Bangalore District Court
In Mvc.No.2883/2014 vs In All The Petitions on 19 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.(SCCH-18)
Dated this 19th day of September 2016.
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.Nos.2883, 2884, 2885 & 3347/2014
PETITIONER IN MVC.No.2883/2014:
Smt.Shylaja
W/o.Keshava Chandran,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.14, 'B' Cross, 3rd
Main, G.G.Palya,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bangalore-22.
PETITIONER IN MVCNo.2884/2014:
Master.Gaurav Keshava,
S/o.Keshava Chandra,
Aged about 12 years,
R/at No.14, 'B' Cross, 3rd
Main, G.G.Palya,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bangalore-22.
PETITIONER IN MVCNo.2285/2014 :
Master.Vineeth Keshava,
S/o.Keshava Chandra,
Aged about 7 years,
2 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
R/at No.14, 'B' Cross, 3rd
Main, G.G.Palya,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bangalore-22.
PETITIONER IN MVCNo.3347/2014 :
Smt.Saraswathamma,
W/o. Chandra,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No.14, 'B' Cross, 3rd
Main, Near Reliance Petrol Bunk,
Goraguntepalya,
Bangaloe North,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bangalore-22.
(By Pleader Sri.MS)
/Vs/
RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE PETITIONS:
1. The Regional Manager,
The National Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
Regional Office, No.144,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-01.
(By pleader Sri.BTM)
2. Mr.T.Chinnayanadaiah,
S/o.Pitchaiah,
D/No.40-1-1/A-24A, Mughalaraja
Puram, Vijayawada, Krishna
District,
Andhara Pradesh-520.
(By pleader Sri.MNK)
3 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these respective claim petitions
in MVC.No.2883/2014, MVC.No.2884/2014, MVC.No.2885/2014
and MVC.3347/2014 against the respondents U/S.166 of
M.V.Act for seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-,
Rs.10,00,000/-. Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/-respectively,
for the injuries sustained by them in a motor vehicle accident.
2. All these petitions are arising out of the same accident,
hence, both the petitions are clubbed and taken together and
common evidence is adduced.
3. The brief facts of the petitions are as under:
On 14-06-2014, at about 3.00 p.m. the petitioners were
traveling in a car bearing registration No.KA-03-MC-1499 and
the same was driving by the husband of the petitioner in
MVC.2883/2014 and when the said car reached near
Surappagaripalle Village, on Kadapa-Madanapalli Main Road,
Cherlopalle Village, Gurramkonda Mandala, Andhra Pradesh, at
4 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
that time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration
No.AP-16-TB-3669 drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the car. Due to the said impact, the
inmates of the car i.e. petitioners were sustained simple as well
as grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot
have shifted the injured petitioners to Government hospital,
Madanapalli, wherein they have taken first aid and thereafter,
they were shifted to hosmat hospital, Bangalore, wherein all the
injured persons have taken treatment as an inpatient and
underwent surgery. After discharge from the hospital and as
per the advice of the doctor, all the petitioners have taken
follow-up treatment as an outpatient and till today, they are
taking treatment as an outpatients.
4. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.2883/2014 is that, she was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 39 years, working as a Housewife and
earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, she has sustained grevious injures in the
5 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
accident and due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered
disablement and she is not able to carry her domestic activities
as she was doing earlier to the accident and also she has
suffered lot.
5. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.2284/2014 is that, he was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 12 years, studying in 7th Standard.
Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the
accidental injuries, he has suffered lot and he has suffered
disablement and as such, he has lost his bright future
educational career.
6. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.2285/2014 is that, he was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 7 years, studying in 1st Standard.
Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the
accidental injuries, he has suffered lot and he has suffered
disablement and as such, he has lost his bright future
educational career.
6 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
7. The contention of the petitioner in
MVC.No.3347/2014 is that, she was hale and healthy at the time
of accident, aged about 71 years, working as a Housewife and
earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. Further the contention of the petitioner
is that, she has sustained grevious injuries in the accident and
due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered permanent
disablement and she is not able to carry her domestic activities
as she was doing earlier to the accident and suffered lot.
8. The contention of all the petitioners is that, they
have spent huge amount towards medical expenses and other
incidental charges. The contention of the petitioners is that,
the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the offending lorry and
the respondent No.2 is the owner of the said vehicle and the
policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further the
accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending lorry and as such, both the respondents
are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners. Contending the above facts, the petitioners have
7 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
filed these petitions seeking for compensation as stated above
with interest and cost.
9. In response to the petition notice, the respondent
No.1 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed
the objection statement. On the other hand, the respondent
No.2 has not appeared before the court. Accordingly, he was
placed exparte.
10. The brief contents of objection statement of
respondent No.1 in all the cases are as under:
The contention of the respondent No.1 is that, the
petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable either in
law or on facts. Further the respondent No.1 has admitted the
issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and the same was
valid from 25-08-2013 to 24-08-2014 and the liability if any is
subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy.
Further the respondent No.1 contended that, the petitions filed
by the petitioners are bad for non-joinder of necessary parties
as the owner and the insurer of the car was not arrayed as a
respondents in the petitions. Further the respondent No.1 has
8 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
denied the part allegation of the petitions in toto. Further he
contended that, the driver of the alleged lorry was not having
valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the
date of accident. Further he contended that, the owner of the
vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the
mandatory provision of Sec.134 (c) and 158 (6) of M.V.Act.
Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age and status of
the petitioners in MVC.2884/2014 and MVC.2885/2014 and also
injuries sustained by them and medical expenses incurred by
them and disablement suffered by them. Further the
respondent No.1 has denied the age, occupation and income of
the petitioners in MVC.2883/2014 and 3347/2014 and also
injuries sustained by them and medical expenses incurred by
them and disablement suffered by them. Contending the above
facts, the respondent No.1 prays to dismiss all the petitions as
against him with cost.
11. On the basis of above pleadings, the following common
issues were framed in all the cases:
9 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he/she had
sustained grevious injuries in an accident that was
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the LORRY bearing Reg. No. AP-16-TB-
3669 on 14-6-2014 at about 3.00.p.m., near
Surappagaripalle Village, on Kadapa - Madanapalli
Main Road, Cherolpalle Village, Gurramkonda
Mandala, Andhra Pradesh?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as prayed? If so, at what rate
and from whom?
3. What order or award?
12. In order to prove their case, the petitioner in
MVC.2883/2014 has examined herself as Pw-1 and got marked
the documents as Ex.P.1 to 13, Ex.P.32 to 35 and Ex.P.43 to 45.
Further on behalf of minor petitioners in MVC.No.2884/2014
and 2885/2014, their natural guardian i.e. father has examined
himself as PW-2 & 3 and got marked the documents as
Ex.P.14 to 21, 36 & 37 respectively. Further to prove the case.
the petitioner in MVC.No.3347/2014 has examined herself as
PW-4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.22 to 31 and
Ex.P.38 to 42.
10 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
Further to prove disablement suffered by the petitioner in
MVC.2883/2014 and 3347/2014, they have examined Dr.Krishan
Prasad as PW-5 & 6 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.46 to
54 respectively. Further to prove the disablement suffered by
the petitioner in MVC.2885/2014, he has examined Dr.Deepu as
PW-9 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.61. Further in
support of their evidence, the petitioners have examined the
Medical officer of St.Terese Hospital as Pw-7 and the
Manager of the Medi Assist as PW-8 and got marked the
documents as Ex.P.55 to 60 respectively.
13. On behalf of respondent No.1 insurance company,
neither oral nor documentary evidence are produced.
14. Heard the arguments of counsel for the petitioners and
respondent No.1. In support of oral arguments, the counsel for
the petitioners has filed the written arguments.
15. My answers to the aforesaid common issues in all the
cases are as follows:
Issue No.1 in all the cases: In the affirmative
11 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
Issue No.2 in all the cases: In the partly
affirmative
Issue No.3 in all the cases: As per final order
for the following:
R E A S O N S
16. Issue No.1 in all the cases:-. This issue is common in
all the cases and as such, this issue is taken for common
consideration.
17. During the course of argument, the learned counsel
for the petitioners filed the written arguments by reiterating
the contents of petition and also evidence put forth by
PW-1 to 9. Further he contended that, the defence of the
respondent No.1 is that, the accident has occurred due to
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the car and
the driver of the alleged lorry. To prove the said fact, the
respondent No.1 has not produced any supportive documents. On
the other hand, to prove the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the alleged lorry, the petitioners have relied upon the
12 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
copy of police investigation papers and on perusal of those
documents, it is clear that, the accident has occurred mainly due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing
registration No.AP-16-TB-3669. Further he contented that, to
prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner in
MVC.No.2883/2014, 2885/2014 and 3347/2014, they have
examined the doctors and as per the version of the doctors, the
petitioner in MVC.2883/2014 has suffered disability to the
extent of 18% to the whole body and the petitioner in
MVC.2885/2014 has suffered disability to the extent of 17% to
the whole body and the petitioner in MVC.3347/2014 has
suffered disability to the extent of 28% to the whole body.
Further he contended that, the petitioners have proved their
case as contended in the petitions by examining proper witnesses
and also by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays
to allow the petitions.
18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent
No.1 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement
13 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
filed by the respondent No.1. Further he argued that, on perusal
of the evidence of Pw-1 to 4 coupled with copy of police
investigation papers produced by the petitioners, it shows that,
the driver of the petitioner's car i.e. Pw-2 has also contributed
equal extent of negligence for occurrence of accident. Further
he argued that, to prove the disablement suffered by the
petitioner in MVC.2883/2014, 2885/2014 and 3347/2014,
though they have examined the doctors as PW-5, 6 & 9, but
their evidence is not acceptable one as the PW-5, 6 and 9 are
not the treated doctors. Further he argued that, the petitioner
in MVC.2883/2014 and 3347/2014 are house wife and as such,
they are not entitle for compensation under the head of loss of
future earnings. Further he argued that, on perusal of the
evidence of Pw-8, it is clear that, all the petitioners have taken
reimbursement facility from Medi Assist in respect of their
medical expenses and as such, they are not entitle for
compensation under the head of medical expenses as claimed in
the petitions. Further he argued that, the petitioners have
14 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
failed to prove their case as contended in the petition by
producing proper documents. On the other hand, the respondent
No.1 has proved its defence by extracting admission from the
petitioners and their witnesses. Contending the above facts, he
prays to dismiss petitions as against the respondent No.1. with
cost.
19. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend
to discuss the case on merits.
On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove their
case, the petitioner in MVC.2883/2014 has examined herself as
Pw-1 and the Guardian of the petitioner in MVC.2884/2014 and
2885/2014 has examined himself as PW-2 & 3 and the petitioner
in MVC.3347/2014 has examined herself as PW-4 and they have
stated in their evidence by reiterating the contents of petition.
Further in support of their evidence, they have produced the
documents and the same are marked as Ex-P-1 to 45,
respectively.
15 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
20. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.1 has
cross-examined the PW-1 to 4 at length. In the cross-
examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at page No.9 & 10 that:
"C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ PÁgï£À°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ¸ÀܼÀzÀ §½ MAzÀÄ ©æqïÓ EzÀÄÞ, D ©qïÓ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä
PÁgï ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉ£ÀÄߪÀµÀÖgÀ°è JzÀÄgÀĤAzÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ ªÉÃUÀªÁV ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÁgïUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä
¯ÁjAiÀÄÄ ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¯ÁjAiÀÄÄ
§gÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, £À£Àß ¥Àw ©æqïÓ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃUÀ
zÁl¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ, PÀÁgï£ÀÄß ªÉÃUÀªÁV ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV
¯ÁjUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀgÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¯Áj §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß
£ÉÆÃr, ¯Áj ©æqïÓ zÁl¯ÉAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÁgï£ÀÄß ¤zsÁ£À
ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è, C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ ¸ÀA¨Às«¸ÀÄwÛgÀ°®èªAÉ zÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £ÀªÀÄä
PÁgï §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ MªÉÄäUÉ ¨ÉæÃPï ºÁQzÀ
PÁgÀt, ¯Áj ¥À°ÖAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁV, ¯Áj £ÀªÀÄä
PÁgïUÉ rQÌ ªÀiÁr, £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÆÃV ¥À°ÖAiÀiÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ
¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛg.É "
On the other hand, the PW-2 has also stated in his
evidence at Page No.7 & 8 that:
16 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
"C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ §½ ©æqïÓ EzÀÄÞ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D
©æqïÓ£À°è £Á£ÀÄ PÁgï£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉ£ÀÄߪÀµÀÖgÀ°è
JzÀÄgÀĤAzÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß, ZÁ®PÀ ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄïÉ
ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£ÀÉ. ©æqïÓ£À
ªÉÄÃ¯É MªÉÄäUÉ 2 ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À EgÀÄvÀÛz.É
C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁU,À £Á£ÀÄ PÀÁgï£ÀÄß ©æqïÓ£À
ªÉÄÃ¯É E£ÀÆß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀ°®è. ¯Áj ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ ©æqïÓ£À
ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzÀÄ ¥ÀÇtð ©æqïÓ£ÀÄß zÁn §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÁgïUÉ
C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£.É ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¯Áj §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÞ, C
ªÉüÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄïÉ
ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÄÁAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV, C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪɣÉAzÀgÉ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
Further the Pw-4 has also stated in her cross-examination
at Page No.8 that:
"C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¯ÁjAiÀÄÄ
§gÀÄwÛzÀÄÞ, CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÄÁÃr PÀÁgï ZÁ®PÀ£ÀÄ ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©æqïÓUÉ
ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà ¤°è¹PÉÆArzÀ°
Ý è C¥ÀWÁvÀ vÀ¦à¸À§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¯ÁjAiÀÄÄ ©æqïÓ ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÀgÀÆ
PÀÆqÀ, PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÀÄ ©æqïÓ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt, CªÀgÀ vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ DVgÀĪÀÅzÉAzÀgÉ
¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁUÀ®Ä PÁgï ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÀzÀÄÝ
JµÀÄÖ vÀ¥ÀÅà EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À vÀ¦à¤AzÀ
17 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
DVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀt, vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀ ¥ÉÅÁð¸ÀgÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ
¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÁ±ÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß GzÉÝñÀ ¥ÀǪÀðPÀªÁV
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁQ®èªAÉ zÀgÀÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it appears that, the
defence of the respondent No.1 is that, the accident has not
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
alleged lorry, on the other hand, the accident has occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the petitioner's car
i.e. PW-2.
21. To prove the said defence, the respondent No.1 has
not produced any supportive documents and also he has not
examined any witnesses who have seen the accident and not
produced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the version of
the petitioners. On the other hand, on perusal of the evidence
of PW-1 to 4, it reveals that, though, the counsel for the
respondent No.1 has cross-examined the PW-1 to 4 at length,
but nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve their
version regarding the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
18 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
the offending lorry bearing registration No. AP-16-TB-3669.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, as per the
version of the respondent No.1, , if at all the alleged accident
has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of
the alleged lorry, then it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to
examine the driver of the lorry or any other independent
witnesses cited in the charge sheet. But the respondent No.1
did not do so.
Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am
of the opinion that, the oral contention of the respondent No.1
is not acceptable one.
22. Further to prove the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending lorry and in support of oral evidence, the
petitioners have relied upon the copy of police investigation
papers and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 4. On perusal of
Ex.P.1, 1 (a) and 4 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint, translation
copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that,
Gurramkonda police have registered a case against the driver of
19 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
the lorry bearing registration No.TN-16-TB-3669 and after
completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the
charge sheet against the driver of the said lorry for the
offences punishable U/S.279, 337 & 338 of IPC.
23. Considering the above facts and on perusal of
evidence of Pw-1 to 4 coupled with documents and for the above
reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioners have proved
that, the accident has mainly occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending lorry as alleged in the
petition by producing oral and documentary evidence.
24. Further on perusal of Ex-P-2, 14, 18 and 22 i.e. copy of
wound certificates, it shows that, the petitioners have sustained
simple as well as grievous injuries in the above said accident.
25. On appreciation of evidence of Pw-1 to 4 coupled with
documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that,
the petitioners have proved this issue in all the cases by
producing proper documents. Accordingly, I answer the issue
No.1 in all the cases in the affirmative.
20 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
26. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.No.2883/2014:- The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, aged about 39 years, working as a house
wife and earning Rs.5,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, she has sustained grevious injuries in the
accident and as such, she has suffered permanent disablement
and she is not in a position to work as she was doing earlier to
the accident and as such, she has appointing a maid servant to
help her domestic work.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the
age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also injuries
sustained by her and disablement suffered by her.
27. To prove the age, the petitioner has relied upon the
copy of Aadhaar card and the same is marked as Ex.P.11. On
perusal of Ex.P.11, wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner is
shown as 20-07-1974 and the same is considered as date of
birth of the petitioner, then, it is clear that, as on the date of
accident, the petitioner was aged about 39 years.
21 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
28. Further to prove the disablement suffered by the
petitioner, she has examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as P.W.5, who
has stated in his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and disablement suffered by her. Further he has
stated that, the petitioner has sustained "fracture of shaft
right femur and sustained fracture of shaft right radius
forearm and underwent surgery to both the injuries." Further
he has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the
extent of 18% to the whole body.
29. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.1 has
cross-examined the PW-5 at length. In the cross-examination,
the P.W.5 has clearly admitted at Page No.5 & 6 that:
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ ±ÉÊ®eÁ EªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀÀAvÀzÀ°è
aQvÉì AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀévÉæUÉ zÁR®ÁzÁUÀ
CªÀgÀ PÁ°£À vÉÆqÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉÊ£À ªÀÄƼÉ
ªÀÄÄjvÀPÉÌ ±À¸ÀÛç aQvÉì ªÀiÁr, M¼ÀeÉÆÃqÀuÉ C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
22 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the Pw-5
is not a treated doctor and at present, the fracture of right
femur and fracture of right radius forearm were united.
30. Further as per the version of the petitioner, itself
clear that, she is not an employee, on the other hand, she is a
house wife. Considering the above facts and looking to the
nature of injuries and considering the status of the petitioner,
I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by
the petitioner is considered as 14% to the whole body, certainly
it would meet the ends of justice.
31. Further as stated above that, the petitioner is not an
employee and she is a house wife. Considering the above facts,
I am of the opinion that, though, the petitioner has examined
the doctor for prove the disablement suffered by her, but she is
not entitle for compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings. On the other hand, the extent of disability suffered
by the petitioner has to be considered while granting
compensation under the head of loss of amenities and
23 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
disablement. Considering the above facts and looking to the
extent of disability suffered by the petitioner, I am of the
opinion that, if some amount is awarded under the head of
disablement, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that if an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/-is awarded under the head of
disablement, (as the petitioner is suffered disability to the
extent of 14% to the whole body). Certainly it would meet the
ends of justice.
32. Further on perusal of Ex-P-2 i.e. copy of wound
certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:
1. Fracture of mid shaft of right femur.
2. Fracture of shaft of right radius
Looking to the above nature of injuries and considering the
occupation of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to
grant for compensation of Rs.50,000/- under head of pain and
suffering.
24 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
33. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has
suffered disability to the extent of 14% to the whole body and
she has sustained fracture of right femur and right radius.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries
and considering the extent of disability suffered by her,
I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation of
Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
34. Further on perusal of Ex-P-5 & 43 i.e. discharge
summaries, it shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as
an inpatient for total period of 30 days at Hosmat hospital and
St.Tereas hospital. Looking to the period of hospitalization, I
deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.30,000/- under the head of attendant, nourishment and
conveyance charges.
35. Further due to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, she might have taken rest at least for a period of 4
months and during that period, she may taken assistant for doing
the domestic work. Considering the above facts, I am of the
25 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
opinion that if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the
head of assistant expenses certainly it would meet the ends of
justice.
36. Further on perusal of Ex-P-13 and 13(a) i.e. photos and
CD it appears that, there is some scar mark is found on the right
hand of the petitioner. Considering the above facts and looking
to the extent of scar marks, I am of the opinion that, if some
amount is awarded under the head of disfigurement, certainly it
would meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts,
I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.25,000/- under the head of disfigurement.
37. The Pw-5/doctor has stated that the injured has to
undergo surgery for removal of implants and cost of the said
surgery is Rs.80,000/-. In support of the said contention, the
Pw-5 has not produced any supportive document. Considering the
above facts and in the absence of positive documents regarding
the future medical expenses and looking to the nature of
surgery, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
26 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
compensation of Rs.40,000/- under the head of future
medical expenses.
38. The petitioner has contended that, she has spent huge
amount towards treatment, medicines and other incidental
expenses and out of that, she has alredy taken some amount
under reimbursement from medi assist.
To prove the said fact, the petitioner has relied upon one
receipt and the medical bills and the same were marked as
Ex-P-7, 9, 10, 32, 33, 45 and 58. On the other hand, the
respondent No.1 has disputed the genuineness of the said bills
and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has
cross examined the PW-1 at length.
39. Further to prove the reimbursement facility taken
by the petitioner, she has examined Dr. Arun Kumar, Manager of
Medi Assist., as Pw-8. On perusal of evidence of Pw-1 and Pw-8
coupled with medical bills and Ex.p-58, it shows that the
petitioner has spent total amount of Rs.2,88,519/- and out of
that, she has taken an amount of Rs.1,43,020/- from Medi
27 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
Assist. Considering the above facts, I am opinion that if the
reimbursement amount of Rs.1,43,020/- is deducted in total
medical expenses of Rs.2,88,519/-, then it comes to
Rs.1,45,499/-. Considering the above I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for a compensation of Rs.1,46,000/- under
the head of medical expenses.
40. The contention of the petitioner is that she has
spent huge amount towards ambulance charges for reached to
Hosmat hospital, Bangalore from the place of accident. In
support of the said contention, she has relied one receipt issued
by S.V.S Ambulance service and the same is marked is Ex.P-6.
On perusal of Ex.p-6 it shows that the petitioner has spent an
amount of Rs.9,000/- towards Ambulance charges. Considering
the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.9,000/- under the head of conveyance
expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
28 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under the
following heads:
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,46,000/-
4. Future medical expenses Rs. 40,000/-
5. Attendant and Nourishment charges Rs. 30,000/-
6. Conveyance charges Rs. 9,000/-
7. Disfigurement Rs. 25,000/-
8. Towards disablement Rs. 1,50,000/-
9. Towards assistant charges Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.5,00,000/-
41. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.No.2884/2014:- The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, aged about 12 years, studying in 7th
standard at Presidency School Bangalore. Further the
contention of the petitioner is that, he has sustained grievous
injuries in the accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has
not attended the school for some days and he has suffered
permanent disablement and he has lost his bright educational
carrer. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed
29 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
the age and status of the petitioner and also injuries sustained
by him and disablement suffered by him.
42. To prove the contention of the petitioner, the guardian
of the petitioner i.e., father has examined himself as PW-2 and
he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of
petition. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced the
documents and the same are marked as Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-17 and
Ex.P-36.
43. Further on perusal of the records, it reveals that, to
prove the alleged disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has
not examined the doctor and as such, he is not entitled for the
compensation under the head of disablement.
44. Further on perusal of Ex.P-14 i.e., the copy of wound
certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:-
(a). Fracture of infra orbital margin.
(b). Fracture of right nasal bone.
30 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
On perusal of the wound certificate, it shows that as per
version of the doctor, both the injuries are grievous in nature.
Further on perusal of copy of wound certificate, it shows that
wherein, the age of the petitioner is shown as 12 years. Further
on perusal of Ex.P-15 i.e., copy of discharge summary, it shows
that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a
period of four days at Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore. Looking to
the nature of injuries and considering the age and status of the
petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a compensation
of Rs.50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
45. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has
sustained fracture of infra orbital margin and fracture of right
nasal bone and the said injuries might have effect some extent
on the education of the petitioner. Considering the above facts,
I am of the opinion that if some amount is awarded under the
head loss of amenities certainly it would meet the ends of
justice. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and
31 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the
head of loss of amenities.
46. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has
taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of four days at
Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore and during that period, his father
may take care of him. Considering the above fact, I deem it
just and reasonable to grant for compensation of "Rs.5,000/-
under the head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance
charges."
47. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has
sustained fracture of infra orbital margin and sustained
fracture of right nasal bone. Looking to the above nature of
injuries, I am of the opinion that the petitioner might have taken
rest atleast for a period of two months and during that period,
his father may taken care of him as the mother and brother of
petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the same accident and
they are taken treatment as an inpatient. Considering the above
facts, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is
32 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
awarded under the head of loss of income of father of the
petitioner during the treatment period and rest period of
petitioner, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
48. The contention of the petitioner is that, his parents
have spent huge amount towards his medical expenses. In
support of his contention, he has produced the medical bills and
the same are marked as Ex.P-16, Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-60.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the
genuineness of said bills and to that effect, the counsel for the
respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. But
nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills. On
the other hand, on perusal of medical bills, it shows that, the
parents of the petitioner have spent an amount of Rs.22,776/-
towards medical expenses. Further on perusal of evidence of
PW-8 i.e. Manager of Medi Assist, it shows that, out of the said
medical expenses amount, an amount of Rs.16,697/- was paid by
the medi assist and the said amount was deducted in total
amount of Rs.22,776/- then it comes to Rs.9,079/-. Considering
33 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
the above facts and for the above reason, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- under
the head of medical expenses.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that the
petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/-
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
4. Attendant, Nourishment & conveyance Rs. 5,000/-
charges
5. Loss of income of father of petitioner Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.1,10,000/-
49. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.No.2885/2014:- The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at
the time of accident, aged about 7 years, studying in 1st standard
at Presidency School. Bangalore. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that he had sustained grievous injuries in the
accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has not attended
the school for some days and he has suffered permanent
34 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
disablement and also he has lost his bright educational career.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the age
and status of the petitioner and also injuries sustained by him
and medical expenses incurred by him and disablement suffered
by him.
50. To prove the case, the guardian of the petitioner i.e.,
father has examined himself as PW-3 and he has stated in his
evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in
support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the
same are marked as Ex.P-18 to Ex.P-21 and Ex.P-37.
51. To prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner,
he has examined the doctor Deepu N.K, Consultant Plastic
Surgeon, Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore as PW-9, who has stated in
his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner
and also treatment given by him to the petitioner. Further he
has stated that petitioner has loss of depression over right
forehead and loss of right eye brow and as such, he has suffered
disability to the extent of 17%. Thereafter the counsel for the
35 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
respondent No.1 has cross-examined the PW-9 at length. In the
cross-examination, the PW-9 has clearly admitted at page 4, 7
and 9 that:
"«¤Ãvï PÉñÀªï EªÀjUÉ £Á£Éà RÄzÁÝV aQvÉì ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
"ªÀÄÄRå«ZÁgÀuAÉ iÀÄ RArPÉ 9 gÀ°è UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«UÉ ±ÉÃPÀqÁ
17 gÀµÀÄÖ £ÀÆå£ÀåvÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀÄÝ , CzÀÄ PÀtôÚ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
ºÀuÉAiÀÄ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ªÀÆvÀæ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that the PW-9
is a treated doctor. Further it reveals that the extent of
disability assessed by the PW-9 is pertaining to the eye and
forehead of part of the petitioner.
Considering the above facts and looking to the evidence of
PW-9 coupled with documents, I am of the opinion that if 1/3rd
of the particular limb disability is considered as disability to the
whole body then, it comes 5.66% and the same is taken as 6% to
the whole body, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
52. Further on perusal of Ex.P-18 i.e., copy of wound
certificate, it shows that as on the date of accident, the
36 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
petitioner was aged about 8 years. Further on perusal of
evidence of PW-1 coupled with contents of petition, it shows
that, as on the date of accident, petitioner was a student and as
such, he is not an earning member, Considering the above facts
and in view of the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a
citation reported in ILR 2013 Page 4891 (Master Mallikarjun
V/s. The National Insurance Company Limited and another),
I am of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is
awarded under the head of disablement certainly it would meet
the ends of justice.
53. Further on perusal of Ex.P.18 i.e. copy of wound
certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:-
1. Avulsion to right eye brow bleeding
measuring 5 X 5 Cms.
2. Laceration acipital area and bleeding
measuring 2 X 2 cms.
37 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
54. Further on perusal of Ex.P.19 i.e. discharge summary,
it appears that, during the course of treatment, the petitioner
has underwent major soft tissue reconstruction of face.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries,
I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.40,000/-under the head of pain and suffering.
55. Further on perusal of Ex.P.19 i.e. discharge summary,
it appears that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an
inpatient for a period of 6 days at Hosmat hospital, Bangalore.
Looking to the period of hospitalization, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.6,000/-under the
head of attendant, nourishment and conveyance charges.
56. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner
might have taken rest atleast for a period of 1 month and during
that period his father may take care of him as the mother and
brother of the petitioner have also sustained injuries in the
accident and taken treatment as an inpatients. Considering the
above facts, I am of the opinion that, if some amount is
38 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
awarded under the head of loss of income of father of
petitioner, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.20,000/-under the head of loss of
income of father of petitioner.
57. Further on perusal of Ex.P.21 i.e. photos, it appears
that, there is a major scar marks on the left and right forehead
of the petitioner and the said scar marks may create
disfigurement to the petitioner and as such, if some amount is
awarded under the head of disfigurement, certainly it would
meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts and
looking to the extent of scar marks, I deem it just and
reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the
head of disfigurement.
58. The contention of the petitioner is that, his parents
have spent huge amount towards medical expenses and out of
that, some of amount has been reimbursed by medi assist. To
prove the said fact, the father of the petitioner has relied upon
39 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
the medical bills and the same are marked as Ex-P-20 & 37. On
the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the
genuineness of the said medical bills and to that effect, the
counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross-examined the P.W.3
at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve
the medical bills. Further to prove the reimbursement facility
taken by the petitioner, he has examined the official of Medi
Assist as PW-8. On perusal of Ex.P.20 & 37, it shows that, the
petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.1,15,661/- and out of that,
an amount of Rs.46,462/-was paid by Medi Assist. Considering
the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if the reimbursement
amount of Rs.46,462/-is deducted in the total medical expenses
of Rs.1,15,661/-, then remaining amount comes to Rs.69,199/-.
Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to
grant for compensation of Rs.69,000/-under the head of
medical expenses.
59. The PW-9/doctor has stated that, the petitioner
may undergo right eye brow reconstruction with temporal scalp
40 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
and also he has to undergo ptosis of right eyelid in future and
the cost of both the surgeries is Rs.1,45,000/-. In support of
the said contention, the petitioner nor the doctor have produced
any documents. Considering the above facts and in the absence
of positive documents and looking to the nature of surgery,
I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.50,000/-under the head of future medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and for the above reason,
I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for total
compensation of Rs.3,15,000/-under the following heads:
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Towards disablement Rs. 1,00,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 69,000/-
4. Attendant, Nourishment & conveyance Rs. 6,000/-
charges
5. Loss of income of parent of petitioner Rs. 20,000/-
6. Towards disfigurement Rs. 30,000/-
8. Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.3,15,000/-
60. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC.No.3347/2014:- The specific
contention of the petitioner is that, she was hale and healthy at
41 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
the time of accident, aged about 71 years, working as a house
wife and earning Rs.5,000/-p.m. Further the contention of the
petitioner is that, she has sustained grevious injuries in the
accident and due to the accidental injuries, she has suffered
permanent disablement and she is not in a position to work as she
was doing earlier to the accident and as such, she has appointed
a maid servant to help her domestic work.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the
age, occupation and income of the petitioner and also injuries
sustained by her and disablement suffered by her.
61. To prove the age, the petitioner has not produced
any documents. On the other hand, on perusal of Ex.P.22 ie.
copy of wound certificate, wherein the age of the petitioner is
shown as 60 years as on the date of accident.
62. Further to prove the disablement suffered by the
petitioner, she has examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as P.W.6, who
has stated in his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and disablement suffered by her. Further he has
42 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
stated that, the petitioner has sustained fracture of right
femur and sustained fracture of left shoulder. Further he has
stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent
of 28% to the whole body.
63. Thereafter, the counsel for the respondent No.1 has
cross-examined the PW-6 at length. In the cross-examination,
the P.W.6 has clearly admitted at Page No.6 & 7 that:
"UÁAiÀÄÁ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀgÀ¸ÀévÀªÀÄä EªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ
ºÀAvÀzÀ°è aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«£À vÉÆqÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀPÉÌ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »ªÀÄärAiÀÄ ªÀÄÆ¼É ªÀÄÄjvÀPÉÌ ±À¸ÀÛç aQvÉìªÀiÁr,
M¼ÀeÉÆÃqÀuÉ C¼ÀªÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ, PÉå£À JqÀ
¨ÀsÄdzÀ UÁAiÀÄPÉÌ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw ±À¸ÀÛç aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it is clear that, the Pw-6
is not a treated doctor.
64. Further as per the version of the petitioner, it is
clear that, she is not an employee, on the other hand, she is a
house wife. Considering the above facts and looking to the
43 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
nature of injuries and considering the status of the petitioner,
I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by
the petitioner is considered as 20% to the whole body, certainly
it would meet the ends of justice.
65. Further as stated above that, the petitioner is not an
employee or earning member and she is a house wife.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, though,
the petitioner has examined the doctor to prove the disablement
suffered by her, but she is not entitle for compensation under
the head of loss of future earnings. On the other hand, the
extent of disability suffered by the petitioner has to be
considered while granting compensation under the head of loss
of amenities and disablement. Considering the about facts and
looking to the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner,
I am of the opinion that, if some amount is awarded under the
head of disablement, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that if an
amount of Rs.1,50,000/-is awarded under the head of
44 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
disablement, (as the petitioner is suffered disability to the
extent of 20% to the whole body). Certainly it would meet the
ends of justice.
66. Further on perusal of Ex-P-22 i.e. copy of wound
certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the
following injuries:
1. Type I compound II of distal right femur
2. Dislocation of left shoulder.
Looking to the above nature of injuries and considering the
occupation of the petitioner, I deem it just and reasonable to
grant for compensation of Rs.45,000/- under head of pain
and suffering.
67. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has
suffered disability to the extent of 20% to the whole body and
she has sustained fracture of right femur and left shoulder.
Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries
and considering the extent of disability suffered by her,
45 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.30,000/- under the head of loss of amenities.
68. Further on perusal of Ex-P-23 & 39 i.e. discharge
summaries, it shows that, the petitioner has taken treatment as
an inpatient for a period of 9 days at Hosmat hospital and 23
days at St.Tereas hospital. Looking to the period of
hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for
compensation of Rs.30,000/- under the head of attendant,
nourishment and conveyance charges.
69. Further due to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, she might have taken rest at least for a period of 4
months and during that period, she may taken assistant for doing
the domestic work. Considering the above facts, I am of the
opinion that if an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the
head of assistant expenses, certainly it would meet the ends
of justice.
70. The Pw-6/doctor has stated that, the petitioner needs
one more surgery for removal of implants and the cost of the
46 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
said surgery is Rs.50,000/-. Further the PW-6 has stated that,
due to the injuries, the petitioner has developed painful
arthritis of her right knee, then it needs to replacement of right
knee and the cost of the said surgery is Rs.2,50,000/-.
71. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.1 has
cross-examined the Pw-6 at length. In the cross-examination,
the PW-6 has clearly stated at Page No.12 that:
"ªÀÄÄRå «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ RArPÉ gÀ°è UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«£À
§® PÁ°£À ªÉÆt PÁ°£À jÃ¥Éè¸ïªÉÄAmï£À CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ
EgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉýzÀÄÝ, D «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ«UÉ
¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄä D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è EnÖgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀ
zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.."
Further on perusal of the above evidence of Pw-6, it
appears that, the concerned doctor is not definite regarding the
replacement of knee. Further in support of the contention, the
Pw-6 has not produced any supportive documents in respect of
future medical expenses. Considering the above facts and in the
absence of positive documents regarding the future medical
47 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
expenses and looking to the nature of surgery, I deem it just
and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/- under
the head of future medical expenses.
72. The contention of the petitioner is that, she has spent
huge amount towards medical expenses. To prove the said fact,
the petitioner has relied upon the medical bills at Ex.P.28 & 38.
On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has disputed the
genuineness of the said medical bills and to that effect, the
counsel for the respondent No.1 has cross examined the PW-4 at
length, but nothing has been elicited from her to disbelieve the
said medical bills. On the other hand, on perusal of
Ex.P.28 & 38-medical bills, it shows that, the petitioner has
spent an amount of Rs.2,75,030/-towards medical expenses.
Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to
grant for a compensation of Rs.2,75,000/-, under the head of
medical expenses.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner
48 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- under the
following heads:
Sl.No. Compensation heads Amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 45,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,75,000/-
4. Future medical expenses Rs. 30,000/-
5. Attendant and Nourishment charges Rs. 30,000/-
6. Towards disablement Rs. 1,50,000/-
7. Towards assistant charges Rs. 20,000/-
Total Rs.5,80,000/-
73. LIABILITY: On perusal of contents of petition and
also contents of objection statement, it appears that the
respondent No.2 is the owner of the lorry bearing registration
No.AP-16-TB-3669 and the respondent No.1 is the insurer of the
said vehicle and the policy was valid as on the date of accident.
Further as stated above that, the accident has occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Hence, the
respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioners. However, the respondent No.2
being the insurer of the offending lorry is liable to pay
49 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18
compensation to the petitioners as calculated above along with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in all the cases in the
partly affirmative.
74. ISSUE NO.3 IN ALL THE CASES: In view of my
findings on issues No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The claim petitions i.e. MVC.No.2883/2014 to 2885/2014 and 3347/2014 filed by the petitioners U/S.166 of M.V.Act are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation as noted below with interest @ 9% P.A. (In MVC.No.2883/2014, 2885/2014 and 3347/2014, future medical expenses does not carry interest) from the date of petition till the date of deposit. MVC.No.2883/2014 Rs. 5,00,000/- MVC.No.2884/2014 Rs. 1,10,000/- MVC.No.2885/2014 Rs. 3,15,000/- MVC.No.3347/2014 Rs. 5,80,000/- 50 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18 The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation amount to the petitioners. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.1 insurance company is directed to deposit the above said compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.No.2883/2014 and looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
After deposit of compensation amount awarded to the petitioner in MVC.2884/2014, an amount of Rs.40,000/- shall be released in the name of guardian of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner represented by his natural guardian i.e., father in any 51 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014 SCCH-18 nationalized/ schedule bank of petitioner's choice till he attains the age of majority.
After deposit of the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner in MVC.2885/2014, looking to the medical expenses incurred by his father, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be released in the name of guardian of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be kept in FD in the name of minor petitioner represented by his natural guardian i.e., father in any nationalized/ schedule bank of petitioner's choice till he attains the age of majority.
After deposit of compensation amount in MVC.No.3347/2014 and looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank/ schedule Bank of her choice, for a period of 3 years. Remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Keep the original judgment in MVC.No.2883/2014 and its copy in other cases. 52 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014
SCCH-18 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 19th day of September 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMESEKHARA) III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, BENGALURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE List of witnesses examined for petitioner's side:
PW-1: Smt.Shylaja PW-2: Master.Gaurav Keshava PW-3: Master.Vineeth Keshava PW-4: Smt.R.Saraswathamma PW-5&6: Dr.Krishan Prasad PW-7: Dr.Kiran PW-8: Dr.Arun Kumar PW-9: Dr.Deepu NK
List of documents exhibited for petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P1(a) Translation copy of FIR with complaint Ex-P2 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P3 True copy of Accident report Ex-P4 True copy of charge sheet Ex-P5 Discharge summary Ex-P6 Ambulance service bill Ex-P7 Medical bills Ex-P8 Prescriptions 53 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014 SCCH-18 Ex-P9&10 Claim settlement letter Ex-P11 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of petitioner in MVC.2883/2014 Ex-P12 X-ray Ex-P13 & 13 Photos with CD
(a) Ex-P14 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P15 Discharge summary Ex-P16 Claim settlement letter Ex-P17 Notarized copy of Aadhaar card Ex-P18 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P19 Discharge summary Ex-P20 Claim settlement letter Ex-P21 Photos Ex-P22 True copy of wound certificate Ex-P23 Discharge summary Ex-P24 Authorization letter Ex-P25 Registration form issued by Sarvodaya Seva Foundation Ex-P26 MRI report Ex-P27 Receipt Ex-P28 Medical bills Ex-P29 Prescriptions Ex-P30 X-ray Ex-P31 CT scan Ex-P32 Claim settlement letter Ex-P33 Medical bills Ex-P34 Prescriptions Ex-P35 X-ray Ex-P36 & Claim letter 37 Ex-P38 Medical bills Ex-P39 Discharge summary Ex-P40 Prescription Ex-P41 Radiology requisition Ex-P42 X-ray 54 MVC.Nos.2883,2884,2885 & 3347/2014 SCCH-18 Ex-P42 (a) X-ray report Ex-P43 Discharge summary Ex-P44 Authorization letter Ex-P45 Medical bill Ex-P46 Outpatient record Ex-P47&48 Inpatient record Ex-P49 X-ray report Ex-P50 X-ray Ex-P51 Outpatient record Ex-P52 Inpatient record Ex-P53 MRI report Ex-P54 X-ray Ex-P55&56 Case sheet Ex-P57 Letter of authority Ex-P58 Claim settlement letter Ex-P59 Annexure IV Ex-P60 Claim settlement letter Ex-P61 Inpatient record List of witnesses examined for respondents' side:-
-Nil-
List of documents exhibited for respondents' side:
-Nil-
III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM.