Bangalore District Court
Krishnamurthy Narayan Alias Krishna vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 6 November, 2024
KABC020231642021
BEFORE THE COURT OF 10th ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES
AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT:
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Mohammed Yunus Athani
B.A.,LL.B.,
X Additional Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.3825/2021
Dated this 06th day of November, 2024
Petitioner: Krishnamurthy Narayanan @
Krishna S/o Narayanan,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.3/6, Jaganadapuram,
Gangoji Kottur, Krishnagiri,
Tamil Nadu - 635121.
(Sri C. K. Lokesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents: 1. Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.28, 5th Floor, Centenary
Building, M. G. Road,
Bengaluru - 01.
(The insurer of the car bearing
No.KA-05-MY-5409)
2 MVC No.3825/2021
(Sri H. K. Ramamurthy, Advocate)
2. D. N. Lakshmana Reddy
S/o Late Narayana Reddy,
No.20, 15th Cross, 14th Main,
Opp. BDA Complex,
4th Sector, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 102.
(The owner of the car bearing
No.KA-05-MY-5409)
(Sri Santosh S. Gogi, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- from the respondents, on account of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 23-07-2021 at about 7.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-AB-3750 slowly, cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and norms, on Sarjapura-Bengaluru road. When he reached near 3 MVC No.3825/2021 Chambenahalli Gate, the driver of car bearing No.KA-05-MY- 5409 drove the same in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner from behind. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Spandana Hospital, Sompura, wherein he took first aid treatment and then he was shifted to BEST Hospital and Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an in-patient. Earlier to the accident he was doing mason work and earning a sum of Rs.21,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity. The Sarjapura Police have registered the case against the driver of the said car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4 MVC No.3825/2021 Therefore, it is prayed to allow the petition and award compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- with interest.
3. On service of notice to the respondents, the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1 in its written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. It has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of car bearing No.KA-05-MY-5409 and its validity as on the date of accident. It has contended that, the driver of the offending car was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. It has further contended that, the alleged accident has taken place due to careless and negligence riding on the part of the petitioner, who was riding his motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-AB-3750 in a rash and negligent manner, without holding valid driving licence, without wearing helmet and himself caused the alleged 5 MVC No.3825/2021 accident. It has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken by him. It has denied the mode and occurrence of the accident and also involvement of the vehicle bearing No.KA- 05-MY-5409 in the alleged accident. Further, it sought for permission to contest even on behalf of respondent No.2 as per Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further it is contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, it is prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Whereas, the respondent No.2 in his written statement has denied all the allegations made in the petition. He has contended that, as on the date of alleged accident his vehicle was having valid insurance policy with the respondent No.1 under policy No.67190031202000005879 valid from 15-10- 2020 to 14-10-2021 and driver of his vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence. Further he has contended that, the petitioner was riding the motorcycle bearing No.TN-24- 6 MVC No.3825/2021 AB-3750 without following the traffic rules and the alleged accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner. He has denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, injuries, medical expenses and treatment taken by him. Further contended that, the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. For the above denials and contentions, he has prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. On the basis of rival pleadings of both the sides, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the Road Traffic Accident, alleged to have occurred on 23-07-2021 at about 7.00 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing registration No.KA-05-MY-5409 ?7 MVC No.3825/2021
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum and from whom?
3. What order or Award?
7. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to 13. Further, he has got examined one more witness namely Dr. S. Ramachandra as P.W.2 and closed his side. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has examined its Legal Manager as R.W.1 and got marked 2 documents as Ex.R.1 and 2 and closed its side. The respondent No.2 has got examined himself as R.W.2 and got marked 3 documents as Ex.R.3 to 5 and closed his side.
8. I have heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the entire material placed on record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under: 8 MVC No.3825/2021
Issue No.1: Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: It is specific case of the petitioner that, on 23-07-2021 at about 7.00 p.m., when he was riding the motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-AB-3750 slowly, cautiously, by observing all the traffic rules and norms, on Sarjapura- Bengaluru road, near Chambenahalli Gate, the driver of offending car bearing No.KA-05-MY-5409 drove the same in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner from behind. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Further it is contended that, earlier to the accident he was doing mason work and earning a sum of Rs.21,000/- per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, he has 9 MVC No.3825/2021 become permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity.
11. In order to prove his case, the petitioner has got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing examination-in-chief affidavit, wherein he has reiterated entire averments made in the petition. Further, in support of his oral evidence, the petitioner has got marked total 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to
13. Out of the said documents, Ex.P.1 is true copy of F.I.R., Ex.P.2 is true copy of first information statement, Ex.P.3 is true copy of spot mahazar, Ex.P.4 is true copy of Motor Vehicle Accident report, Ex.P.5 is true copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.6 is true copy of charge-sheet, Ex.P.7 is notarised copy of driving licence, Ex.P.8 is notarised copy of Aadhar card, Ex.P.9 are discharge summaries, Ex.P.10 are medical bills (total 341), Ex.P.11 are medical prescriptions (total 102), Ex.P.12 is outpatient slip and Ex.P.13 are x-rays (total 5) 10 MVC No.3825/2021
12. On meticulously going through the police documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 6, prima-facia it reveals that, on 23-07- 2021 at about 7.00 p.m., when the petitioner along with two pillion riders was riding the motorcycle bearing No.TN-24- AB-3750 slowly and cautiously, on Sarjapura-Bengaluru road, near Chambenahalli Gate, a car bearing No.KA-05-MY- 5409 came in high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner from behind. Due to the impact, the petitioner has fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The investigation officer in his final report, which is marked as Ex.P.6, has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No. KA-05-MY-5409 and caused grievous injuries to the petitioner.
13. At the outset, is it pertinent to note that, the date, time and place of accident, the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident, the issuance of insurance policy by the respondent No.1 in respect of car bearing No.KA-05-MY- 11 MVC No.3825/2021 5409 and its validity as on the date of accident, are not in dispute. Further though the respondent No.1 & 2 have specifically denied the averments made in the petition, with respect to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing No.KA-05-MY-5409 and taken specific contention that, the said accident is caused due to careless and negligence riding on the part of the petitioner himself, who was riding his motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-AB-3750 in a rash and negligent manner, without holding valid driving licence and without wearing helmet, they have not adduced any evidence or produced any document to establish the said contentions. Except the self serving statements of the representative of respondent No.1 insurance company and respondent No.2, there is absolutely no other oral or documentary evidence produced by the respondent No.1 & 2 to show that, the accident is caused due to careless and negligence riding on the part of the petitioner/ rider of motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-AB-3750 and he was not 12 MVC No.3825/2021 wearing helmet at the time of accident. Further, there is absolutely no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondent No.1 to disprove the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has cross-examined P.W.1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. No doubt, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that, the petitioner/P.W.1 has stated wrong registration number of the vehicle which he was riding at the time of accident, but, in view of specific contentions taken by the respondent No.1 in its written statement that, the said accident has taken place due to negligent riding of motorcycle bearing No. TN-24-AB-3750 by the petitioner and the same being deposed by R.W.1 in his examination-in-chief affidavit and the admissions given by him in the cross-examination, it can safely be held that, the admissions given by the petitioner are a gray 13 MVC No.3825/2021 admissions and mere on the basis of said admission it cannot be held that, the offending car bearing No.KA-05- MY-5409 has been falsely in the case by the petitioner, when all other oral and documentary evidence available on record clearly establishes that, at the time of accident the petitioner was riding motorcycle bearing No.TN-24-AB-3750 and the said accident has taken place in between the offending car bearing No.KA-05-MY-5409 and the motorcycle bearing No. TN-24-AB-3750, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car.
14. Further, the Ex.P.3 spot mahazer also clearly speaks that, the said accident has taken place on middle portion of 42 feet wide Sarjapura-Bengaluru road, near Chambenahalli Gate, Bengaluru, in between motorcycle bearing No.TN-24- AB-3750 and car bearing No.KA-05-MY-5409. Further it speaks that, the said accident has occurred due to dashing of offending car bearing No. No.KA-05-MY-5409 to the 14 MVC No.3825/2021 ongoing motorcycle of the petitioner bearing No.TN-24-AB- 3750.
15. Further, as per the Motor Vehicle Accident Report, which is marked as Ex.P.4, the accident was not caused due to any mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident. When the accident was not due to the any mechanical defects in the offending vehicle, then in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it can be presumed that, the said accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car. Further, as the damage caused to the offending car bearing No. No.KA-05-MY-5409 and to the motorcycle bearing No.TN-24- AB-3750, as noted in the Ex.P.4 Motor Vehicle Accident report, clearly goes to show that, the driver of offending car bearing No. No.KA-05-MY-5409 has dashed his vehicle to the ongoing motorcycle of the petitioner bearing No.TN-24- AB-3750 with force. On the other hand, the respondents have not produced any rebuttal evidence to show that, the 15 MVC No.3825/2021 said documents are false and concocted documents. The investigation officer in his Ex.P.6 final report/charge-sheet has clearly stated that, the said accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending car bearing Reg. No. KA-05-MY-5409 and it has caused grievous injuries to the petitioner. Admittedly, the said final report/charge-sheet has not been challenged either by the driver or the owner of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-05-MY-5409. In such circumstances, there is no impediment to believe the final report filed by the investigation officer and other police records, regarding the date, time and place of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, negligence of the driver of offending vehicle and injuries caused to the petitioner in the said accident.
16. Further, on meticulously going through the Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 5) and Ex.P13 x-rays (total 5), it clearly reveals that, the petitioner 16 MVC No.3825/2021 has suffered grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and he has suffered sigmoid colon perforation, left L2, L3, L4 (Lumbar vertebral) transverse's process mild displaced fracture, left femur mid shaft fracture, left tibia and fibula middle one third comminuted fracture, left superior pubic rami undisplaced fracture, type 4 "B" injury posterior aspect of left leg, crush injury of left lower limb over medial and posterior aspect middle 1/3rd of leg with precarious vascularity, bilateral groin laceration, left zygomatic complex fracture and left comminuted ankle fracture. The P.W.2, who is the doctor who has treated the petitioner and examined him for the purpose of assessment of disability, has clearly deposed in his evidence that, he has treated the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident taken place on 24-07-2021 and the petitioner had suffered the above stated injuries and he has undergone surgery for the said injuries. Though, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 & 2 have cross-examined P.W.2 in length, 17 MVC No.3825/2021 nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on the veracity of his evidence. On the other hand, there is no rebuttal evidence placed on record by the respondents to show that, the above medical records produced by the petitioner are false documents.
17. Further, it is well settled principle of law that, in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as required to be done in a criminal trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parameshwari V/s Amir Chand and others, reported in (2011) SCC 635, has clearly held that, "in a road accident claim cases the strict principle of proof in a criminal case are not required."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Bimla Devi and others V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 513, has clearly held that, " in a case relating to the Motor Accident Claims, the 18 MVC No.3825/2021 claimants are merely required to establish their case on touch stone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof on beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied."
19. Therefore, in the light of ration laid down in the above cited decisions and for the above stated reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident, occurred on 23-07-2021 at about 7.00 p.m., on Sarjapura-Bengaluru road, near Chambenahalli Gate, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing Reg. No. KA-05-MY-5409. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
20. Issue No.2: While answering above issue this Court has come to conclusion that, the petitioner has successfully proved that, the accident has caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing Reg. No. KA- 19 MVC No.3825/2021 05-MY-5409 and he has sustained sigmoid colon perforation, left L2, L3, L4 (Lumbar vertebral) transverse's process mild displaced fracture, left femur mid shaft fracture, left tibia and fibula middle one third comminuted fracture, left superior pubic rami undisplaced fracture, type 4 "B" injury posterior aspect of left leg, crush injury of left lower limb over medial and posterior aspect middle 1/3rd of leg with precarious vascularity, Bilateral groin laceration, left zygomatic complex fracture and left comminuted ankle fracture and for the said injuries he has undergone surgery. Therefore, this Court is of the further opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under various heads. The damages are to be assessed under two heads i.e. pecuniary damages, such as medical treatment, attendants, transport, actual loss of earning, future loss of earning etc., and non pecuniary damages, such as mental and physical shock, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, loss of 20 MVC No.3825/2021 prospects of marriage etc. The petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
i) Towards loss of future income: In order to determine the compensation towards loss of future income, the age, monthly income and disability of the petitioner are to be determined. To prove his age, the petitioner has produced the notarised copy of his driving licence and Aadhar card, which are marked as Ex.P.7 and 8. As per Ex.P.7 and 8, the date of birth of the petitioner is 03-06-
1995. The accident has taken place on 23-07-2021 at about 7.00 P.M. Therefore, the age of the petitioner as on the date of accident is 26 years. Further, the P.W.2, who is the doctor who has treated and examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessment of his disability, has clearly deposed in his examination-in-chief affidavit that, on clinical examination he found that, the petitioner has suffered sigmoid colon perforation, left L2, L3, L4 (Lumbar vertebral) transverse's process mild displaced fracture, left femur mid 21 MVC No.3825/2021 shaft fracture, left tibia and fibula middle one third comminuted fracture, left superior pubic rami undisplaced fracture, type 4 "B" injury posterior aspect of left leg, crush injury of left lower limb over medial and posterior aspect middle 1/3rd of leg with precarious vascularity, bilateral groin laceration, left zygomatic complex fracture and left comminuted ankle fracture. Further he has deposed that, on clinical and radiological examination of injuries suffered by the petitioner he found that, there is 69.38% physical disability of left lower limb and 38.69% physical disability for the whole body to the petitioner. The oral evidence of P.W.2 is fully corroborated with documentary evidence. The Ex.P.5 wound certificate, Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 5) and Ex.P13 x-rays (total 5) clearly speaks that, the petitioner has suffered the above stated grievous injuries in a road traffic accident. Though, the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 have cross-examined P.W.2 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from his mouth which creates doubt on 22 MVC No.3825/2021 the veracity of his evidence. Further, he has clearly denied the suggestions made to him that, there is no disability to the petitioner and he has exaggerated the percentage of disability to the petitioner. Further he has denied that, there is no restrictions of movements to the petitioner. But, it is pertinent to note that, the P.W.2 has deposed in his evidence that, the accident has occurred on 23-07-2021 and he has assessed the disability to the petitioner on 10-04- 2023, which is after lapse of one year and eight months from the date of injuries caused to the petitioner. Further he has stated that, the the petitioner requires one more surgery for correction of nonunion of fracture of shaft of middle of third of left femur and correction of stiffness of left knee joint. This clearly goes to show that, the disability has been assessed before the completion of full treatment to the petitioner. As per the gazette notification issued by the Ministry of Social Justice of Government of India, the disability should be assessed after completion of treatment. 23 MVC No.3825/2021 If the disability had been assessed after future surgery, perhaps there would have been reduction in the percentage of the disability. It is pertinent to note that, P.W.2 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the fracture of shaft of middle of third of left femur is not united and the petitioner is advised to undergo another operation for correction of nonunion of fracture and correction of stiffness of left knee joint. Therefore, considering the age of the petitioner, injuries sustained, duration of treatment and oral and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that, considering the disability of 23% to the whole body of the petitioner would be justified. Hence, in the instant case the disability of 23% to the whole body of the petitioner is considered.
a) The petitioner has deposed in his evidence that, before accident he was working as mason and was earning income of Rs.21,000/- per month. Further, he has deposed that, due to grievous injuries suffered in the said accident 24 MVC No.3825/2021 he is unable to do mason work. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied the same. In such circumstances, the burden was on the petitioner to prove his avocation and income. But, the petitioner has failed to establish the same through cogent and corroborative evidence. He has not produced any document to show that, before the accident he was working as mason and was earning Rs.21,000/- per month. Therefore, there is no other option before this Court except to consider the notional income as per the guidelines of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. The accident took place in 2021. Hence, the notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.15,000/- per month and the annual income of the petitioner as Rs.1,80,000/-.
b) As per the ratio laid down in the case of Sarla Verma and others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298, the appropriate multiplier for a person whose is aged about 26 years is 17. Therefore, loss of future income is Total annual income X 25 MVC No.3825/2021 disability/100 X multiplier = Rs.1,80,000 X 23/100 X 17 = Rs.7,03,800/-.
ii) Medical expenses: The petitioner has deposed that, he has incurred expenses of Rs.12,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charge etc. In order to prove the same, he has produced 341 medical bills, as per Ex.P.10. All the bills have been examined carefully and found that the petitioner has spend total amount of Rs.8,46,625/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.8,46,625/- under the head of medical expenses.
iii) Pain and sufferings: In the present case, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e. suffered sigmoid colon perforation, left L2, L3, L4 (Lumbar vertebral) transverse's process mild displaced fracture, left femur mid shaft fracture, left tibia and fibula middle one third comminuted fracture, left superior pubic rami undisplaced fracture, type 4 "B" injury posterior aspect of left leg, crush 26 MVC No.3825/2021 injury of left lower limb over medial and posterior aspect middle 1/3rd of leg with precarious vascularity, bilateral groin laceration, left zygomatic complex fracture and left comminuted ankle fracture. As per Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 5), the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for 166 days from 24-07-2021 to 24-07-2021, 07- 08-2021 to 21-08-2021, 30-08-2021 to 01-11-2021, 02-11- 2021 to 12-01-2022 and 08-09-2022 to 23-09-2022, in Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, Sri Gokulam Speciality Hospital, Salem, Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospitals, Salem, St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru and Christian Medical College, Vellore. Further as per P.W.2, the said injuries has caused physical disability to the petitioner. In such circumstances, certainly the petitioner would have suffered pain and sufferings. Therefore, taking into considering the injuries sustained and disability to the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that, an 27 MVC No.3825/2021 compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded to the petitioner towards pain and sufferings.
iv) Attendant charges: As per Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 5), the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for 166 days from 24-07-2021 to 24-07-2021, 07- 08-2021 to 21-08-2021, 30-08-2021 to 01-11-2021, 02-11- 2021 to 12-01-2022 and 08-09-2022 to 23-09-2022, in Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, Sri Gokulam Speciality Hospital, Salem, Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospitals, Salem, St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru and Christian Medical College, Vellore. He might have spent considerable amount towards attendant charges during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.1000 x 166 = Rs.1,66,000/- is awarded towards the attendant charges.
v) Food and nourishment: As per Ex.P.9 discharge summaries (total 5), the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient for 166 days from 24-07-2021 to 24- 07-2021, 07-08-2021 to 21-08-2021, 30-08-2021 to 01-11- 28 MVC No.3825/2021 2021, 02-11-2021 to 12-01-2022 and 08-09-2022 to 23-09- 2022, in Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, Sri Gokulam Speciality Hospital, Salem, Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospitals, Salem, St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru and Christian Medical College, Vellore. He might have spent considerable amount towards food and nourishment during that period. Therefore, compensation of Rs.800 x 166 = Rs.1,32,800/- is awarded towards food and nourishment charges.
vi) Conveyance expenses: The petitioner is the resident of Jaganadapuram, Gangoji Kottur, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu, the accident has taken place near Chambenahalli Gate, on Sarjapura-Bengaluru road and he has taken treatment at Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, Sri Gokulam Speciality Hospital, Salem, Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospitals, Salem, St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru and Christian Medical College, Vellore. Taking into consideration the distance in between 29 MVC No.3825/2021 all the above three places, compensation of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards conveyance.
vii) Loss of income during treatment period: The petitioner has taken treatment for 166 days as inpatient at Sparsh Hospital, Bengaluru, Sri Gokulam Speciality Hospital, Salem, Kirupananda Variyar Medical College and Hospitals, Salem, St. John's Medical College Hospital, Bengaluru and Christian Medical College, Vellore, for the grievous injuries sustained by him. He might have taken rest for about 10 months and lost his income for the said period. Therefore, Rs.15,000 x 10 = Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded towards loss of income during treatment period.
viii) Loss of amenities: It is evident from the documents placed on record that, as on the date of accident the age of the petitioner was 26 years and unfortunately he has suffered sigmoid colon perforation, left L2, L3, L4 (Lumbar vertebral) transverse's process mild displaced fracture, left femur mid shaft fracture, left tibia and fibula 30 MVC No.3825/2021 middle one third comminuted fracture, left superior pubic rami undisplaced fracture, type 4 "B" injury posterior aspect of left leg, crush injury of left lower limb over medial and posterior aspect middle 1/3rd of leg with precarious vascularity, Bilateral groin laceration, left zygomatic complex fracture and left comminuted ankle fracture. The evidence shows that, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 23% to the whole body. Therefore, awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities would be just and reasonable.
ix) Future medical expenses: The P.W.2 has clearly deposed in his evidence that, the petitioner needs to undergo one more surgery for correction of nonunion of fracture of shaft of middle of third of left femur and correction of stiffness of left knee joint. The P.W.2 has not issued estimation of cost for further treatment. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that, awarding compensation of 31 MVC No.3825/2021 Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses would be just and reasonable.
21. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under different heads as follows :
1. Loss of future income Rs. 7,03,800-00
2. Medical expenses 8,46,625-00
3. Pain and sufferings 50,000-00
4. Attendant charges 1,66,000-00
5. Food and nourishment 1,32,800-00
6. Conveyance expenses 20,000-00
7. Loss of income during 1,50,000-00 treatment period
8. Loss of amenities 50,000-00
9. Future medical expenses 30,000-00 Total Rs.21,49,225-00 In all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,49,225/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum (excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-) from the date of petition till its realization. 32 MVC No.3825/2021
22. Admittedly, as on the date of accident, the respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Further the document marked as Ex.R.3 clearly speaks that, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of accident. Further, the evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes that, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-05-MY- 5409 the accident has occurred. In such circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the owner of said vehicle is vicariously liable to compensate for the damages caused by the said vehicle. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the vehicle has to indemnify the respondent No.2. Therefore, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, the primary liability is on the respondent No.1 to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, for the 33 MVC No.3825/2021 above stated reasons, holding that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.21,49,225/- from the respondent No.1, I answer Issue No.2 in Partly Affirmative.
23. Issue No.3: In view of the above findings, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.21,49,225/- (Rupees twenty one lakh forty nine thousand two hundred and twenty five only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., (excluding interest on future medical expenses of Rs.30,000/-) from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the above compensation amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on 34 MVC No.3825/2021 respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner, 30% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in his name as fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for the period of three years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 70% amount with proportionate interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through e- payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 06th day of November, 2024) (Mohammed Yunus Athani) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.35 MVC No.3825/2021
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1: Krishnamurthy Narayanan @ Krishna
S/o Narayanan
PW2: Dr. S. Ramachandra S/o Subba Setty
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1: True copy of F.I.R. Ex.P2: True copy of First Information Statement Ex.P3: True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4: True copy of M.V.A. Report Ex.P5: True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P6: True copy of Charge-sheet Ex.P7: Notarized copy of Driving Licence Ex.P8: Notarized copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P9: Discharge Summaries (total 5) Ex.P10: Medical Bills (total 341) Ex.P11: Prescriptions (total 102) Ex.P12: Outpatient Slip Ex.P13: X-rays (total 5)
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1: Thrishi Subbaiah D/o Subbaiah
RW2: D.N. Lakshmana Reddy S/o Late Narayana
Reddy
36 MVC No.3825/2021
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R1: Authorization Letter
Ex.R2: Copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R3: Notarized copy of Driving Licence
Ex.R4: Notarized copy of Insurance Policy
Ex.R5: Notarized copy of B-Extract
(Mohammed Yunus Athani)
Member, MACT, Bengaluru.