Bangalore District Court
Smt. Rathnamma vs Darshankumar R on 8 February, 2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
(SCCH25)
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge,
Bengaluru.
MVC No.7848/2016
PETITIONER: Smt. Rathnamma
W/o Late Mallappa,
Aged about 57 years,
#689, 1st Cross,
ICSE Main Road,
Nagarabhavi Village,
Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore - 560 091.
Also At
No.385, Yellambalere,
Kadur Taluk,
Chikkamagalur Dist.
(By Sri.Appaji K.R.
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1.Darshankumar R
S/o Ramu R
No.149,
Annapoorneshwari Layout,
2 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
Veerabadranagar,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Exparte)
2. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company,
Golden Hights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th C Cross,
4th M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(By Smt. R. Sharadamba,
Advocate)
......
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act., seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident dated 04.06.2016.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, On 04.06.2016 at about 9.30 am, the Petitioner was standing on the left side of the road, at that time a motorcycle bearing No.KA41V6391 came from backside ridden with high speed in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering to human life and dashed against the Petitioner. 3 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25 Due to this accident, the Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries to his right leg and hand and all over the body.
3. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to S.K.Hospital provided first aid treatment and thereafter shifted to Unit life Line Hospital for further treatment and admitted as an inpatient, conducted surgery of fracture area. So far she has spent Rs.4,000/ per day for food and other expenses and Rs.1,00,000/ towards hospital charges and other incidental charges. The injury is grievous in nature and it amounting to permanent disability. Petitioner cannot cross her legs and hand, cannot bear any type of weight and also getting pain often and often. She cannot do any works as earlier and also depending on others. Because of the injuries she caused mental agony and shock.
Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy, aged about 57 years and working at Private company and getting salary of Rs.15,000/ per month and maintaining her family. She is the only earning person in the house. Due to the 4 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 accident she is unable to do her work and she cannot sit, squat, fold and cannot cross her leg and now she became permanently disabled. Due to the said accident lost her earnings.
The Kamakshipalya Traffic Police registered case in Cr.No.200/2016 u/Sec. 279, 337 of IPC against the rider of the motorcycle bearing NO.KA41V6391. The Respondent Nos.1 & 2 being the RC owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
4. In spite of due service of notice the Respondent No.1 did not appear before this court and hence placed Ex parte. In response to notice issued by this tribunal, the Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement. The Respondent No.2 in the objection denied the averments of the petition with regard to alleged accident, sustaining injuries, treatment, age, occupation and income and further submitted that complaint and FIR was lodged belatedly from the date of alleged accident as such the insured vehicle is just falsely fixed in the accident in collusion by the petitioner with the 5 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 insured/respondent No.1, accused/rider of the motorcycle, jurisdictional police authorities, IMV Inspector and doctors etc. The insured respondent violated the provisions of Sec.134(C) of M.V. Act. The rider of the said motorcycle bearing Reg.No:KA41V6391 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the respondent No.1 willfully entrusted said vehicle to the said rider. The first respondent is not possession the valid vehicle documents. The compensation claimed without any basis. Further admitted issuance of policy subject to terms and conditions. The accident was caused due to sole negligence and ignorance on the part of the petitioner who was walking, crossing standing on the road being a pedestrian without applying her mind and ignoring the on coming vehicular traffic movements as such she alone is responsible for the subsequent consequences. There is sole/contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner as she crossing/walking and chosen the road other than the Zebra crossing and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
5. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA41V 6391 and in the said accident Petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
6. The Petitioner in order to prove her case, she has examined herself as PW.1 and marked 10 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.10. Dr. B.S.Jayaram examined as PW.2 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P.12 to P.15. On the other hand the Respondent No.2 examined Mr.Chitresh D Habbu - Legal Manager as RW.1 and produced 5 documents as per Exs.R.1 to R.5.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record. The 7 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 counsel for the respondent No.2 has also filed written arguments and both counsel have relied upon rulings of Hon'ble Apex Court in support of their arguments and I have also perused the same.
8. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence on record this court answers the above issues as follows: Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:
The Petitioner in order to prove that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA41V6391 has examined herself as PW.1 and produced 6 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.4, P.7 & P.8. She has specifically stated in her evidence that, on 04.06.2016 at about 9.30 a.m. while she was standing on the left side of the road, at that time and place the 8 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA41V6391 came from back side with high speed negligently dashed against her and caused the accident. The respondent No.2 has contended that the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license and as the petitioner walking on/crossing the road without there being zebra crossing and hence there is sole negligence of the petitioner. In the crossexamination of PW.1 it is brought out that she was proceeding towards house at 9.30 a.m., there are four roads and said roads will be busy with vehicles, she crossed two roads and was to cross other two roads, the rider of two wheeler came in high speed in order to avoid caught by traffic police. From the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.P.1/FIR with FIS clearly shows that the petitioner was crossing the road. On perusal of Ex.P.2 it is clear that there is no any zebra cross at spot, the petitioner almost crossed one road and crossed 16 feet of another road and when she was to reach end of the said road at 10 feet there the accident occurred. From this evidence it is crystal clear that the petitioner was crossing the road without there being any zebra cross and hence there is negligence of the petitioner also. As 9 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 per the evidence of PW.1 in order to avoid traffic police the rider of offending vehicle came in high speed and hit her cannot also be ruled out as the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid license as per chargesheet also and hence the evidence of the petitioner is to be considered that the rider of the offending vehicle drove it in high speed with rash or negligent manner. Therefore, after investigation the police have filed chargesheet against the rider of offending vehicle and hence the documents produced by the petitioner at Exs.P.1 to P.8 have presumptive value clearly supports the case of the petitioner. In order to disprove the said aspect of rash or negligent act of rider of offending vehicle the respondent No.2 has not lead evidence. No doubt the petitioner was crossing the road where there was no zebra crossing as could be seen from the evidence and also the spot sketch, but it should not be sole criteria to hold the sole negligence on the part of petitioner only but it can be considered as contributory negligence.
10 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
10. On the question of contributory negligence, in one of the latest decisions the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Division Bench in the case of The Managing Director, KSRTC, Hassan Division Vs. Sri Andrew Lucas and Others in MFA No:3004/2019 which was decided on 09.01.2020 has noticed the earlier decision of the Hon'ble High Court where in such cases where the person is crossing the road, where there was no zebra crossing and accident occurs, it was held that the negligence of the victim should be taken at 25%. The Hon'ble High Court Division Bench, in the case of Andrew Lucas has held that it is appropriate to take the negligence in such cases at 20% and not 25%, as in the normal circumstances, in National Highways, there are no zebra crossings. When a person is crossing the road and meets with an accident on a National Highway, the contributory negligence should be considered at 20% which would be appropriate. Having regard to all the above decisions of Hon'ble High Court, this court is of the opinion that the contributory negligence is required to be assessed at 20%.
11 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
11. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.4 and P.7, P.8, this court is of the opinion that the accident has been occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA41V6391 alongwith the contributory negligence of petitioner at 20% and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, issue No.1 held partly in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2:
The Petitioner has further contended that, on account of accident, she has sustained grievous injuries and they have caused her permanent disability and hence she is unable to do her earlier work/occupation. The Petitioner in this regard has entered into witness box and stated that due to the accidental injuries, she is suffering from permanent disability. Apart from that, she has also produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P.6. As per Ex.P.6, the Petitioner has sustained (i) Head injury sub archnoid haemorrhage, (ii) Fracture both bones right forearm and (iii) Fracture right fibula which are grievous 12 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 in nature. The Petitioner has also examined Dr.B.S.Jayaram as PW.2. PW.2 has spoken supporting the version of the Petitioner. This court while considering the Issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA41V6391 alongwith the contributory negligence of the petitioner herself at 20%. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Respondents after deducting her part of negligence at 20%.
Disability In the chiefexamination, PW.2 has spoken supporting the version of the Petitioner. He stated that, on examination he found that the Petitioner had the following injuries (i) Head injury sub archnoid haemorrhage, (ii) Fracture both bones right forearm and (iii) Fracture right fibula which are grievous in nature. Patient was admitted on 04.06.2016, I.P. NO.17579/16 Analgesics treatment given antibiotics, A/E. POP slab applied wound dressing done. Patient undergone operation on 07.06.2016 ORIF with plate and screws for 13 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 fracture shaft of radius and ulna. Patient was discharged on 09.06.2016 with an advice to take medicines to continue A/E POP slab. Active finger movements. Review after 2 days for dressing to follow Neuro surgeon orders. PW.2 further sated that, the Petitioner was examined on 02.07.2019 for assessment of disability and she complained of pain (Rt) forearm swelling of (Rt) forearm, difficult to do daily routine activities in (Rt) hand and difficult to lift weight. He further stated that, found tenderness + middle 3rd (Rt) radius & Ulna, swelling of (Rt) forearm and surgical scar mark present (Rt) forearm. PW.2 further stated that, as per the mobility components + Stability components + additional weightage for pain = 33.08% and the Petitioner is suffering from physical disability to the whole body 11.02% . He has not stated how the disability of the Petitioner would effect on her work. In the crossexamination it is elicited that he is the treated doctor, assessed the disability as per the 2001 guidelines, the fracture is united. The additional weightage is given for pain, pain may vary and it may improve also or due to old age of the petitioner the pain may continue also and due to age factor also there 14 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 are some complications and not solely with the said surgery.
Therefore, the 11.02% of permanent physical disability stated by the PW.2 appears to be on higher side. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the period of treatment that she has undergone, her age and nature of work she does, her functional disability is considered as 8% to the whole body.
Monthly income.
The Petitioner has deposed in her evidence that, she was aged about 57 years, working at private company and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month. But, to substantiate this contention, the Petitioner has not produced any relevant document, vouchers or the bank statement to ascertain her income. Therefore, the version of the Petitioner that she was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/ per month is not acceptable. Under these circumstances, this court has to take the notional income of the Petitioner for calculating the loss of future income. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 57 years as could be make out from Ex.P.6 wound certificate 15 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 and hence petitioner's age was 57 years as on the date of accident. She was hale and healthy before accident. The accident took place in the year 2016. Therefore, having regard to the age of the Petitioner, and hike in price index, the monthly notional income of the Petitioner is considered as Rs.8,000/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING: As per the wound certificate - Ex.P.6 the Petitioner has sustained (i) Head injury sub archnoid haemorrhage, (ii) Fracture both bones right forearm and (iii) Fracture right fibula which are grievous in nature. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to S.K.Hosptial whereat first aid was done, then shifted to Unit Life Line Hospital for further treatment and treated as an inpatient and undergone operation of fracture area. The disability of the petitioner is considered at 8% which is permanent in nature. Considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment she has 16 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 underwent, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/ under this head.
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner has contended that she has spent more than a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. In this regard, she has produced medical bills only for a sum of Rs.77,543/ as per Ex.P.9. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for reimbursement of the said amount under the head of Medical Expenses.
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD: As mentioned above she has sustained grievous injuries. The Petitioner was admitted on 04.06.2016, treatment was given and undergone operation on 07.06.2016 ORIF with plate and screws for fracture shaft of radius and ulna and discharged on 09.06.2016 with an advise to take medicines to continue A/E POP slab. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment it can be said that the Petitioner required at least one month time for recovering from 17 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 the injuries sustained by him. Hence, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.8,000/ under this head.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: In so far as age of the Petitioner is concerned, as per the Wound certificate the Petitioner's age is 57 years as on the date of accident. The Respondent has not placed any contrary document. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the Petitioner's age is considered as 57 years. As per Sarala Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is
9. As such, in total the Petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.69,120/ (Rs.8,000/ x 12 x 9 x 8%= Rs.69,120/) under this head.
v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS: The Petitioner was aged about 57 years at the time of accident. She has sustained (i) Head injury sub archnoid haemorrhage, (ii) Fracture both bones right forearm and (iii) Fracture right fibula which are grievous in nature. As per the evidence of PW.2 and consideration of this Tribunal, she is 18 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 suffering from 8% permanent physical disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability throughout her life. Because of this she will have to lose many amenities and comforts. Therefore, considering the age and nature of injuries that the Petitioner has suffered, a sum of Rs.20,000/ is awarded under this head.
vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to S.K.Hosptial whereat first aid was done, then shifted to Unit Life Line Hospital for further treatment and treated as an in patient. PW.2 stated that, Petitioner was admitted to their hospital on 04.06.2016 and undergone operation of ORIF with plate and screws for fracture shaft of radius and ulna and discharged on 09.06.2016 with an advice to take medicines with follow up treatment. However, during the said period the petitioner must have spent considerable amount on conveyance, attendant charges, etc.. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head. 19 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: As per the version of the PW.2, the Petitioner has to undergo another surgery for removal of implants the estimated cost of this surgery is around Rs.30,000/. But there is no estimation bill produced by the Petitioner or PW.2. As per the evidence on record the admissible cost of treatment is borne by Government. Looking to the earlier treatment cost and nature of injury, it appears it would be justifiable if an amount of Rs.15,000/ is awarded to the Petitioner under this head.
Therefore, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/ under this head.
The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.30,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs.77,543/
3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.08,000/
4. Loss of future income Rs.69,120/ 20 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25
5. Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.20,000/
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.20,000/ nourishment charges
7. Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/ TOTAL Rs.2,39,663/
13. If it is rounded off it comes around Rs.2,40,000/ and same is awarded under different heads to the Petitioner after deducting her part of negligence at 20%. The counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed applications under Section 151 CPC praying to waive off the interest for the period where the petitioner has not taken steps in respect of respondent No.1 and further from the date of dismissal of the claim petition till petitioner taken steps in respect of first respondent and also to waive off the interest on award amount from 24.3.2020 till reopen of the court i.e. until the normal functions of the court. The petitioner's counsel submitted oral objections stating that as the petitioner being the illiterate lady due to negligence on the part of previous counsel the case was dismissed for nonprosecution as well as for nonmaintainability against respondent No.2 alone and there is no fault on the side of petitioner. Further submitted 21 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 that as the closure of courts was not either in their control or under control of anybody and hence the interest for the said period cannot be waived off. On perusal of the ordersheet it is clear that as steps not taken against the respondent No.1 and hence case against respondent No.1 dismissed on 9.5.2017 and later as the petitioner did not turn up for taking steps against respondent No.1 and for leading evidence and hence petitioner dismissed for nonprosecution and non maintainability on 22.1.2019. Even though the petitioner's counsel submitted that the said mistake was not of the petitioner but of her previous counsel and hence petitioner be not suffered but only on this aspect the respondent No.2 cannot be blamed to pay interest for the said period and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get interest from May 2017 to March 2019 I.e. from the month of dismissal of petition against the respondent No.1 and till restoration of case and taking steps. Further as regards waiving off interest for the closure of courts in view of Coid19 pandemic period is considered, it cannot be waived as it was not under control of either parties for causing delay in disposal of this case. 22 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25 Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to above compensation of Rs.2,40,000/ after deducting her negligence at 20% with interest at the rate of 9% per annum (as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 AIR SCW 5375) from the date of petition till date of deposit of award amount excluding the period of 22 months i.e. from May 2017 to March 2019.
14. The Respondent No.2 has admitted issuance of police to the offending vehicle and its existence as on the date of accident subject to terms and conditions. The has contended that the driver of offending vehicle not possessed valid DL and lead evidence of RW.1 and produced Exs.R.1 to R.5 and also relied upon the chargesheet/Ex.P.8 and these all affirms the contention of the respondent No.2 that as on the date of accident the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess valid DL. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2018 SAR (Civil) 473 and in the case of "Parminder Singh Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors." and in the case of "Pappu 23 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 and Ors. V. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr." relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, the insurance company is directed to pay the compensation awarded to the petitioner/claimant at the first instance and then recover it from the first respondent in accordance with law. The Petitioner has claimed for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/ but she is entitled only for a sum of Rs.1,92,000/ (Rs.2,40,000/ Rs.48,000/ 20%). Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.3:
For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues this court proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,92,000/ along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of 24 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 depositing the amount excluding 22 months interest from May 2017 to March 2019 (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/). The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.2 Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount within sixty days from the date of this award at the first instance and then recover the same from the first respondent by filing execution in accordance with law.
On deposit of compensation and interest, it shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of epayment and on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.25 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25 Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of February 2021).
(Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXI A.C.M.M.& XXIII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Smt. Rathnamma PW.2 Dr.B.SJayaram
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 FIR & Complaint in Cr. No.200/16 Ex.P.2 Spot sketch Ex.P.3 Crime detail report Ex.P.4 Mahazar Ex.P.5 Evidence statement Ex.P.6 Wound certificate Ex.P.7 IMV report Ex.P.8 Charge sheet Ex.P.9 Medical bills Ex.P.10 Prescriptions 26 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 Ex.P.11 Dischrge summary Ex.P.12 Case sheet Ex.P.13 Recent examination slip Ex.P.14 Disability evaluation form Ex.P.15 6 Xrays List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s: RW.1 Sri. Chaitresh D Habbu List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Policy copy
Ex.R.2 Letter issued to insured
Ex.R.3 Postal receipt
Ex.R.4 133 notice
Ex.R.5 Reply
(Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI)
XXI A. C.M.M.,& XXIII ASCJ
Bengaluru.
08.02.2021
For Judgment
27 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part. The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,92,000/ along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount excluding 22 months interest from May 2017 to March 2019 (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/). The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.2 Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount within sixty days from the date of this award at the first instance and then recover the same from the first respondent by filing execution in accordance with law. 28 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25 On deposit of compensation and interest, it shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of epayment and on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw decree accordingly.
(Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J. Bangalore.29 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25 AWARD BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA & XXI ACMM : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.7848/2016 PETITIONER: Smt. Rathnamma W/o Late Mallappa, Aged about 57 years, #689, 1st Cross, ICSE Main Road, Nagarabhavi Village, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore - 560 091.
Also At No.385, Yellambalere, Kadur Taluk, Chikkamagalur Dist.
(By Sri.Appaji K.R.
Advocate/s)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1.Darshankumar R
S/o Ramu R
No.149,
Annapoorneshwari Layout,
Veerabadranagar,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(Exparte)
2. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company,
Golden Hights, 4th Floor,
No.1/2, 59th C Cross,
30 MVC 7848/2016
SCCJ-25
4th M Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
(By Smt. R. Sharadamba,
Advocate)
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the
Petitioner/s above named U/sec.110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees Only) for the injuries sustained by the Petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Miss.B.T.Annapoorneshwari, XXIII Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for Respondent.
ORDER The petition is allowed in part.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,92,000/ along with interest at 9% p.a. 31 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount excluding 22 months interest from May 2017 to March 2019 (excluding future medical expenses of Rs.15,000/). The Respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.2 Insurer of the offending vehicle is directed to deposit the compensation amount within sixty days from the date of this award at the first instance and then recover the same from the first respondent by filing execution in accordance with law.
On deposit of compensation and interest, it shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of epayment and on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2021.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA BANGALORE 32 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0000 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _________________________________ Total Rs.
____________________________ _____ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T.METROPOLITAN:
BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR 33 MVC 7848/2016 SCCJ-25 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU (SCCH25) DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 MVC No.6609/2017 PETITIONER/S: Smt.Rathnamma.
V/s
RESPONDENT/S: Darshankumar R and
another
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA41V 6391 and in the said accident Petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
(Miss. B.T.Annapoorneshwari) M.A.C.T. BANGALORE