Bangalore District Court
Sri. Sajid @ Mohamed Sajid vs ) United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 30 May, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BENGALURU
(SCCH:15)
DATED: THIS THE 30th DAY OF MAY, 2015
PRESENT : Smt. K.KATYAYINI,
XIII Addl.Small Cause Judge
& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC No.186/2013 & 187/2013
Petitioner/s Sri. Sajid @ Mohamed Sajid
in MVC.186/2013 S/o R. Sampangi Ramaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.8, 1st Cross,
Amar Layout, Muneshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru-45.
Petitioner/s Sri. Asif @ Mohamed Asif,
In MVC.187/2013 S/o Nazarulla,
R/at No.19, T.P. 1580,
Sonnappa Garden,
Modi Road Cross,
D.J. Halli, Bengaluru-45.
Permanent R/o No.3750,
Neelakanta Nagara, Harihara.
(By Pleader - Sri.Mohamed Wazeer.)
V/s
Respondent/s 1) United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
In both the cases Samgum Building,
S.S. Fort Road,
Bijapur-586 101.
(By Pleader - Sri.A.Arun Kumar.)
2) The Regional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Third Party Hub,
(SCCH-15) 2 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
5th Floor, Krushibhavan,
Near Corporation Circle,
Bengaluru.
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
3) Mr. Siddanagouda N. Patel,
R/a Hunsadi Road,
A/Petitioner Tallikoti(P),
Muddebihal Taluk,
Bijapur District.
(By Pleader - Exparte.)
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
Petitioners in both the petitions have filed these
petitions under Section 166 of MV Act seeking
compensation on account of injuries they have suffered
in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the case of petitioners in both
the petitions are that on 18.01.2011 at about 8:00 a.m.,
petitioner in MVC.186/2013 being the rider and
petitioner in MVC.187/2013 being the pillion rider were
proceeding on Hero Honda Splendor Motor Bike bearing
registration No.KA-17 ED-743 from Kalidasanagar,
Harihar towards SBM ATM. When they came infront of
S.J.V.P. College, Harihar the JCB bearing registration
(SCCH-15) 3 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
No.KA-28 M-7104 being driven by its driver came with
high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against their motor cycle.
b) Because of which both of them fell down and
suffered severe injuries all over the body. Accident took
place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of JCB
driver. Therefore, 3rd respondent being the RC owner and
1st and 2nd respondents (i.e. 1st respondent being the
policy issuing office, 2nd respondent being the regional
office) being the insurer of the JCB are jointly and
severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed
allow the petitions as sought for.
3. In response to the due service of notices, 2nd and
3rd respondents remained exparte. 1st respondent has put
its appearance through its counsel and filed its separate
statement of objection to the main petition denying the
petition averments.
b) However, it has admitted the policy and its force
on the date of accident but has contended that its
liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions of
(SCCH-15) 4 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
the policy such as driving licence and vehicular
documents. It has also contended that the JCB driver did
not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the
JCB.
c) It has also contended that since the place of
residents of the petitioner and the RC owner of JCB are
out of the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
Therefore, this Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition. Therefore, prayed to
dismiss the petition against it with costs.
4. On the above said pleadings of the parties, this
Tribunal has framed the following common issues in both
the petitions.
1. Whether respondent No.1 proves that this
Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the present petition?
2. Whether petitioner proves that he
sustained injury in RTA arising out of
accident alleged to have been taken place
on 18.01.2011 at about 8:00 a.m. in front
of SJVP College, Harihar, Davanagere
District due to the rash and negligent
driving of the JCB bearing registration
No.KA-28 M-7104?
(SCCH-15) 5 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
3. Whether petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so what is the quantum
and from whom?
4. What order?
5. To prove the above said issues and to
substantiate their respective contentions, petitioners
themselves have entered into witness box as PWs-1 and 2
respectively. They got examined alleged employer of the
petitioner in MVC.186/2013 as PW-3 and the Medical
Officer of City Central Hospital, Davanagere to cause
production of IP files of both petitioners as PW-4. Thus,
totally they got examined 4 witnesses and got exhibited
35 documents and closed their side.
b) Per contra, 1st respondent got examined ARTO,
Bijapur as RW-1 to cause production of driving licence of
the accused driver at Ex.R-1 and got exhibited 1
document and closed their side. Heard both the sides on
merits of the case and perused the record.
6. Now the findings of this Tribunal on the above
said issues and answered in both the petitions in the;
1. Issue No.1: Affirmative
(SCCH-15) 6 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
2. Issue No.2: Petitioners in MVC.186/2013
and 187/2013 are entitled
for the compensation of
Rs.2,10,000/- and
Rs.2,00,000/-
respectively together with
interest @ 8% p.a. from the
date of petition till realization
of the amount in its entirety
from 3rd respondent.
3. Issue No.3: As per final order for the
following reasons.
REASONS
7. Issue No.1 in both the petitions:- It is the
objection raised by 1st respondent that since the place of
accident, the place of residence of both petitioners and
the RC owner i.e. 3rd respondent are out of territorial
jurisdiction of this Tribunal, this Tribunal has no
territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petitions.
8. Admittedly, 3rd respondent i.e. insured RC owner
of JCB's address shown in the cause title as "R/a
Hunsadi Road, A/P Talikoti Post, Muddebihal Taluk,
Bijapur District". The place of accident is of course at
Harihar. So, place of residence of 3rd respondent/RC
(SCCH-15) 7 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
owner and the place of accident are of course out of
territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
9. But it is in the cause title that petitioner in
MVC.186/2013 is the resident of Muneshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru and petitioner in MVC.187/2013 is resident of
Sonnappa Garden, Modi Road Cross, D.J. Halli,
Bengaluru - 45 and permanent resident of Neelakanta
Nagara, Harihara.
10. There is no cross-examination by 1st respondent
with regard to the residential address of petitioner in
MVC.186/2013 mentioned in the cause title. Moreover,
petitioner in MVC.186/2013 has produced notarized
copy of his driving licence at Ex.P-23 and the notarized
copy of his passport at Ex.P-24.
11. Ex.P-23 and 24 reveal that the residential
address of petitioner in MVC.186/2013 is Amar Layout,
4th Cross, 1st Stage, Pillanna Garden, Bengaluru - 84 and
No.8, Amar Layout, 1st Cross, Muneshwara Nagar,
Bengaluru -560 045.
(SCCH-15) 8 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
12. Moreover, in the charge sheet his address shown
as No.28/2, 3rd Cross, Padarayanapura, Gowripalya,
Bengaluru. There is no cross-examination by other side
about the address of the petitioner in MVC.186/2013
mentioned in the charge sheet, Ex.P-23 and 24 which
clearly shows that he is resident at Bengaluru.
13. So far petitioner in MVC.187/2013, he has
produced at Ex.P-20, the original lease agreement and
notarized copy of working licence at Ex.P-32. The lease
agreement is in between petitioner and one Fareen Taj @
Fareen, it is dated 07.04.2011 and the schedule premises
situates at D.J. Halli, Bengaluru - 45.
14. The date of accident is 18.01.2011. So, the lease
agreement at Ex.P-20 is subsequent to the date of
accident. However, petitioner has filed these petitions on
07.01.2013. So, the lease agreement at Ex.P-20 is prior
to the date of filing the petition.
15. Moreover, it is in the cross-examination of
petitioner in MVC.187/2013 i.e. PW-2 that except rent
agreement he has not produced any documents in proof
(SCCH-15) 9 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
of his resident at Bengaluru and he has denied the
suggestion that he is residing at Bengaluru only after the
accident and he never resided at Bengaluru prior to the
date of accident.
16. So, indirectly 1st respondent has admitted that
petitioner is residing at Bengaluru subsequent to the
date of accident. Admittedly, under Section 166(2) of MV
Act, the claimant is entitled to file the petition before this
Tribunal within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal wherein
claimants resides as on the date of petition.
17. Since petitioner in MVC.187/2013 established
that he is the resident of Bengaluru, within the limits of
this Tribunal, he/petitioner is entitled to file the present
claim petition before this Tribunal. Accordingly, this
point in both the petitions is answered affirmative.
18. Issue No.2 in both the petitions:- Even, 1st
respondent has denied the entire case of petitioners in its
statement of objections to the main petition, in the
course of evidence, it is suggested on its behalf to
petitioners that accident if any is because of the negligent
(SCCH-15) 10 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
riding of petitioner in MVC.186/2013 who was unaware
of proper riding of the two wheeler and did not possess
valid and effective driving licence.
19. Therefore, absolutely there is no dispute between
the parties with regard to the alleged accident; the date,
time and place of accident; the vehicles involved in the
accident and the respective rider/driver of the vehicles at
the time of accident as well as the fact that petitioners
were rides of the motor cycle. So, the only point now that
remained for the consideration of this Tribunal for the
proper adjudication of this issue is the rash and
negligent aspect.
20. To prove their case as observed above, both the
petitioners themselves have entered into witness box as
PWs-1 and 2 respectively. They have filed their affidavit
evidence wherein they have reiterated the entire petition
averments. In their affidavit evidence, they have
specifically deposed that accident took place because of
the negligent driving of the JCB driver.
(SCCH-15) 11 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
21. In their cross-examination it is suggested for 1st
respondent that the accident if any is because of the
negligent riding of two wheeler rider/petitioner in
MVC.186/2013 who was unaware of proper riding of two
wheeler and did not possess valid and effective driving
licence. The said suggestions are denied by both the
petitioners.
22. Even 1st respondent has got examined
concerned ARTO as RW-1 and got exhibited 1 document,
it has concentrated only with regard to the breach of
policy conditions on driving licence, there is no iota of
evidence let in by 1st respondent with regard to the rash
and negligent aspect. Therefore, there is nothing on
record to disbelieve the oral evidence of both the
petitioners about the rash and negligent act.
23. Moreover, in support of their case, petitioners
with their oral evidence have also produced the police
papers i.e. true copies of FIR with complaint, spot
mahazar, seizure mahazar, MV report, statement of
witnesses and charge sheet respectively at Ex.P-1 to 6.
(SCCH-15) 12 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
24. All those police papers categorically reveal that
the jurisdictional police have registered criminal case
against JCB driver for the offences punishable under
Sections 279 and 337 of IPC and after the investigation
they have charge sheeted the JCB driver for the offences
punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC as well as
Section 187 of IMV Act.
25. Even, 1st respondent has contended that the
accident if any is because of the negligent riding of
petitioner in MVC.186/2013 who was unaware of proper
riding of the two wheeler and did not possess valid and
effective driving licence, there is no cross-examination on
its behalf about the police papers.
26. Moreover, there is presumption with regard to
the police papers that they are prepared by the
investigating officers while discharging their official
duties in investigation of a crime. Of course, the said
presumption is rebuttal one.
27. However, 1st respondent has not at all let in any
such rebuttal evidence. On the other hand, it has not at
(SCCH-15) 13 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
all let in any defence evidence about this issue
particularly on rash and negligent act.
28. In addition, in the wound certificates at Ex.P-7
and 15; the discharge summaries at Ex.P-6 and 16 and
the inpatient files at Ex.P-34 and 35 of petitioners issued
by City Central Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Davanagere as well as
the discharge summary at Ex.P-21 issued by Bhagwan
Mahaveer Jain hospital, Bengaluru of petitioner in
MVC.186/2013, clearly state the history of injuries as
"RTA hit by JCB vehicle on P.B.Road in front of S.J.P.
College in Harihar Town".
29. Therefore, petitioners with their oral evidence
coupled with the police papers at Ex.P-1 to 6 and the
supportive medical records i.e. the wound certificates
have successfully proved that the accident took place is
because of the rash and negligent driving of the JCB
driver.
30. So far the injuries suffered by petitioners in the
accident, absolutely there is no dispute. On the other
hand, in the cross-examination of petitioners it is
(SCCH-15) 14 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
suggested on behalf of 1st respondent that they have
suffered only simple injuries. So, 1st respondent has of
course raised objections with regard to the nature of
injuries, nature of treatment, quantum of disability and
quantum of medical expenditure. But it has not at all
raised any objections with regard to the fact of petitioners
suffering injuries in the accident.
31. Moreover, in support of their case, petitioners
with their oral evidence have also produced medical
records such as wound certificates, discharge summaries
and got produced inpatient files through PW-4. All those
medical records are also in support of the case of
petitioners about their suffering injuries in the accident.
Hence, petitioners with their oral evidence coupled with
medical records have proved that they suffered injuries in
the accident. Therefore, issue No.2 in both the petitions
is answered in affirmative.
32. Issue No.3 in both the petitions:- In view of
answering issue No.1 in affirmative, both the petitioners
(SCCH-15) 15 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
are entitled for compensation. Now in respect of
quantum.
In MVC.186/2013, it is the case of petitioner that
he was aged 35 years; was a Sales Manager at Ladies
Chappal Factory and had salary of Rs.15,000/- p.m. To
establish his age petitioner has produced notarized copis
of driving licence and passport respectively at Ex.P-23
and 24 which reveal his date of birth as 25.08.1977. The
date of accident is 18.01.2011. So, as on the date of
accident as per Ex.P-23 and 24, he is aged about 34
years.
33. In the charge sheet and in the medical records
his age is shown as 32 years. There is no cross-
examination by the other side about the age of petitioner
mentioned in those documents. However, in view of
specific date of birth mentioned in Ex.P-23 and 24, the
age of petitioner is taken as 35 years, for which the
proper multiplier applicable is 16.
34. To prove his avocation and income petitioner
with his oral evidenced has not produced any supportive
(SCCH-15) 16 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
documents. However, in the charge sheet it is stated that
he has a foot wear shop. But there is no mention
specifically whether he is a proprietor or working in the
foot wear shop. Therefore, considering the age of
petitioner as well as the cost of living on the date of
accident, it is thought just and proper to take notional
income of petitioner at Rs.6,000/- p.m.
35. It is the case of petitioner that in the accident he
has suffered injuries to middle chest, muscle deep front
and lower third arm etc. and the fracture as stated in the
wound certificate. He took treatment by Dr. H.L. Subba
Rao and others. He was an inpatient for 19 days as per
the discharge summary.
36. Petitioner has reiterated the above observed
petition averments in his affidavit evidence. During his
cross-examination his chief evidence is denied by way of
suggestions which are in turn denied by him. However, it
is suggested that petitioner has suffered only simple
injuries in the accident which is in turn denied by him.
(SCCH-15) 17 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
37. Petitioners got examined PW-4 the medical
officer to cause production of IP file at Ex.P-34. It is in
the cross-examination of PW-4 that he gave first aid
treatment to both the petitioners and he has not operated
them.
38. If the documents produced by petitioner is
taken into consideration at Ex.P-7 is the wound
certificate of City Central Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Davanagere
which reveals that petitioner was brought to their
hospital with the history of RTA hit by JCB vehicle on
P.B. Road in front of S.J.P. College in Harihar Town.
39. It is also there that petitioner was diagnosed for
diffuse contusion with abrassion measuring over on area
of 12 cm x 8 cm, present horizontally over lower part of
anterio-lateral aspect of right side of chest on palpation
tenderness and crepitation felt. CT scan of chest and
abdomen shows focal haemorrhagic contusion with
laceration involving right lobe and lever with mild
haemoperitoneum. Right sided minimal pleural
(SCCH-15) 18 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
effusion(haemoperitoneum) and fracture involving lower
thorasic ribs on right side which are grievous in nature.
40. Ex.P-8 is the discharge summary of City Central
Hospital Pvt. Ltd., which reveals that petitioner admitted
to their hospital on 18.01.2011 and was discharged on
21.01.2011. Petitioner was diagnosed for blunt injury
abdomen laceration right lobe liver. He was treated
surgically. Ex.P-32 is the inpatient file of petitioner
produced by the PW-4 also in corroboration with the case
of petitioner and in support of the contents of discharge
summary at Ex.P-8.
41. Ex.P-21 is the discharge summary of petitioner
issued Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain hospital, Bengaluru
which reveals that petitioner admitted to their hospital on
22.01.2011 and was discharged on 05.02.2011. He was
treated for right haemothorax and left rib fracture of 10th
rib as well as laceration lever surgically.
42. Ex.P-9 and 10 are the electro cardio gram report
and ECG and x-ray reports 32 in nos.; Ex.P-11 is the x-
ray films 11 in nos.; Ex.P-14 is the prescriptions 51 in
(SCCH-15) 19 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
nos. All those documents are also in support of the case
of petitioner.
43. So, if the above observed evidence is taken in a
nut shell, it is clear that petitioner has suffered injuries
in the RTA i.e. laceration of lever and haemothorax which
are grievous in nature and he was treated surgically and
was inpatient in the 1st admission for a period from
18.01.2011 to 21.01.2011 i.e. for 4 days and 2nd time in
Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital from 22.01.2011 to
05.02.2011 i.e. for 15 days, thus totally for 19 days.
44. To prove the medical expenditure petitioner has
produced at Ex.P-12, the hospital and medical bills
totally 110 in nos. amounting to Rs.1,10,313.57; Ex.P-13
the IP bill amounting to Rs.19,580/- and Ex.P-22 the
medical receipt amounting to Rs.250/-.
45. If Ex.P-12, 13 and 22 are taken note off they are
all the bills of Bapuji Hospital, Davanagere, City Central
Hospital Pvt. Ltd., and some of the bills are of private
pharmacy bills and the other bills are of Bhagwan
Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bengaluru. They are all
(SCCH-15) 20 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
computerized bills in the name of petitioner duly sealed
and signed.
46. But the bill at sl.Nos.4 and 21 are the advance
paid receipts which are deducted in the discharge receipt
in the bill at Sl.No.29 of City Central hospital. Therefore,
petitioner is not entitled for those bills respectively for
Rs.1,000/- and 5,000/- totally of Rs.6,000/-. The bill at
Sl.No.27 is of the Indian Oil Dealers amounting to
Rs.2,086.68. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the
said bill as well.
47. The bill at Sl.Nos.50 and 66 are the advance
paid receipts for Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively
which are deducted in the inpatient detail bill at Ex.P-13
of Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain hospital. Therefore, petitioner
is not entitled for the said bills totally amounting to
Rs.15,000/-. The bill at Sl.No.88 is the final receipt for
Rs.4,580/- which is the balance amount shown to be
paid in Ex.P-13. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for
the bill at Sl.No.88.
(SCCH-15) 21 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
48. The alleged bill at Sl.No.65 is not the bill and it
is a letter of the hospital requesting to deposit another
Rs.10,000/- in addition to Rs.5,000/- already paid as an
advance amount. But the amount of Rs.10,000/- stated
in the said letter is also calculated in the calculation
sheet filed by petitioner. Hence, petitioner is not entitled
for that amount of Rs.10,000/-.
49. The bill at Sl.No.37 for Rs.158/- and the receipt
with regard to payment of the said bill at sl.No.38 both
are included in the calculation sheet. Hence, petitioner is
not entitled for one bill for Rs.158/-. Therefore, after
deducting those bills i.e. the bills at Sl.Nos.4, 21, 27, 37,
50, 65, 66 and 88 amounting to Rs.1,000/-, Rs.5,000/-,
Rs.2,086/-, 158/-, 5,000/-, Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
and Rs.,4,580/- totally of Rs.37,824/- and entitled for
the remaining of Rs.66,689.69 in Ex.P-12 series;
Rs.19,580/- at Ex.P-13 and Rs.250/- at Ex.P-22 totally
amounting to Rs.86,519.69.
50. However, if the nature of injuries, nature of
treatment, the inpatient period, the hospitals are private
(SCCH-15) 22 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
set ups are taken note off, there is nothing on record to
discard the said medical expenses. On the other hand, it
appears that he has incurred expenses more than that.
Hence, it is thought just to award Rs.90,000/- including
the medical expenses at Ex.P-12, 13 and 22 series.
51. Even, petitioner has contended that he became
permanently disabled because of the accidental injuries,
he has not produced any supportive doctor's evidence.
Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the
treatment petitioner has undergone, it is thought just
and proper to award some reasonable compensation for
loss of amenities and comforts.
52. In the result, petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads mentioned below and the
amount shown against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of Income during laid up Rs. 25,000/-
period, diet, nourishment and etc.
Attendant Charges, Conveyance, Rs. 25,000/-
and Incidental Charges
Medical Expenditure Rs. 90,000/-
Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 30,000/-
Total: Rs.2,10,000/-
(SCCH-15) 23 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
53. In MVC.187/2013, it is the case of petitioner
that he was aged 22 years; doing Electrical Work and had
salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m. To establish his age petitioner
has not produced any document. However, in the charge
sheet and in the medical records his age is shown as 32
years. There is no cross-examination by the other side
about the age of petitioner mentioned in those
documents. Accordingly, the age of the petitioner taken
as 22 years, for which proper multiplier applicable the
said age is 18.
54. To prove his avocation and income petitioner
with his oral evidence has produced Ex.P-33, the
employer certificate wherein it is stated that petitioner is
working in Khan Electricals since 5 years and drawing
salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m. He has also produced the
notarized copy of the license of his employer at Ex.P-32.
55. In addition, he got examined his employer as
PW-3 who has filed his affidavit evidence in support of
petitioner and identified his signature at Ex.P-33 at Ex.P-
33(a). He has also identified Ex.P-32, the license. In his
(SCCH-15) 24 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
cross-examination nothing is elicited to discard his oral
evidence.
56. Moreover, in the charge sheet it is stated that
petitioner is an electrician. Therefore, nothing is there to
disbelieve the case of petitioner with regard to his
avocation. However, in view no specific evidence about
the quantum, considering the age of petitioner as well as
the cost of living on the date of accident and the
electrician job is a skilled job, it is thought just and
proper to take notional income of petitioner at Rs.7,500/-
p.m.
57. It is the case of petitioner that in the accident he
has suffered ribs side open premothorax right etc. He
took treatment by Dr. H.L. Subba Rao and others. He
was an inpatient for 9 days as per the discharge
summary. Petitioner has reiterated the above observed
petition averments in his affidavit evidence.
58. In his cross-examination his chief evidence is
denied by way of suggestions which are in turn denied by
him. However, it is suggested that petitioner has suffered
(SCCH-15) 25 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
only simple injuries in the accident and absolutely
normal which is in turn denied by him.
59. Petitioners got examined PW-4 the medical
officer to cause production of IP file at Ex.P-35. It is in
the cross-examination of PW-4 that he has given first aid
treatment to both the petitioners and he has not operated
them.
60. If the documents produced by the petitioner is
taken into consideration Ex.P-15 is the wound certificate
of City Central Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Davanagere which
reveals that petitioner was brought their hospital with a
history of RTA.
61. It is also there at Ex.P-15 that petitioner was
diagnosed cult laceration sternum and thorasic cavity
deep present over the lower part of front of middle of
chest. Thought the injury lacerated muscles, vessels,
lower part of sternum and right thorasic cavity are
visible. Active blooding present.
62. It is also there atht CT scan showed fracture of
multiple ribs on right side,. VSG scan of chest shows B/L
(SCCH-15) 26 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
minimal pleural effusion. Petitioner has also laceration
muscle deep over the front of lower third of right arm.
Fracture is grievious in nature.
63. Ex.P-18 is the discharge summary of the City
Central Hospital which reveal that petitioner admitted to
their hospital on 18.01.2011 and was discharged on
26.01.2011. He was diagnosed for the above observed
injuries and was treated surgically under GA chest wall
reconstruction internal fixation of rib fracture and
intercostals drainage done on 18.01.2011 and was
discharged within advice for follow up and to come after
3 days for suture removal.
64. The contents of the inpatient file at Ex.P-35 are
in corroboration with the wound certificate and the
discharge summary at Ex.P-15 and 16 observed above.
Ex.P-17 and 19 are the electro cardio gram report and
prescriptions; Ex.P-26 is the endoscope report; Ex.P28 is
the ECG reports (12 in nos.); Ex.P-29 is the chest
radiology report; Ex.P-30 is the electrocardiogram report
(SCCH-15) 27 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
and Ex.P-31 is x-ray films (3 in nos.). All those
documents are in support of petitioner.
65. So, if the above observed evidence is taken into
consideration it is clear that petitioner has suffered
injuries in the RTA i.e. cult laceration sternum and
thorasic cavity deep over the lower part of front of middle
of chest; fracture of multiple ribs on right side; B/L
minimal pleural effusion and laceration muscle deep over
the front of lower third of right arm. Petitioner was
treated surgically and in the hospital for 9 days.
66. To prove the medical expenditure petitioner has
produced at Ex.P-18, the hospital and medical bills
totally 72 in nos. amounting to Rs.82,030/- and Ex.P-25,
the hospital and medical bills totally 7 in nos. amounting
to Rs.1,450/-.
67. If Ex.P-18 and 25 are taken note off they are all
the bills of City Central Hospital Pvt. Ltd., and some of
the bills are of private pharmacy bills and the other bills
are of Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Hospital, Bengaluru, they
(SCCH-15) 28 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
are all computerized bills in the name of petitioner duly
sealed and signed.
68. But the bill at sl.Nos.1 and 5 are the advance
paid receipts which are deducted in the discharge receipt
in the bill at Sl.No.47 of City Central hospital. Therefore,
petitioner is not entitled for those bills respectively for
Rs.15,000/- and 1,000/- totally of Rs.16,000/-.
Therefore, after deducting those bills amounting to
Rs.16,000/-, petitioner is entitled for the remaining
amount of Rs.64,896.21 in Ex.P-18 series.
69. However, if the nature of injuries, nature of
treatment, the inpatient period, the hospitals are private
set ups are taken note off, there is nothing on record to
discard the said medical expenses. On the other hand, it
appears that he has incurred expenses more than that.
Hence, it is thought just to award Rs.70,000/- including
the medical expenses at Ex.P-18 and 25 series.
70. Even, petitioner has contended that he became
permanently disabled because of the accidental injuries,
he has not produced any supportive doctor's evidence.
(SCCH-15) 29 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the
treatment petitioner has undergone, it is thought just
and proper to award some reasonable compensation for
loss of amenities and comforts.
71. In the result, petitioner is entitled for
compensation under the heads mentioned below and the
amount shown against them.
Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000/-
Loss of Income during laid up Rs. 25,000/-
period, diet, nourishment and etc.
Attendant Charges, Conveyance, Rs. 25,000/-
and Incidental Charges
Medical Expenditure Rs. 70,000/-
Loss of Amenities and Comfort Rs. 40,000/-
Total: Rs.2,00,000/-
72. Considering the cost of living on the date of
accident, it is thought fit to award interest @ 8% p.a.
from the date of petition till the realization of the
compensation amount in its entirety.
73. Now, in respect of liability. It is the case of
petitioner that 3rd respondent is the RC owner and 1st
and 2nd respondents are the insurers of JCB vehicle. 2nd
and 3rd respondent remained exparte. However, 1st
(SCCH-15) 30 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
respondent has admitted the policy and its force on the
date of accident but has contended that its liability is
subject to the terms and conditions of the policy such as
driving licence and vehicular documents. It has
specifically contended that the JCB driver did not
possess valid and effective driving licence and thereby
there is breach of policy conditions.
74. To establish that it has got examined the
concerned ARTO as RW-1 who has produced Ex.R-1, the
history sheet of drivers pertains to the accused driver by
name Shanmukappa Badigera S/o Ramappa by Byalyal
and deposed that the holder of Ex.R-1 is authorized to
drive LMV-NT-car which is valid from 21.09.2000 to
20.09.2020. He was also authorized to drive MHMV (rigid
chassis) goods from 19.11.2009 to 18.11.2012 and there
is no specific endorsement in Ex.R-1 authorizing the
holder to drive JCB i.e. loader with excavator.
75. In his cross-examination it is suggested that the
accused driver was authorised to drive JCB as well since
the JCB falls within the category of LMV non transport
(SCCH-15) 31 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
class of vehicle. But RW-1 has specifically deposed that
the JCB falls within the category of "others" and there
should be specific endorsement authorizing to drive JCB.
76. Moreover, this Tribunal can take judicial notice
that the JCB is the vehicle i.e. loader with excavator and
not an ordinary transport vehicle. Therefore, there should
be special training to driver JCB. Hence, there should be
specific endorsement in the driving license authorizing
the holder to drive JCB but admittedly there is no such
endorsement in the driving license at Ex.R-1 to drive the
class of vehicle i.e. JCB.
77. Therefore, 1st respondent has successfully proved
its defence of breach of policy conditions on driving
licence. Accordingly, liability cannot be saddled on 1st
and 2nd respondents/the insurer. Hence, 3rd being the RC
owner alone is liable to pay the compensation.
78. Accordingly, petitioner in MVC.186/2013 and
MVC.187/2013 are entitled for the compensation of
Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively together
with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till
(SCCH-15) 32 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013
realization of the amount in its entirety from 3rd
respondent. Accordingly, issue No.3 is answered in both
the petitions.
79. Issue No.4 in both the petitions:- From the
above discussions, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the
following order.
ORDER
Both the petitions filed by petitioners in MVC.186/2013 and MVC.187/2013 under Section 166 of IMV Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.
In the result, petitioners in MVC.186/2013 and MVC.187/2013 are entitled for compensation amount of Rs.2,10,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the realization in its entirety from 3rd respondent.
3rd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount together with interest and cost within 30 days from today.
On deposit of compensation amount, the petitioners in both the petitions shall deposit Rs.50,000/- each in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bengaluru for a period of 5 years and the remaining compensation amount together with interest and cost is ordered to be released in favour (SCCH-15) 33 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013 of the petitioner through an account payee cheque without awaiting further orders.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in both the petitions.
Draw a decree accordingly.
Office is directed to keep the original copy of the judgment in MVC.186/2013 and the copy thereof in MVC.187/2013.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open Court by me on this the 30th day of May, 2015.) (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
PW1: Sajid PW2: Asif @ Mohamed Asif PW3: Imran B.F. PW4: Dr. Vijay Kumar Jathi
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
RW1: Chandrakanth Shamarao Heruru LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS:
Ex.P1 : True copy of First Information Report with complaint (SCCH-15) 34 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013 Ex.P2 : True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 : True copy of Seizure Mahazar Ex.P4 : True copy of IMV report (2 in nos.) Ex.P5 : Statement of witnesses (2 in nos.) Ex.P6 : True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P7 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P8 : Discharge summary Ex.P9 : Electro cardio gram report Ex.P10 : ECG and X ray reports (32 in nos.) Ex.P11 : X ray films (11 in nos.) Ex.P12 : Medical bills ( 110 in nos., amounting to Rs.
1,10,313.57 ps/- ) Ex.P13 : IP bill amounting to Rs. 19,580/- Ex.P14 : Prescriptions (51 in nos.) Ex.P15 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P16 : Discharge summary Ex.P17 : ECG reports (2 in nos.) Ex.P18 : Medical bills (72 in nos., amounting to Rs. 82,030.
63 ps/- ) Ex.P19 : Prescriptions (21 in nos.) Ex.P20 : Original lease agreement Ex.P21 : Discharge summary Ex.P22 : Medical receipt (1 in nos., amounting to Rs. 250/-) Ex.P23 : Notarised copy of DRIVING LICENCE Ex.P24 : Notarised copy of pass port Ex.P25 : Medical and hospital bills ( 7 in nos. totally amounting to Rs. 1450/-) Ex.P26 : Endoscope report Ex.P27 : Medical test reports (2 in nos.) Ex.P28 : ECG reports (12 in nos.) Ex.P29 : Chest radiology report Ex.P30 : Electrocardiogram report Ex.P31 : X-ray films (3 in nos.) Ex.P32 : Notarised copy of working license (original not shown for perusal) Ex.P33 : Reference letter Ex.P34 : IP file of petitioner in MVC 186/13 Ex.P35 : IP file of petitioner in MVC 187/13 Ex.P36 : CT scan films (4 in nos.) (SCCH-15) 35 MVC.186/2013 & 187/2013 LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R1 : History sheet of drivers (K.KATYAYINI), XIII Addl. Judge & Member MACT Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru.