Bangalore District Court
K.Harish @ Harish Kumar vs Smt. Rukmini.V on 3 March, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL & V ADDL. JUDGE
Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru
(SCCH.20)
Dated this the 3rd day of March 2015
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com., LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
u
MVC.No.4736/2013
PETITIONER: K.Harish @ Harish Kumar,
S/o Konappa,
Aged about 23 years,
No.120-8, V.V. Layout,
Hosakote Town - 562 114,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(By Pleader Sri.R. Krishnareddy)
-Vs-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Rukmini.V.
W/o Vijayakumar,
R/o Kurudu Sonnenahalli,
Virgonagar Post,
Near Lakemort Fort School,
Bengaluru-49.
(Placed Exparte)
SCH-20 2 MVC.4736/2013
2. Reliance General Insurance Co.
ltd., No.28, 6th floor,
Western Wing,
Centenary Building, M.G. Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Pleader Sri.B.C. Shivannegowda)
*****
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed present petition U/sec.166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation amount of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident along with interest and for costs.
2. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that:
On 13-07-2013 at about 12-20 p.m. while the petitioner was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53/V-7923 along with pillion rider, on Ramamurthy Nagar ring road, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA- 53/A-8358 dashed against the petitioner's vehicle, due to rash and negligent driving by it's driver. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Koshys Hospital for first aid, there to Hosmat Hospital Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient and spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical, conveyance, SCH-20 3 MVC.4736/2013 nourishment, food, transport and other charges. Further, he has to spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for removal of implants.
3. Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged about 29 years at the time of accident. The petitioner was Engineer by Profession, at Management, M/s Videocon D2H Dish Service, Domlur, Bengaluru, and drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month (Rs.8,500 + incentives per month). Due to said accident, the petitioner suffered pain and mental agony. He is unable to carry on his duties, which he used to do prior to the accident. The above said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A- 8358. 1st Respondent being the Owner and 2nd respondent being the Insurer of the said vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and prayed to allow the petition.
4. After institution of the petition, summons and notices were served on the respondents. The respondent no.1 has not chosen to appear before the court and hence placed exparte.
The respondent No.2 has appeared before the tribunal through it's counsel and filed written statement SCH-20 4 MVC.4736/2013 contending that, the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. This respondent while admitting the issuance of Insurance policy, in respect of Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A-8358 restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further respondent No.2 has denied all the averments made in the petition itself. It is further contended that, this accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the Petitioner only and he does not posses valid D.L. to ride said vehicle as on the date of accident. It is further contended that, the driver of lorry does not posses valid and effective driving license to drive said vehicle, and the owner does not posses valid F.C and permit to the said vehicle, as on the date of accident, hence there is a violation of policy conditions. Further this respondent has denied the age, income, occupation, earnings, mode of accident, vehicle involved and expenses incurred towards medical expenses and other incidental charges. It is further contended that, the Compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant and excessive. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
5. By going through the petition averments and the written statement contentions, this tribunal has framed the following:
SCH-20 5 MVC.4736/2013ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 13-07-
2013 at about 12-20 p.m. when he was riding Honda Dio two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA-53/V- 7922 along with a pillion rider, at that time a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A-8358 driven by its driver rashly at high speed came and dashed against the petitioner's two wheeler. Due to impact petitioner and pillion rider were thrown out from the two wheeler and suffered severe injuries?
2. Whether 2nd respondent proves that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the petitioner only?
3. Whether 2nd respondent proves that, this petitioner had no valid driving license to ride the same?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
5. What order or award?
(By oversight, in the Issues, it is mentioned as '1st Respondent'.)
6. Petitioner in order to prove his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as PW.2 and
3. Pw.1 got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 19. Pw.2 got marked documents at Ex.P.15 to 17 and Pw.3 got marked Ex.P20. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 not entered into the witness box to adduce oral or documentary evidence.
SCH-20 6 MVC.4736/20137. Heard arguments of learned Counsels for both the parties.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1& 2 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 3:- As these issues are interlinked with each other, in order to avoid the repetition of facts, I took these issues together for discussion.
10. As already observed above, it is the case of the petitioner that, On 13-07-2013 at about 12-20 p.m. while the petitioner along with pillion rider, was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-53/V-7923 on Ramamurthy Nagar ring road, a Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA- 53/A-8358 dashed against the petitioner's vehicle, due to rash and negligent driving by it's driver. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.
11. In order to prove this fact, Petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and two witnesses as PW.2 and 3 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20. Among SCH-20 7 MVC.4736/2013 them: Ex.P1 is the Copy of FIR, Ex.P1(a) is the Copy of Complaint, Ex.P2 is the Copy of Spot mahazar, Ex.P2(a) is the Copy of Spot sketch, Ex.P3 is the Copy of Wound certificate and Ex.P4 is the Copy of charge sheet.
12. The F.I.R. and Charge sheet clearly reveal that, a case has been registered against the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A-8358, for the offence punishable U/Sec. 279 and 338 of I.P.C. Sec.134 (A & B) R/w Sec.187 of M.V. Act. Ex.P.2 copy of the spot mahazar and Ex.P2(a) Spot sketch, also reveal about the accident. Moreover, the petitioner also deposed in his cross-examination that, accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A-8358.
13. The 2nd respondent has taken the contentions that, this accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the Petitioner only and he does not posses valid D.L. to ride said vehicle as on the date of accident. In the cross-examination the petitioner has deposed as, " D ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÊPï£À°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÉÝ. CzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ. £À£ÀUÉ rJ¯ï EzÉ. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è CzÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀÄ ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ. £À£Àß rJ¯ï£ÀÄß PÀÉ.Dgï ¥ÀÅgÀA£À DgïnN PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁr¹zÉÝ. £À£Àß rJ¯ï£À ©.jf¸ÀÖgï JPïìmÁåæPïÖ£À £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ DgïnN PÀZÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ vÀgÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. KPÉAzÀgÉ rJ¯ï £ÀA§gï £É£À¦®è. " If at all definitely this petitioner had D.L. to ride SCH-20 8 MVC.4736/2013 the said vehicle, he could have get the same from the concerned R.T.O office. But, he is not ready to do the same. That means, this petitioner definitely had no valid D.L. to ride the same. Under the above said facts and circumstances, it can be held that, due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner also, this accident occurred. The said negligence aspect can be taken at 25% on the side of the petitioner and 75% on the side of the driver of the lorry. Hence, I answered Issue No.1 & 2 Partly in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
14. Issue No.4:- Petitioner has produced wound certificate at Ex.P.3 which shows that, petitioner had sustained the following injury:
Closed fracture mid shaft right femur. Type III 'B' compound comminuted proximal tibia fracture with CLW.
It is opined that, injury is grievous in nature.
So, in view of my finding that, the petitioner has sustained injuries only because of the negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53/A-8358. I am of the opinion that, he is entitled for Rs.30,000-00 towards pain and suffering.
15. Here, it is the case of the petitioner that, he has been hospitalized at Hosmat Hospital, as an inpatient. To SCH-20 9 MVC.4736/2013 prove this fact, he has produced Discharge summaries issued by the said hospital, which are marked at Ex.P6 and Ex.P15. Ex.P6 clearly discloses that, the petitioner has admitted to the hospital on 13-07-2013 and discharged on 20-07-2013. Ex.P15 clearly discloses that, the petitioner has admitted to the hospital on 15-08-2014 and discharged on 18-08-2014 ie., for 12 days. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,000-00 for the attendant charges and nourishing food. Accordingly, I award the same.
16. The petitioner was shifted from the place of accident to the hospital and from there to his residence. The cause title of the petition reveal that, the petitioner is the resident of No.120-8, V.V. Layout, Hosakote Town - 562 114, Bengaluru Rural District. Further, he has produced two Trip sheets issued by SLV Tours and Travels as per Ex.P18 and 19., which shows that, One Shashidhar.K. has booked said 4 wheeler and they have charged a sum of Rs.1,500/- per trip. Regarding this aspect, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,000-00 towards the conveyance.
SCH-20 10 MVC.4736/201317. The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- towards the medical expenses. But, the petitioner has produced medical bills at Ex.P7 for a sum of Rs.2,61,618/- only. In the cross examination PW.1 has clearly deposed that, " £À£Àß aQvÉìAiÀÄ ¨Á§ÄÛ 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ºÉZïrJ¥sï¹ E£ÀÆßgÉì£À PÀA¥À¤ ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ C¥ÉëÖ. "
The said Rs.1,00,000-00 has been deducted by the advocate for petitioner out of the total bill amount of Rs.3,61,618-00. Hence, by considering nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, and also by considering all the bills, this tribunal award Rs.2,62,000/- only under the head of Medical expenses.
18. Here, the petitioner's say is that, he was working as a Service Engineer, at Management, M/s Videocon D2H Dish Service, Domlur, Bengaluru, and drawing a salary of Rs.20,000/- per month (Rs.8,500 + incentives per month). To prove this fact, he has produced Ex.P9 to 14. Ex.P9 issued by: Synergy HR Solutions Pvt., ltd., which discloses that, said Petitioner's as Service Engineer, his last working day is July 13-7-2013, he has produced pay slips Ex.P10 to 14, which discloses that, Gross income is Rs.8799/- and Net amount is Rs.5187/-. In the cross-examination he has deposed that, " C¥ÀÀWÁvÀªÁzÀ SCH-20 11 MVC.4736/2013 £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£Éà PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©mÉÖ. F §UÉÎ gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÉÝãÉ..... C¥ÀWÁvÀ¢AzÀ DzÀAvÀºÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ½AzÁV FUÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è JAzÀÄ gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è w½¹zÉÝãÉ. "
He has also examined the Co-ordinator - HR and Admin department, in M/s Synergy H.R. Solutions Pvt., ltd., Bangalore Circle, by name Bharath Kumar.M.P. as PW.3. In his chief examination he has deposed that, the petitioner was working in their company. Further, in the cross examination he clearly deposed that, " FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÁ CfðzÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÞAiÀįÉèà PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. FUÀ DvÀ£À ¸ÀA§¼À DvÀ£À AiÀiÁªÀ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÉ PÉærmï DUÀÄwÛzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JµÀÄÖ PÉærmï DUÀÄwÛzÉ... JazÀÄ PÉýzÀ ¥Àæ±ÉßUÉ ¸ÁQë, FUÀ DvÀ £ÀªÀÄä PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ®è J£ÀÄßvÁÛgÉ. " The petitioner also deposed that, he is not at all working in the said company. Hence, by considering age, qualification and the above evidence this tribunal could infer that, he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
19. Here, contention of the petitioner is that, the petitioner suffered pain and mental agony. He is unable to carry on his duties, which he used to do prior to accident. To prove said fact, the petitioner got examined one Dr. Krishan Prasad from Hosmat Hospital as PW.2, he has assessed the disability of the petitioner at 23% to the whole body. Hence, this Tribunal can consider the SCH-20 12 MVC.4736/2013 disability at the rate of 23% to the whole body. The doctor has clearly deposed that, the petitioner has severe stiffness of his right ankle and is walking on the toes of his right foot. Of course, this Tribunal also observed that, the petitioner was unable to put his right leg on the floor. When, this tribunal asked clarification about this physical status of the petitioner, the doctor said the petitioner got stiffness in his right ankle and hence, he is limping and he cannot walk properly.
20. As per the petition, age of the petitioner was 23 years at the time of accident. To prove this fact, he has produced one unmarked document ie., Health Card issued by HDFC Ergo Insurance ltd., in which date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 10-05-1990. Here the advocate for petitioners also sought for loss of future prospectus of life. As per the latest decision of our own High court, even in case of injuries also loss of future prospectus of life has to be awarded. So, this petitioner is entitled for loss of future prospectus of life. This Tribunal has taken his monthly income as Rs.8000/- p.m. The petitioner was aged about 23 years and the proper multiplier is 17. So 50% of his income has to be added ie., Rs.8000/- + Rs.4000/- = Rs.12,000/-. which is under the following terms:-
12,000 x 12 x 17 x 23% = Rs.5,63,040/-SCH-20 13 MVC.4736/2013
Hence, I award Rs.5,63,040/-under the head loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability.
21. Here, the petitioner also sought for expenses towards future medicine. Regarding this aspect, he got examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as Pw.2. Though, PW-2 has deposed in his chief examination that, " The patient will need implant removal - right femur and right leg and correction of (soft tissue release) for ankle stiffness on his right leg, to enable him to walk comfortably. This will cost Rs.1.lakh." Moreover, this Tribunal has also seen the critical condition of the petitioner. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
22. This petitioner has suffered a lot due to the accidental injuries. So far, he has not come out of that sufferings. Hence, I award a sum of Rs.10,000-00 under the head of loss of amenities of life , which would be reasonable.
23. Thus, this tribunal would award compensation as detailed below: -
SCH-20 14 MVC.4736/20131. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00
2. Nourishment Food, Rs. 5,000-00 attendant charges
3. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
4. Medical expenses Rs. 2,62,000-00
5. Loss of future Rs. 5,63,040-00 earning capacity, due to permanent disability.
6. For Future medical Rs. 1,00,000-00 expenses.
7. Loss of amenities in Rs. 10,000-00 life Total Rs. 9,73,040-00
24. As on the date of accident, the policy of the offending vehicle was in force. This tribunal has already held that, due to contributory negligence of the Petitioner also this accident occurred. It has taken the said negligent aspect on the side of the Petitioner at 25% and on the driver of the offending vehicle at 75%. So, out of the total awarded amount of Rs.9,73,040/- 25% has to be deducted. It comes like this: 9,73,040 - 2,43,260/- + (25%) = Rs.7,29,780/-. Thus, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.7,29,780/- only to the petitioner.
SCH-20 15 MVC.4736/201325. Here, the respondent No.1 is the Owner and Respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the Lorry are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioner.
26. In view of the slashing rate of interest on term deposit in Nationalized banks, awarding of 6% interest would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.2.
27. Issue No.3 : In view of the discussions made on above said issue Nos.1and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,29,780/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of its realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount with interest to the petitioner and 2nd respondent being the Insurer is directed to deposit the same within 60 days from the date of this order.
After depositing the amount, the petitioner is entitled to receive only half of the compensation amount with interest in cash and the remaining amount has to be deposited in his name in any nationalized bank for a period of 2 years.SCH-20 16 MVC.4736/2013
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000-00.
Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 03rd day of March 2015).
(K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE:
Witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 : K.Harish @ Harish Kumar,
PW.2 : Dr. Krishan Prasad,
PW.3 : Bharath. M.P.,
Documents marked for PW.1:
Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR,
Ex.P1(a) : Copy of Complaint,
Ex.P2 : Copy of Spot mahazar,
Ex.P2(a) : Copy of Spot sketch,
Ex.P3 : Copy of Wound certificate,
Ex.P4 : Copy of charge sheet.
Ex.P5 : Photographs
Ex.P5(a) : C.D.
Ex.P6 : Discharge Summary, issued by Hosmat
Hospital.
Ex.P7 : Inpatient bill,
Ex.P8 : Cash receipt,
Ex.P9 : Certificate issued by Synergy HR solutions
Pvt., ltd.,
SCH-20 17 MVC.4736/2013
Ex.P10
to 14 : Pay slips.,
Ex.P15 : Discharge Summary, issued by Hosmat
Hospital.
Ex.P16 : Inpatient bill,
Ex.P17 : Deposit receipts.,
Ex.P18
& 19 : Trip sheets, issued by SLV Tours and
Travels.,
Documents marked for PW.2:
Ex.P15 : Inpatient record.,
Ex.P16 : Outpatient records.,
Ex.P17 : X-rays.,
Documents marked for PW.3:
Ex.P20 : Appointment letter.,
Witnesses examined for respondents:
-Nil-
Documents marked for respondents:
-Nil-
(K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV A.C.M.M., Member, MACT, Mayo Hall unit, Bangalore.