sides.
8. My findings on the above points in both the cases are
as follows:
Issue Issue
Case No. Issue
No.2 No.3
No.1
MVC 7456/2008 As per
Partly In the In the
TO final
Affirmative Affirmative
MVC 7463/2008 order
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in all the cases:
The PWs.1 & 2 stated in their examination-in-chief that,
On 06.02.2008 at about 9.00 p.m., D.L.Srinath,
S/o.Lakshmana Reddy of MVC.7456/2008, Kumari Neha
Reddy, D/o.D.L.Srinath of MVC.7457/2008, Mahadevi W/o.
D.L.Srinath of MVC.7458/2008, B.S.Lakshman Reddy D.S.
S/o. Seethappa of MVC.7459/2008 Rathnamma W/o
Lakshmana Reddy of MVC.7460/2008, Sunitha W/o D.L
15 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Ramesh of MVC.7461/2008, Charulatha alias Deeksha D/o
D.L.Ramesh of MVC 7462/2008, Vinay S/o D.L.Ramesh of
MVC.7463/2008 were traveling in a Car bearing No.07-M-1972
to visit a temple at Vellore. D.L Srinath was the driver of the car
bearing No.KA-07-M-1972, after visiting a temple was returning
from Vellore and when they were proceeding near Thambihalli,
NH-4, Opp. to petrol bunk, at that time the driver of the lorry
bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 which was parked without giving any
signal, indicator and light, thereafter took reverse without
giving any indicator suddenly drove the vehicle and dashed
against the car. It is thus the passengers of the Car all of them
fell down and sustained injuries. Due to impact Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy & Rathnamma were succumbed to death
and rest of the Petitioners were shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Kolar then shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore and they were
treated. Thereby the petitioner of MVC. No.7457/2008 has
spent an amount of Rs.17,00,000/-, In MVC No.7458/2008 has
spent an amount of Rs.50,000/-, in MVC No.7461/2008 has
spent an amount of Rs.42,000/-, in MVC 7462/2008 has spent
16 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
an amount of Rs.70,000/- & in MVC No.7463/2008 has spent
an amount of Rs.20,256/- towards their treatment.
Due to accident Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy and
Rathnamma were succumbed, due to fatal injury the
postmortem was conducted and body was handed over to the
relatives thereby they have spent huge amount for funerals and
transportation of dead body. Due to the death of deceased they
lost income. The petitioners are the LRs. of the deceased. The
Petitioners were/are facing lot of mental shock and lost love,
and affection, untold misery caused to them and prayed for
compensation.
The Kolar Rural Police have registered a case against the
driver of the lorry in crime No.33/08 under sections 279, 337,
338, 304(A) of IPC r/w section 177 of 187 of M.V.Act.
10. Whereas, the Respondent No.2 examined its official
as RW.1. The RW.1 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
17 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy and prayed for
rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
11. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
12. On perusal of Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 complaint, Ex.P.3
Panchanama, Ex.P.4 sketch, Ex.P.5 IMV report, Ex.P.6 Inquest
18 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
of D.L.Srinath, Postmortem of B.S.Lakshman Reddy and
Rathnamma and wound certificate of Sunitha, Charulatatha,
Mahadevi, Vinay, Neha Reddy reveals that, the driver of the
Lorry was parked on the road without indicator and drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and took the reverse, at
that time also the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well
as the driver of the car was not applied the break to stop the
car, without observing the parked lorry, without applied the
break and dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident
caused. The scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper
reveals that, the Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at
that time the driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its
hind portion. The accident reports disclosed that the front
shape of the engine chamber of the car on the front right hand
side completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the
top of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind
portion. There was clear cut evidence shows that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car as
well as the driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy and Rathnamma were succumbed due to
19 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
fatal injury and all other Petitioners were sustained injuries in
an accident. Hence, I have answered Issue No.1 in all the cases
are partly in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.2 in MVC 7456/2008:
PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, she is the
wife of deceased Srinath. The Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 is the sons of
deceased Srinath. Deceased was aged about 35 years, was
working as an Electrical Contractor, earning an amount of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to death of deceased Srinath the
Petitioners who are the LRs. and dependent are put in financial
crises, they lost love and affections, untold misery. It is very
difficulty them to lead the life and prayed for compensation.
Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and Respondent
No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the
Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in existence as on
the date of the accident. They are liable to pay compensation
and prayed for compensation.
20 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 18
documents under Exs.P.1 to P.15 and Exs.P.41 to P.43 and
closed their side.
14. Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
15. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
21 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
16. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of
PW.1 and RWs.1 & 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.15 and Exs.R.1 to R.4,
the policy was existence as on the date of accident. The Ex.P.4
reveals that, there was contributory negligence on the part of
the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry. Though
the charge sheet is against the driver of the car, the Ex.P.4
sketch & Ex.P.5 IMV report shows that, the driver of the Lorry
was parked on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that
time, the driver of the Lorry was not put indicator. Whereas the
driver of the car was not observed the front vision and not
applied the break to stop the car, without observing the parked
22 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
lorry, without applied the break and dashed against the Lorry
therefore the accident was caused. The scene of offence under
Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the Lorry was parked on
the side of mud road, at that time the driver of the Car dashed
against the Lorry on its hind portion. The accident reports
disclosed that, the front shape of the engine chamber of the car
on the front right hind side completely pressed inward from the
bottom bumper to the top of the car. But the Lorry guard
damaged on its hind portion. At the time of accident the Lorry
was fully loaded, there is no chance of high speed. At the time
of accident the driver of the lorry was took reverse. It was clear
cut evidence shows that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry.
Both are liable for accident. It is thus, one Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy and Rathnamma were succumbed due to
fatal injury and all other Petitioners were sustained injuries in
an accident.
17. As on the date of the accident deceased Srikanth was
aged about 35 years, working as an Electrical Contractor,
earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. PW.1 stated in
23 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
her examination-in-chief that, deceased Srikanth was working
as an Electrical Contractor, earning an amount of Rs.50,000/-
per month filed 15 documents. Ex.P.11 is the Sales Tax
Certificate, Ex.P.12 PAN Card, Exs.P.13 & P.14 Income Tax
acknowledgment. On perusal of the Exs.P.12 to P.15 reveals
that, Mahadevi obtained the Income Tax acknowledgment, it
does not contain any date. Exs.P.13 & P.14 Income Tax written
shows Rs.4,81,992/- was the income of the decease. The
Hon'ble High Court directed both the parties to amend their
pleading if necessary, no such efforts made by the Petitioners.
The amended petition Column No.6 reveals that, the income of
the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs.5,000/- per
month. The admitted fact as per section 58 of Indian Evidence
Act. need not proof required for further proof. It is thus as per
the admission of the Petitioner the income of the deceased as
on the date of the accident was Rs.5,000/- per month. The
deceased Srikanth born on 01.06.1971 as per Ex.R.6 and P.13.
The Accident occurred on 06.02.2008. As on the date of the
accident deceased was aged about 36 years. As per the Sarala
Verma's case the age of the deceased was 36 years, the
24 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
applicable multiplier would be 15. Petitioner No.1 is the wife,
Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are the children of the deceased. No other
LRs. left by the deceased other than these Petitioners. 1/3rd of
income of the deceased has to be deducted for his personal
expenses and 2/3rd income of the deceased has to be
contributed to his family. As such Rs.5,000/-
x12x15x2/3=Rs.6,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of
dependency. As per the Rajesh case and Munna lal Jain case
the future prospects has to be considered. As on the date of the
accident the age of the deceased was 36 years, working as a
contractor, there was a future prospect in the electrical
contract. So 50% of future prospect has to be considered. As
such Rs.5,000/-x12x15x2/3x50%=Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded
under the heads of loss of future prospects. Due to death of the
deceased the LRs. lost love and affection so Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded towards loss of love and affections. Another
Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body.
Another Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of loss of
consortium. The Petitioner No.1 lost her matrimonial life at the
25 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
age of 30 years. Due to the death of the deceased there was a
loss of estate. So that, Rs.5,000/-
x12x15x2/3x5%=Rs.30,000/- is awarded under the heads of
loss of estate. So the Petitioners are entitled compensation
under various heads are as under:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.6,00,000/-
2. Loss of future prospects : Rs.3,00,000/-
3. Loss of love and affection : Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
5. Transportation of dead body : Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of consortium : Rs.1,00,000/-
7. Loss of estate : Rs. 30,000/-
Total : Rs.11,65,000/-
18. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
26 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 is liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
27 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7456/2008 is in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7457/2008:
PW.1 is the natural mother of the Petitioner stated in her
examination-in-chief that, the Neha was aged about 12 years,
student. After the accident she was shifted to the Jalappa
Hospital wherein undergone the treatment then shifted to the
Abhaya hospital, wherein undergone treatment for 3 months.
During that, period she was undergone 5 times for head injury
and then shifted to BGS hospital wherein also undergone 2
types of head operations. Due to injury even though there is no
progress in her health and there is no conscious. As on today
she is in treatment under neurologist treatment. The
physiotherapist regularly treated her, even though she is not
showing any progress at the age of the 10 she is a good
student, securing good marks, and good personalities in
classical parties. She uses to give dance programme and getting
Rs.10,000/- remunerations. Due to accidental injury she
cannot dance and earn Rs.10,000/- per month. She lost her
28 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
academic carrier and lost her marriage prospects. The mother
of the Petitioner spent an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards
the medical and hospital charges, Rs.1,00,000/- for food and
nourishment and Rs.1,00,000/- was accidental and conveyance
charges. Respondent Nos.1 & 3 are the RC holder, Respondent
Nos.2 & 4 are the insurer all of them are liable to pay
compensation and prayed for compensation.
In support of her oral evidence she has filed 16 documents
under Exs.P.16 to P.28, Exs.P.44 to P.46 and closed their side.
20. PW.2 stated in his examination-in-chief that, Kumari
Neha has sustained chest and limb injury, she was shifted to
the RL Jalappa hospital, Where she was incubated and brought
to their hospital. On 07.02.2008 she was deeply unconscious
with a coma score of 6T/15, her right pupil was reacting well to
light but the left wasn't reacting. A repeat CT brain done at our
hospital on 07.02.2008 revealed evidence of a moderate sized
left FTP acute SDH (blood clot over the brain) with mass effect
and a midline shift suggesting severe brain swelling and
compression on the central vital brain structures. Hence she
underwent an emergency left FTP decompress craniotomy
29 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
surgery with evacuation of the SDH. The bone flap was not
replaced, as the brain was very swollen and bulging. The hand
fractures were operated at the same time by the ortho
surgeons. She was then managed conservatively with
mechanical ventilation, injections to stabilize her vital signs
and also to control fits, infection, brain swelling and cerebral
cell activators and protectors. The orthopedic surgeon managed
the upper limb fractures. The chest injury was managed by the
paleontologist. Repeat CT brain revealed an evolving and
progressive hypo density of the left cerebral hemisphere (the
dominant area of the brain that controls actions of the right
side of the body as well as speech) suggestive of a left ICA
infarct (lack of blood supply to this part of the brain due to
blocked major artery to the brain). Hence she was treated with
additional medications to counter this problem. A tracheotomy
(tube put into the windpipe via a hole made in the front of the
neck by surgery) was done to facilitate effective tracheal toilet. A
follow up CT brain done on 12.02.2008 revealed obstructive
hydrocephalus (increased water/fluid collection in the brain)
and since the operated wound had got a little infected due to
30 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
the brain pressure, an external ventricular drainage (EVD) was
put to drain this fluid. She had multiple critical care and
chronic ICU related problems and these were managed
appropriately. A repeat CT scan done on 13.03.2008 revealed
evidence of adequate drainage of the ipsilateral ventricle but the
left ventricle size remained unchanged suggesting a blocked
interventricular foramen. She underwent a right ventricular-
peritoneal shunt (VP shunt) on 23.03.2008 (Pipe put from the
brain to the abdominal cavity to drain the excess fluid). She
showed some improvement in the neurological status and was
then gradually weaned off the ventilator. She also developed
exposure keratitis of the eye and a tarsorraphy (stitching up of
the eyelids) was done by the ophthalmologist. Though she
stabilized, she continued to be unconscious and hence the
relatives were explained a possibility of a long term vegetative
state due to the severe injuries sustained and asked to manage
her at home so as to avoid repeated hospital infections from
other patients. At the time of discharge on 18.05.2008, about
102 days after admission, she remained unconscious, and the
coma score had only marginally improved to 8T/15 with a right
31 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
hemi paresis (right sided limb weakness due to the brain injury)
and the tracheotomy tube was in situ. The bone flap had not
been replaced and opined 100% disability to the whole body.
In support of his oral evidence he has filed 7 documents
under Exs.P.31 to P.37 and closed their side.
21. PW.4 stated in his examination-in-chief that, on
23.03.2012 the Petitioner was brought to their hospital for
further treatment, she was bedridden, not able to move limbs
and wines to pain. She was in altered sensorial with GCS of E4
VT M2 with spastic quadriplegias. The CT scan showed right VP
shunt lying in right frontal brain with a left temporal horn
dilatation. She has underwent endoscope cystoventriculostomy
on 25.01.2008 and discharged on 26.01.2008. Again
underwent stem cell therapy on 17.08.2009. She was on Riles
tube feeds and Tracheotomy was in situ. She was conscious,
has social smile and making incomprehensible sounds with
spastic quadriplegia. Tracheotomy tube was removed and
discharged on 28.11.2009. She was again admitted for further
evaluations on 02.03.2010, 02.04.2010 and discharged on
05.04.2010, during that time intracranial stem cell
32 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
transplantation and fistula closure and discharged on
13.04.2010. Again admitted on 23.09.2010 she was conscious,
makes eye to eye contact. Her follow up scan showed
hydrocephalus for which she underwent endoscope fenestration
of intraventricular septations and right VP shunt and
discharged on 29.09.2012. Again examined on 01.12.2015 for
assessment, the patient was conscious, not able to speak,
makes incomprehensible sounds, has severe spastic
quadriparesis and was wheel chair bound, needs help for
feeding and all daily activities. As per WHO, AIMS and DGHS
guidelines the speech disability 100%, motor system disability
75%, bladder disability 100% with ataxia disability 100% and
opined 100% disability to the whole body.
In support of his oral evidence he has filed 2 documents
under Exs.P.47 & P.48 and closed their side.
22. Whereas, the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
33 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
23. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
34 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
24. On perusal of the case sheets, case record, X-ray
report, CT Scan under Exs.P.31 to P.37, discharge summary
under Ex.P.46, in-patient record under Ex.P.47, out-patient
record under Ex.P.48. the Abhaya hospital case record reveals
that, Kumari Neha has sustained chest and limb injury, where
she was incubated and brought to Abhaya hospital. On
07.02.2008 she was deeply unconscious with a coma, score of
6T/15, her right pupil was reacting well to light but the left
wasn't reacting. A repeat CT brain done at our hospital on
07.02.2008 revealed evidence of a moderate sized left FTP acute
SDH (blood clot over the brain) with mass effect and a midline
shift suggesting severe brain swelling and compression on the
central vital brain structures. Hence she underwent an
emergency left FTP decompress craniotomy surgery with
evacuation of the SDH. The bone flap was not replaced, as the
brain was very swollen and bulging. The hand fractures were
operated at the same time by the ortho surgeons. She was then
managed conservatively with mechanical ventilation, injections
to stabilize her vital signs and also to control fits, infection,
brain swelling and cerebral cell activators and protectors. The
35 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
orthopedic surgeon managed the upper limb fractures. The
chest injury was managed by the paleontologists. Repeat CT
brain revealed an evolving and progressive hypo density of the
left cerebral hemisphere (the dominant area of the brain that
controls actions of the right side of the body as well as speech)(,
suggestive of a left ICA infarct (lack of blood supply to this part
of the brain due to blocked major artery to the brain). Hence
she was treated with additional medications to counter this
problem. A tracheotomy (tube put into the windpipe via a hole
made in the front of the neck by surgery) was done to facilitate
effective tracheal toilet. A follow up CT brain done on
12.02.2008 revealed obstructive hydrocephalus (increased
water/fluid collection in the brain) and since the operated
wound had got a little infected due to the brain pressure, an
external ventricular drainage (EVD) was put to drain this fluid.
She had multiple critical care and chronic ICU related problems
and these were managed appropriately. A repeat CT scan done
on 13.03.2008 revealed evidence of adequate drainage of the
ipsilateral ventricle but the left ventricle size remained
unchanged suggesting a blocked interventricular foramen. She
36 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
underwent a right ventriculo-peritoneal shunt (VP shunt) on
23.03.2008 (Pipe put from the brain to the abdominal cavity to
drain the excess fluid). She showed some improvement in the
neurological status and was then gradually weaned off the
ventilator. She also developed exposure keratitis of the eye and
a tarsorraphy (stitching up of the eyelids) was done by the
ophthalmologist. Though she stabilized, she continued to be
unconscious and hence the relatives were explained a
possibility of a long term vegetative state due to the severe
injuries sustained and asked to manage her at home so as to
avoid repeated hospital infections from other patients. At the
time of discharge on 18.05.2008, about 102 days after
admission, she remained unconscious, and the coma score had
only marginally improved to 8T/15 with a right hemi paresis
(right sided limb weakness due to the brain injury) and the
tracheotomy tube was in situ. The bone flap had not been
replaced and opined 100% disability to the whole body.
25. The treatment at BGS hospital reveals that, she was
bedridden, not able to move limbs and wines to pain. She was
in altered sensorium with GCS of E4 VT M2 with spastic
37 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
quadriplegia. The CT scan showed right VP shunt lying in right
frontal brain with a left temporal horn dilatation. She has
underwent endoscope cystoventriculostomy on 25.01.2008 and
discharged on 26.01.2008. Again underwent stem cell therapy
on 17.08.2009. She was on Ryles tube feeds and Tracheotomy
was in situ. She was conscious, has social smile and making
incomprehensible sounds with spastic quadriplegia.
Tracheotomy tube was removed and discharged on 28.11.2009.
She was again admitted for further evaluations on 02.03.2010,
02.04.2010 and discharged on 05.04.2010, during that time
intracranial stem cell transplantation and fistula closure and
discharged on 13.04.2010. Again admitted on 23.09.2010 she
was conscious, makes eye to eye contact. Her follow up scan
showed hydrocephalus for which she underwent endoscope
fenestration of intraventricularseptations and right VP shunt
and discharged on 29.09.2012. Again examined on 01.12.2015
for assessment, the patient was conscious, not able to speak,
makes incomprehensible sounds, has severe spastic
quadriparesis and was wheel chair bound, needs help for
feeding and all daily activities. As per WHO, AIMS and DGHS
38 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
guidelines the speech disability 100%, motor system disability
75%, bladder disability 100% with ataxia disability 100% and
opined 100% disability to the whole body.
26. The evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.17 reveals that, the
Petitioner had spent an amount of Rs.12,74,224/- and Ex.P.44
reveals that, the Petitioner has spent an amount of
Rs.3,13,396/-. Total medical expenses for Kumari Neha was
Rs.15,87,620/-. The evidence of PW.1 corroborated with the
evidence of PWs.2 & 4 case sheets and medical bills it has to be
awarded in the interest of justice and equity. Accordingly the
tribunal has awarded a just compensation an amount of
Rs.15,87,620/- under the heads of medical expenses.
Due to injury she undergone several surgeries, since from
the date of accident she was in Coma as now she is using wheel
chair, she is unable to feed herself and day to day natural call.
Considering the wound certificate, case sheet and in-patient
period the tribunal is awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-
under the heads of pain and suffering.
PW.2 stated that, the Petitioner was under treatment for a
period of 102 days from the date of accident to 18.05.2008,
39 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
thereafter underwent treatment for various days. She was
conscious, not able to speak, makes incomprehensible sounds,
she has severe spastic quadriparesis and was wheel chair
bound, needs help for feeding and all daily activities.
Considering the opinion of PWs.2 & 4 the tribunal is awarded
Rs.1,00,000/- under the heads of attendant charges. Another
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of food and
nourishment. Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of
conveyance charges. Another Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded under
the heads of loss of beauty and marriage prospects. Another
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of loss of Academic.
As on the date of the accident the Petitioner is age about
12 years, student, now she is a bed ridden. As on today she is
18 years, major unable to work and earn. She is depending
upon others for feeding and other activities. Some one person
must require to take care of her. Thereby she must be pay for
attendant charges. If the parents attend the care of the
Petitioner they are not go for work and earn. She cannot walk,
stand, sit, dance and lost her education. Considering her age
and physical as well as functional 100% disability as opined by
40 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
the PWs.2 & 4 the tribunal has to be considered notional
income of Rs.3,000/- per month. As such Rs.3,000/-
x12x18x100% = Rs.6,48,000/- is awarded under the heads of
loss of future income. She was hospitalized for 1 or 2 days in
Abhaya Hospital, thereafter she was treated at BGS hospital.
Considering the case sheets and evidence of PWs.1, 2 & 4 the
tribunal is awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards the loss of income
during laid up period. Another Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded
towards future medical treatment. As such the Petitioner is
entitled total compensation as under:
1. Pain & suffering : Rs. 3,00,000/-
2. Medical expenses : Rs.15,87,620/-
3. Attendant charges : Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Food and nourishments : Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Conveyance charges : Rs. 1,00,000/-
6. Beauty and marriage
Prospects : Rs. 2,00,000/-
7. Loss of academics : Rs. 1,00,000/-
8. Loss of future income : Rs. 6,48,000/-
9. Loss of income during
Laid up period : Rs. 1,50,000/-
41 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
10. Future medical treatment : Rs. 2,00,000/-
Total Rs.34,85,620/-
27. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
42 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7457/2008 is in the affirmative.
28. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7458/2008:
PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, she was
aged about 30 years, working as a Tailor, earning an amount
of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to accident she has sustained
the injuries, underwent the treatment at R.L.Jalappa hospital
thereby she has spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the
medical expenses. Injuries fracture of right tibia in a RTA are
caused permanent disability. Due to said disability she cannot
43 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
stand, sit, walk, work and earn an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Lorry, Respondent
No.2 is the insurer of Lorry, Respondent No.3 is the owner of
the car, Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the car all of them
are liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
In support of her oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.P.29 & P.30.
29. PW.3 stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
Petitioner has sustained injuries in a RTA. She was admitted to
their hospital on 06.02.2008. On examination she has
sustained injuries to right leg and compound fracture of both
bone of right leg at lower middle 1/3rd and discharged on
08.02.2008 and also examined in a follow-up treatment. On
19.11.2009 again the Petitioner was examined for the
assessment of disability. There is a deformity at 1/3rd of tibia,
ankle movements terminally painful, pain in right leg and on
standing and claiming stairs and while working with her sewing
machine and opined 10% of whole body disability.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3
documents under Exs.P.38 to P.40.
44 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
30. Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
31. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
45 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
32. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 & 3 and
Exs.P.29 & P.30, P.38 to P.40 reveals that, the Petitioner
sustained injuries to right leg and compound fracture of both
bone of right leg at lower middle 1/3rd and discharged on
08.02.2008 and also examined in a follow-up treatment. On
19.11.2009 again the Petitioner was examined for the
assessment of disability. There is a deformity at 1/3rd of tibia,
ankle movements terminally painful, pain in right leg and on
standing and claiming stairs and while working with her sewing
machine. The evidence of RWs.1 & 2 is not sufficient to deny
the compensation. The charge sheet is against the driver of the
Lorry. Exs.P.4 & P.5 the driver of the car was also caused for
accident. PWs.1 & 2 nothing has been elicited in their cross-
examination. PW.3 opined 20% disability to the particular limbs
and 10% to the whole body. The opinion of the PW.1 is not
46 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
acceptable one as because when the limbs disability comes 20%
it shall be divided by 3 then the whole body disability will be
occurred. As such 20/3=6.6% it shall be rounded of to 7% . As
on the date of the accident She is aged about 30 years, working
as a Tailor, earning an amount of Rs.5,000/-. The evidence of
PWs.1 & 3 due to accident she has sustained the injury,
underwent treatment. She got pain and suffering, so the
tribunal is awarded Rs.40,000/- under the heads of pain and
suffering. As per the Sarala Verma's case the age of the
Petitioner is 30 years the multiplier would be 17. As such
Rs.5,000/-x12x17x7%= Rs.71,400/- it is awarded under the
heads of loss of future earning. Another 20% of loss of future
earning i.e., Rs.71,400/-x20%=Rs.14,280/- is awarded
towards loss of amenities and happiness. Ex.P.30 reveals that,
the Petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.4,164/- towards
medical treatment it has to be awarded under the heads of
medical expenses. The wounds required 3 months for healing.
Considering the wounds and treatment and the evidence of
PWs.1 & 3 the tribunal is awarded Rs.5,000/-x3 = Rs.15,000/-
47 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
towards the loss of income during laid up period. So the
Petitioner is entitled total compensation as under:
1. Pain and suffering : Rs.40,000/-
2. Loss of future income : Rs.71,400/-
3. Loss of amenities and
Happiness : Rs.14,280/-
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 4,164/-
5. Loss of income during
Laid up period : Rs.15,000/-
Total : Rs.1,44,844/-
33. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
48 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7458/2008 is in the affirmative.
49 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
34. Issue No.2 in MVC 7459/2008:
PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, Petitioner
Nos.1 & 2 are the sons and the Petitioner No.3 is the daughter-
in-law of the deceased, no other LRs. left by the deceased other
than these persons. They are all depending upon the income of
the deceased. Due to accident they lost love and affections and
also caused untold misery. The Respondents are the RC holders
and Insurers, policy was in existence as on the date of the
accident and prayed for compensation.
Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and Respondent
No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the
Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in existence as on
the date of the accident. They are liable to pay compensation
and prayed for compensation.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 12
documents under Exs.P.1 to P.12 and closed their side.
35. Whereas, the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
50 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
36. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
51 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
37. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of
PW.1 and RWs.1 & 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 reveals that, the charge
sheet is against the driver of the lorry. Exs.P.4 & P.5 reveals
that, the driver of the car was also route cause for accident. The
policy was existence as on the date of accident. The Ex.P.4
reveals that, there was contributory negligence on the part of
the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry. Though
the charge sheet is against the driver of the car, the Ex.P.4
sketch & Ex.P.5 IMV report shows that, the driver of the Lorry
was parked on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that
time, the driver of the Lorry was not put indicator. Whereas the
driver of the car was not observed the front vision and not
applied the break to stop the car, without observing the parked
lorry, without applied the break and dashed against the Lorry
therefore the accident was caused. The scene of offence under
Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the Lorry was parked on
the side of mud road, at that time the driver of the Car dashed
52 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
against the Lorry on its hind portion. The accident reports
disclosed that, the front shape of the engine chamber of the car
on the front right hind side completely pressed inward from the
bottom bumper to the top of the car. But the Lorry guard
damaged on its hind portion. At the time of accident the Lorry
was fully loaded, there is no chance of high speed. At the time
of accident the driver of the lorry was took reverse. It was clear
cut evidence shows that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry.
Both are liable for accident. It is thus, one Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy and Rathnamma were succumbed due to
fatal injury and all other Petitioners were sustained injuries in
an accident.
38. As on the date of the accident deceased
D.S.Lakshmana Reddy was aged about 65 years, retired
employee, pension holder earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-
per month. Exs.P.11 & P.12 reveals that, the Petitioners are
the LRs. of the deceased. Ex.P.10 reveals that, as on the date of
the accident the deceased was getting pension of Rs.6,744/-
per month. As on the date of the accident deceased was aged
53 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
about 65 years. As per the Sarala Verma's case the age of the
deceased was 65 years, the applicable multiplier would be 5.
Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the sons, Petitioner No.3 is the
daughter-in-law of the deceased. No other LRs. left by the
deceased other than these Petitioners. 1/3rd of income of the
deceased has to be deducted for his personal expenses and
2/3rd income of the deceased has to be contributed to his
family. As such Rs.6,744/-x12x5x2/3=Rs.2,69,760/- is
awarded towards loss of dependency. Due to death of the
deceased the LRs. lost love and affection so Rs.50,000/- is
awarded towards loss of love and affections. Another
Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.
Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transportation of dead body.
Due to the death of the deceased there was a loss of estate. So
that Rs.5,000/- is awarded under the heads of loss of estate.
So the Petitioners are entitled compensation under various
heads are as under:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.2,69,760/-
2. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 50,000/-
3. Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
54 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
4. Transportation of dead body : Rs. 10,000/-
5. Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/-
Total : Rs.3,59,760/-
39. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
55 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7459/2008 is in the affirmative.
40. Issue No.2 in MVC 7460/2008:
PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, Petitioner
Nos.1 & 2 are the sons and the Petitioner No.3 is the daughter-
in-law of the deceased, no other LRs. left by the deceased other
than these persons. They are all depending upon the income of
the deceased. Due to accident they lost love and affections and
also caused untold misery. The Respondents are the RC holders
56 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
and Insurers, policy was in existence as on the date of the
accident and prayed for compensation.
Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2 is the
insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and Respondent
No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the
Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in existence as on
the date of the accident. They are liable to pay compensation
and prayed for compensation.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 6
documents under Exs.P.13 to P.18 and closed their side.
41. Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
57 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
42. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
43. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of
PW.1 and RWs.1 & 2 and Exs.P.1 to P.9 reveals that, the charge
sheet is against the driver of the lorry. Exs.P.4 & P.5 reveals
that, the driver of the car was also route cause for accident. The
policy was existence as on the date of accident. The Ex.P.4
58 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
reveals that, there was contributory negligence on the part of
the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry. Though
the charge sheet is against the driver of the car, the Ex.P.4
sketch & Ex.P.5 IMV report shows that, the driver of the Lorry
was parked on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that
time, the driver of the Lorry was not put indicator. Whereas the
driver of the car was not observed the front vision and not
applied the break to stop the car, without observing the parked
lorry, without applied the break and dashed against the Lorry
therefore the accident was caused. The scene of offence under
Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the Lorry was parked on
the side of mud road, at that time the driver of the Car dashed
against the Lorry on its hind portion. The accident reports
disclosed that, the front shape of the engine chamber of the car
on the front right hind side completely pressed inward from the
bottom bumper to the top of the car. But the Lorry guard
damaged on its hind portion. At the time of accident the Lorry
was fully loaded, there is no chance of high speed. At the time
of accident the driver of the lorry was took reverse. It was clear
59 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
cut evidence shows that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the driver of the car as well as the driver of the lorry.
Both are liable for accident. It is thus, one Srinath,
B.S.Lakshman Reddy and Rathnamma were succumbed due to
fatal injury and all other Petitioners were sustained injuries in
an accident.
44. As on the date of the accident deceased Rathnamma
was aged about 55 years, House wife earning an amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month. Exs.P.18 reveals that, the Petitioners
are the LRs. of the deceased. Exs.P.13 to P.16 are the medical
bills and death certificate of the deceased. As on the date of the
accident deceased was aged about 55 years. As per the Sarala
Verma's case the age of the deceased was 55 years, the
applicable multiplier would be 11. Petitioner Nos.1 & 2 are the
sons, Petitioner No.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. No
other LRs. left by the deceased other than these Petitioners.
1/3rd of income of the deceased has to be deducted for his
personal expenses and 2/3rd income of the deceased has to be
contributed to his family. As such Rs.3,000/-
x12x11x2/3=Rs.2,64,000/- is awarded towards loss of
60 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
dependency. Due to death of the deceased the LRs. lost love
and affection so Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards loss of love
and affections. Another Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards
funeral expenses. Exs.P.13 & P.14 reveals that, during life time
of the deceased the LRs. of the deceased spent an amount of
Rs.9,520/- it is awarded under the heads of medical expenses
during life time of the deceased. Another Rs.10,000/- is
awarded towards transportation of dead body. Due to the death
of the deceased there was a loss of estate. So that Rs.5,000/- is
awarded under the heads of loss of estate. So the Petitioners
are entitled compensation under various heads are as under:
1. Loss of dependency : Rs.2,64,000/-
2. Loss of love and affection : Rs. 50,000/-
3. Funeral expenses : Rs. 25,000/-
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 9,520/-
5. Transportation of dead body : Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss of estate : Rs. 5,000/-
Total : Rs.3,63,520/-
45. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
61 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
62 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7460/2008 is in the affirmative.
46. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7461/2008:
PW.2 stated in her examination-in-chief that, she was
aged about 33 years, house wife, earning an amount of
Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to accident she has sustained the
injuries, underwent the treatment at R.L.Jalappa hospital
thereby she has spent an amount of Rs.85,000/- towards the
medical expenses. Injuries fracture of right tibia in a RTA are
caused permanent disability. Due to said disability she cannot
stand, sit, walk, work and earn an amount of Rs.3,000/- per
month. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Lorry, Respondent
No.2 is the insurer of Lorry, Respondent No.3 is the owner of
63 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
the car, Respondent No.4 is the insurer of the car all of them
are liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
In support of her oral evidence they have filed 4
documents under Exs.P.19 & P.22.
47. PW.3 stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
Petitioner has sustained injuries in a RTA. She was admitted to
their hospital on 07.02.2008. On examination she has
sustained fractures of involving maxilla, ethmoid and
comminuted fracture of the mandible with loss of 8 teeth of
lower jaw under gone the surgery. Again examined on
13.10.2009 for the assessment of disability. She complaint of
inability to smell, chew hard food, numbness over bilateral
cheek and chin and opined 8.5% of disability to the whole body.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3
documents under Exs.P.32 to P.34.
48. Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
64 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
49. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
65 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
50. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 & 3 and
Exs.P.19 to P.22, Exs.P.32 to P.34 reveals that, the Petitioner
sustained injuries fractures of involving maxilla, ethmoid and
comminuted fracture of the mandible with loss of 8 teeth of
lower jaw under gone the surgery. The evidence of RWs.1 & 2 is
not sufficient to deny the compensation. The charge sheet is
against the driver of the Lorry. Exs.P.4 & P.5 the driver of the
car was also caused for accident. PWs.2 & 3 nothing has been
elicited in their cross-examination. PW.3 opined 8.5% disability
to the whole body. As on the date of the accident She is aged
about 33 years, house wife, earning an amount of Rs.3,000/-.
The evidence of PWs.2 & 3 due to accident she has sustained
the injury, underwent treatment. She got pain and suffering, so
the tribunal is awarded Rs.40,000/- under the heads of pain
and suffering. As per the Sarala Verma's case the age of the
Petitioner is 33 years the multiplier would be 16. As such
Rs.3,000/-x12x16x8.5%= Rs.48,960/- it is awarded under the
heads of loss of future earning. Another 20% of loss of future
earning i.e., Rs.48,960/-x20%=Rs.9,792/- is awarded towards
loss of amenities and happiness. Ex.P.20 reveals that, the
66 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.7,460/- towards medical
treatment it has to be awarded under the heads of medical
expenses. The wounds required 3 months for healing.
Considering the wounds and treatment and the evidence of
PWs.2 & 3 the tribunal is awarded Rs.3,000/-x3 = Rs.9,000/-
towards the loss of income during laid up period. So the
Petitioner is entitled total compensation as under:
1. Pain & suffering : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Loss of future earnings : Rs. 48,960/-
3. Loss of amenities and
Happiness : Rs. 9,792/-
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 7,460/-
5. Loss of income during
Laid up Period : Rs. 9,000/-
Total : Rs.1,15,212/-
51. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
67 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
68 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7461/2008 is in the affirmative.
52. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7462/2008:
PW.2 who is the guardian of the Petitioner, she stated in
her examination-in-chief that, Petitioner was aged about 10
years, student. Due to accident she has sustained the injuries,
underwent the treatment at R.L.Jalappa hospital thereby she
has spent an amount of Rs.20,256/- towards the medical
expenses. Tenderness, there was a fracture of shaft femur at
left side. Injuries are grievous in nature. Due to said disability
she cannot stand, sit, walk, work and study. Respondent No.1
is the owner of the Lorry, Respondent No.2 is the insurer of
Lorry, Respondent No.3 is the owner of the car, Respondent
No.4 is the insurer of the car all of them are liable to pay
compensation and prayed for compensation.
In support of her oral evidence they have filed 3
documents under Exs.P.23 to P.25.
69 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
53 PW.4 stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
Petitioner has sustained injuries in a RTA. She was admitted to
their hospital on 14.02.2008. On examination she has
sustained injury of left thigh, and fracture of shaft of femur
grade -II under go the surgery and discharged on 18.02.2008.
Again examined on 19.11.2009 for the assessment of disability.
There was a scar over the left thigh, hip/knee and there is no
disability.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3
documents under Exs.P.38 to P.40.
54. Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
70 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
55. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
56. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 & 4 and
Exs.P.38 to P.40 & Exs.P.23 to P.25 reveals that, the Petitioner
sustained injury of left thigh, and fracture of shaft of femur
grade -II under go the surgery and discharged on 18.02.2008.
Again examined on 19.11.2009 for the assessment of disability.
71 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
There was a scar over the left thigh, hip/knee and there is no
disability. The evidence of RWs.1 & 2 is not sufficient to deny
the compensation. The charge sheet is against the driver of the
Lorry. Exs.P.4 & P.5 the driver of the car was also caused for
accident. PWs.2 & 4 nothing has been elicited in their cross-
examination. As on the date of the accident She is aged about
10 years, student. The evidence of PWs.2 & 4 due to accident
she has sustained the injury, underwent treatment. She got
pain and suffering, so the tribunal is awarded Rs.50,000/-
under the heads of pain and suffering. As per the Sarala
Verma's case the age of the Petitioner is aged about 10 years.
PW.4 opined no physical or functional disability. Hence, the
Petitioner is not entitled compensation under the heads of loss
of future income. Wounds required 3 months for healing.
During that period some one look over the care of the
Petitioner. As such Rs.3,000/-x3=Rs.9,000/- it is awarded
under the heads of attendant charges. Another Rs.50,000/- is
awarded under the heads of loss of happiness, academic
studies and loss of beauty. Ex.P.25 reveals that, the Petitioner
has spent an amount of Rs.20,256/- towards medical
72 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
treatment it has to be awarded under the heads of medical
expenses. Another Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards the food and
nourishment. So the Petitioner is entitled total compensation as
under:
1. Pain & suffering : Rs. 50,000/-
2. Attendant charges : Rs. 9,000/-
3. Loss of amenities and
Happiness, academics &
Beauty : Rs. 50,000/-
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 20,256/-
5. Food & nourishments : Rs. 5,000/-
Total : Rs.1,34,256/-
57. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
73 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
74 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7462/2008 is in the affirmative.
58. Issue No.2 in MVC No.7463/2008:
PW.2 who is the guardian of the Petitioner, she stated in
her examination-in-chief that, Petitioner was aged about 9
years, student. Due to accident he has sustained the injuries,
underwent the treatment at R.L.Jalappa hospital thereby she
has spent an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards the medical
expenses. Bilateral basifrontal contusion (RL) ACF basic frontal
bone fracture. Right parasymphasis fracture. Injuries are
grievous in nature. Due to said disability he cannot stand, sit,
walk, work and study. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the
Lorry, Respondent No.2 is the insurer of Lorry, Respondent
No.3 is the owner of the car, Respondent No.4 is the insurer of
the car all of them are liable to pay compensation and prayed
for compensation.
In support of her oral evidence they have filed 6
documents under Exs.P.26 to P.31.
75 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
59. PW.3 stated in his examination-in-chief that, the
Petitioner has sustained injuries in a RTA. He was admitted to
their hospital and took treatment.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 3
documents under Exs.P.35 to P.37.
60. Whereas the Respondent No.2 examined as a RW.1.
RW.1 stated in his examination-in-chief that, The RW.1 stated
that, the application filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable
in the eye of law. Neither police nor the RC holder informs the
accident. It is false that, the driver of the Lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-D-3249 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life and caused the accident
and disputed the age, income, avocation, medical bills and
admitted the policy and prayed for rejection of the application
with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.1 & R.2 and closed their side.
61. Whereas, the Respondent No.4 its official examined
as RW.2. The RW.2 stated that, the application filed by the
Petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. Neither police
76 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
nor the RC holder informs the accident. It is false that, the
driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA-07-M-1972 drove the
vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income,
avocation, medical bills and admitted the policy. The driver of
the Lorry took the lorry without giving indicator and caused the
accident. The driver of the lorry was caused the accident and
prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence they have filed 2
documents under Exs.R.3 & R.4 and closed their side.
62. On perusal of the evidence of PWs.2 & 3 and
Exs.P.26 to P.31 & Exs.P.35 to P.37 reveals that, the Petitioner
sustained injury Bilateral basifrontal contusion (Respondent>L)
ACF basic frontal bone fracture. Right parasymphasis fracture.
The evidence of RWs.1 & 2 is not sufficient to deny the
compensation. The charge sheet is against the driver of the
Lorry. Exs.P.4 & P.5 the driver of the car was also caused for
accident. PWs.2 & 3 nothing has been elicited in their cross-
examination. As on the date of the accident he is aged about 9
years, student. The evidence of PWs.2 & 3 due to accident he
77 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
has sustained the injury, underwent treatment. He got pain
and suffering, so the tribunal is awarded Rs.40,000/- under
the heads of pain and suffering. As per the Sarala Verma's case
the age of the Petitioner is aged about 9 years. PW.3 opined no
physical or functional disability. Hence, the Petitioner is not
entitled compensation under the heads of loss of future income.
Wounds required 3 months for healing. During that period
some one look over the care of the Petitioner. As such
Rs.3,000/-x3=Rs.9,000/- it is awarded under the heads of
attendant charges. Another Rs.50,000/- is awarded under the
heads of loss of happiness, academic studies and loss of sports
activities. Ex.P.29 reveals that, the Petitioner has spent an
amount of Rs.41,799/- towards medical treatment it has to be
awarded under the heads of medical expenses. Another
Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards the food and nourishment. So
the Petitioner is entitled total compensation as under:
1. Pain & suffering : Rs. 40,000/-
2. Attendant charges : Rs. 9,000/-
3. Loss of amenities and
Happiness : Rs. 50,000/-
78 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
4. Medical expenses : Rs. 41,799/-
5. Food and nourishments : Rs. 5,000/-
Total : Rs.1,45,799/-
63. Respondent No.1 is the RC holder, Respondent No.2
is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-05-D-3249 and
Respondent No.3 is the RC holder, Respondent No.4 is the
insurer of the Car bearing No.KA-07-M-1972. Policies were in
existence as on the date of the accident. Charge sheet is against
the driver of the lorry bearing reg.No.KA-05-D-3249. Exs.P.4 &
P.5 reveals that, reveals that, the driver of the Lorry was parked
on the road without indicator and drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner and took the reverse, at that time also
the driver of the Lorry was put indicator as well as the driver of
the car was not applied the break to stop the car, without
observing the parked lorry, without applied the break and
dashed against the Lorry therefore the accident caused. The
scene of offence under Ex.P.4 and police paper reveals that, the
Lorry was parked on the side of mud road, at that time the
driver of the Car dashed against the Lorry on its hind portion.
The accident reports disclosed that the front shape of the
79 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
engine chamber of the car on the front right hand side
completely pressed inward from the bottom bumper to the top
of the car. But the Lorry guard damaged on its hind portion.
There was clear cut evidence shows that there was contributory
negligence on the part of the driver of the car as well as the
driver of the lorry. It is thus, one Srinath, B.S.Lakshman Reddy
and Rathnamma were succumbed due to fatal injury and all
other Petitioners were sustained injuries in an accident.
Therefore Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are liable to pay compensation
with interest and prayed for compensation. The ration card
Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioners are the LRs. of the
deceased. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in MVC
No.7463/2008 is in the affirmative.
64. Issue No.3:
In view of answering issue No.1 and 2 in all the cases, as
above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition in MVC.7456/08 is allowed. The Petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.11,65,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., 80 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioners within 60 days from the date of award. On deposit Rs.5,00,000/- shall be deposit in the name of the Petitioner No.1 in any N/S bank for a period of 5 years and remaining amount equally distribute among the Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules. The petition in MVC.7457/08 is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.34,85,620/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
81 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioner within 60 days from the date of award.
On deposit Rs.10,00,000/- shall be deposit in the name of the Petitioner in any N/S bank for a period of 5 years, wherein the mother as a nominee, who is a natural guardian and care taker of the Petitioner and remaining amount shall be paid to the mother of the Petitioner after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules.
The petition in MVC.7458/08 is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.1,44,844/- with interest at the rate of 8%p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioner and 82 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioner within 60 days from the date of award.
On deposit entire amount shall be released to the Petitioner after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules.
The petition in MVC.7459/08 is allowed. The Petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.3,59,760/- with interest at the rate of 8%p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioners within 60 days from the date of award. On deposit, release entire compensation amount equally among all the Petitioners after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules.
83 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 The petition in MVC.7460/08 is allowed. The Petitioners are entitled compensation of Rs.3,63,520/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a.,from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners. The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioners and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioners within 60 days from the date of award. On deposit, release entire compensation amount equally among all the Petitioners after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules. The petition in MVC.7461/08 is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.1,15,212/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
84 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioner within 60 days from the date of award.
On deposit entire amount shall be released to the Petitioner after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules.
The petition in MVC.7462/08 is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.1,34,256/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioner within 60 days from the date of award.
85 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 On deposit entire amount shall be released to the Petitioner after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules.
The petition in MVC.7463/08 is allowed. The Petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.1,45,799/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. The Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the lorry order to pay 50% of compensation to the Petitioner and Respondent No.3 is the insurer of the Car order to pay remaining 50% compensation to the Petitioner within 60 days from the date of award.
On deposit entire amount shall be released to the Petitioner after obtaining receipt/vouchers as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/- in each case. Draw separate award accordingly.
86 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 (Original judgment is kept in MVC.7456/2008. The copy of this judgment shall be kept in MVC.7457/2008 to 7463/2008.) (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of January 2016) (DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXI Addl.C.M.M. XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE (MVC Nos.7456/2008 to 7458/2008) List of Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner/s:
PW.1 : Smt.Mahadevi K.N PW.2 : Dr.Sharan Srinivasan PW.3 : Dr.Devaraj PW.4 : Dr.Santhosh N.U
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of the FIR
Ex.P.2 : Copy of the complaint
Ex.P.3 : Copy of the spot mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Copy of the spot sketch
Ex.P.5 : Copy of the IMV report
Ex.P.6 : Inquest report
Ex.P.7 : Charge sheet
87 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Ex.P.8 : Post Mortem report
Ex.P.9 : Death certificate
Ex.P.10 : Copy of the Ration card
Ex.P.11 : Election I.D.
Ex.P.12 : Professional tax certificate
Ex.P.13 : PAN card
Ex.P.14 : Copy of the I.T. returns
Ex.P.15 : Acknowledgement
Ex.P.16 : Copy of the Wound certificate (Neha Reddy)
Ex.P.17 : Medical bills (188 in Nos.)
Ex.P.18 : Prescription (319 in Nos.)
Exs.P.19 to
P.24 : Discharge summary (6 in Nos.)
Ex.P.25 : Photos (7 in Nos.)
Ex.P.26 : Photos (8 in Nos.)
Ex.P.26(a) : Negatives
Ex.P.27 : Paper cuttings
Ex.P.28 : Certificates (11 in Nos.)
Ex.P.29 : Copy of the Wound certificate (Mahadevi)
Ex.P.30 : Medical bills (17 in Nos.)
Ex.P.31 to
P.34 : Inpatient records and case sheet (Neha)
Ex.P.35 : Emergency treatment Record
Ex.P.36 : X-ray (15 in Nos.)
Ex.P.37 : CT scan (10 in Nos.)
Ex.P.38 : Inpatient records and case sheet (Mahadevi)
Ex.P.39 : X-ray
88 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
Ex.P.40 : Disability certificate
Ex.P.41 : Copy of the Electric contract License(Srinath)
Ex.P.42 : D.L
Ex.P.43 : Profit & Loss account (two years)
Ex.P.44 : Medical bills (40 in Nos.)
Ex.P.45 : Prescriptions (17 in Nos.)
Ex.P.46 : Discharge summary (7 in Nos.)
Ex.P.47 : In-patient record
Ex.P.48 : Our patient record
List of Witnesses examined on behalf of respondent/s:
RW.1 : H.B.Guruprasad RW.2 : S.Rajashekar S
List of documents exhibited on behalf of Respondent:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of the policy
Ex.R.2 : Copy of notice
Ex.R.3 : Letter issued to RC owner Nisar Ahmed
Ex.R.4 : Authorization letter
ANNEXURE
(MVC Nos.7459/2008 to 7463/2008) List of Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner/s:
PW.1 : D.L.Srinivas
PW.2 : Sunitha
PW.3 : Dr.Prashanth N.T
PW.4 : Dr.Devaraj
89 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008
SCCH-25
List of Documents exhibited on behalf of the Petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of the FIR Ex.P.2 : Copy of the complaint Ex.P.3 : Copy of the spot mahazar Ex.P.4 : Copy of the spot sketch Ex.P.5 : IMV report Ex.P.6 : Post mortem report (Lakshmana Reddy) Ex.P.7 : Inquest report Ex.P.8 : Copy of the Charge sheet Ex.P.9 : Death Certificate (Lakshmana Reddy) Ex.P.10 : Salary Certificate Ex.P.11 : Copy of the Ration card Ex.P.12 : Election I.D.
Exs.P.13 & P.14: Medical bills Ex.P.15 : Prescriptions Ex.P.16 : Post mortem report (Rathnamma) Ex.P.17 : Inquest report Ex.P.18 : Voter ID (Rathnamma) Ex.P.19 : Wound certificate (Sunitha) Ex.P.20 : Bills (31 in Nos.) Ex.P.21 : Prescriptions (37 in Nos.) Ex.P.22 : Photos (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.23 : Wound certificate (Charulatha) Ex.P.24 : Discharge summary Ex.P.25 : Bills (20 in Nos.) Ex.P.26 : Wound certificate (Vinay) 90 MVC 7456/2008 to 7458/2008 SCCH-25 Exs.P.27 & P.28 : Discharge summary Ex.P.29 : Bills (29 in Nos.) Ex.P.30 : Prescriptions (30 in Nos.) Ex.P.31 : Photos (4 in Nos.) Ex.P.32 : Case sheet (Sunitha) Ex.P.33 : 5 X-rays, 2 CT scan Ex.P.34 : Recent X-ray Ex.P.35 : Case sheet (Vinay) Ex.P.36 : 5 X-ray, 2 CT scan Ex.P.37 : Recent X-ray Ex.P.38 : Case sheet (Charulatha) Ex.P.39 : Disability Certificate Ex.P.40 : X-ray List of Witnesses examined on behalf of respondent/s:
RW.1 : H.B.Guruprasad RW.2 : S.Rajashekar S.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of Respondent:
Ex.R.1 : Copy of the policy
Ex.R.2 : Copy of notice
Ex.R.3 : Letter issued to RC owner Nisar Ahmed
Ex.R.4 : Authorization letter
(DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY)
XXI Addl.C.M.M. XXIII ASCJ,
Bangalore.