Bangalore District Court
Shri Rajiv Goyal vs The Director on 16 August, 2022
KABC020193602019
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES
BENGALURU (SCCH18)
Dated: This the 16th day of August 2022
Present: V.NAGAMANI
B.A.L., LL.B., LL.M.,
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C.No.4456/2019
Petitioner Shri Rajiv Goyal,
S/o Ramawatar Goyal,
Aged 32 years,
R/o Flat No.132, BlockB
Elegance Gamet Apartment
Sarjapura Main Road,
Near Rasganga Restaurant,
Bellandur,
Bengaluru South,
Bengaluru - 560103.
(By Pleader
Sri.Sachin.V.Shettar)
V/s
2 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
Respondents 1. The Director,
Karnataka Government
Insurance Department,
Visweswaraiah Tower,
Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru - 560001.
(By Pleader Sri M.N.K)
2. The Director,
Karnataka State Remote
Sensing Applications Centre,
Department of IT, BT S & T,
Government of Karnataka, 6th
Floor, M.S.Building,
Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru - 560001.
(Exparte)
*J U D G M E N T*
This judgment is emerged consequent upon the
petition filed by the petitioner U/S 166 of M.V. Act,
claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/ on account of
the injuries sustained by him, in a road traffic accident.
*FACTS OF THE CASE IN NUTSHELL*
2. Facts leading to the case of the petitioner
forthcoming in the petition that, on 12.6.2019, at about
1.30 a.m. the petitioner was riding a motor cycle
3 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
bearing registration No.KA01HN4198, slowly and
cautiously, on the left side of the road, near BDA
complex, RT nagar, Bengaluru. At that time a car
bearing registration No.KA04G1044, driven by its
driver with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner
without observing the traffic norms, and dashed against
the petitioner's vehicle. Due to the said impact,
petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
3. It is further stated in the petition that,
immediately the petitioner was shifted to the Baptist
Hospital, Hebbal, Bengaluru. Wherein, the petitioner
took the first aid treatment, later he was shifted to NH
Narayana Multi Speciality Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein,
he was admitted as an inpatient. It is stated that, the
petitioner has incurred Rs.3,00,000/ medicines and
Rs.50,000/ towards incidental charges.
4. It is also stated in the petition that, prior to the
accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, aged
about 32 years, doing business and used to earn a sum
4 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
of Rs.1,000/ per month. Due to the accidental injuries,
he has suffered mental shock and agony and he could
not work as he was earlier to the accident.
5. It is alleged in the petition that, the accident
was occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the
driver of the car bearing registration No.KA04G
1044. In this regard, case has been registered against
the driver by the jurisdictional RT Nagar police as per
Crime No.52/2019. As such, the respondent No.1 being
the insurer and the respondent No.2 being the owner of
the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the petitioner.
6. After registration of the case, as usual notices
were issued to the respondents. In response to the
notices, the respondent No.1 has appeared through its
counsel, and filed the written statement, in answer to
the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the
respondent No.2 has not appeared before the court, and
remained absent and placed exparte.
5 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
7. In the written statement of the respondent
No.1, has not seriously disputed the accident and the
injuries sustained by the petitioner. Further contended
that, the petition is not maintainable as the owner and
insurer of the two wheeler are not impleaded as parties
to the proceedings. Further contended that, the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly
excessive, exorbitant and it has no rationale. It is
stated that, the accident occurred due to the negligence
of the petitioner and not on the part of the driver of the
car bearing No.KA04G1044. With all these main
grounds, prayed to dismiss the petition against their
company.
8. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the
parties, for final determination of this case, following
issues have framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that
he had sustained grievous injuries in an
accident, that was occurred due to rash
6 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
and negligent driving of the driver of
the car bearing No.KA04G1044 on
12.06.2019 at 1.30 P.M., Near BDA
Complex, RT Nagar, Bengaluru ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled
for compensation as prayed for? If so,
at what rate? From whom?
3. What order or award?
9. In order to substantiate the case of the
petitioner, by name Rajiv Goyal, during the course of
evidence, placed his affidavit evidence, in lieu of
examinationinchief, who examined as PW1 in the case
on hand. At the time of his evidence, 14 documentary
evidence got marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. Apart from
this, placed the evidence of the witness by name
Nagesha, Medical Record officer at Columbia Asia
Hospital, who examined as PW2. At the time of his
evidence, 3 documentary evidence got marked as Ex.P15
to Ex.P17. In addition to this, examined Dr.Nagaraj B.N.
as PW3. At the time of his evidence, 2 documentary
7 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
evidence got marked as Ex.P18 & Ex.P19 for
consideration.
10. On the other hand, to prove the defenses
forthcoming in the objection, the respondent No.1 has
not adduced any evidence for consideration. After
completion of the evidence of both the side, matter was
set down for arguments.
11. Heard the argument of both the counsel. And
perused the materials available on record.
12. On appreciation of the evidence available on
record, my findings to the aforesaid issues are as
follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order
For the following:
R E A S O N S
ISSUE NO.1:
13. It is the case of the petitioner that, due to the
actionable negligence on the part of the rider of the
8 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
offending vehicle, CAR bearing registration No.KA04
G1044, alleged accident had taken place.
Consequently, the petitioner had sustained grievous
injuries. On the other hand, the respondent No.2, being
the owner of the offending vehicle, without giving any
evidence or challenging the case of the petitioner
remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent
No.1, being the insurer, though not seriously disputed
the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner,
strongly opposed the allegation of actionable negligence
on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
According to the respondent No.2, alleged accident was
occurred, due to the negligence on the part of the
petitioner.
14. On going through the above issue, burden is
on the petitioner, to prove the same, by placing cogent
and convincing evidence, on the touch stone of
preponderance of probabilities. To discharge this
primary burden, the petitioner, Ragiv Goyal, relied on
9 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
his affidavit evidence, wherein, he reiterated the main
petition averments about the accident and the injuries
sustained by him, due to the said accident, consequent
upon the negligence on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle. On the other hand, the respondent
No.2, being the RC owner of the offending vehicle and
the respondent No.1, being the insurer of the offending
vehicle have not adduced any evidence, in counter to the
case of the petitioner.
15. Among the documentary evidence placed by
the petitioner, Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are the police papers,
Ex.P7, 8, 10, 11 are the medical documents, Ex,P9,
Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 are the documents with respect to the
ID proof of the petitioner and also in connection with the
proof of avocation of the petitioner. The petitioner
herein, in order to prove the injuries sustained by him in
the accident, relied on the evidence of the medical record
officer by name Sri.Nagesh, and also with respect to the
disability sustained by him in the accident, relied on the
10 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
evidence of Dr.Nagaraj.B.N. The said witnesses were
examined as PW2 and PW3 and at the time of their
evidence, documents got marked as Ex.P15 to Ex.P19,
respectively. The said documents are to be discussed at
the relevant place, while considering the injuries
sustained by the petitioner in the accident.
16. In connection with the above issue, Ex.P1 to
Ex.P6 are the material documents for discussion. On
going through the recitals of Ex.P1 - First information
report, which was registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle by name Harisha, alleging that, he has
committed the offences punishable U/S 279 & 337 of
IPC and U/S 134(b) and 187 of the M.V.Act, on the
basis of first information given by one Ravishankar
Khiroria, who is none other than the brother of the
petitioner, reveals about the genuineness of the case of
the petitioner, and about the involvement of the
offending vehicle, in the accident. As per his complaint
averments, he received call from the local public, about
11 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
the accident of his brother near R.T.Nagar, BDA
complex. And also noted in the complaint that, rider of
the four wheeler bearing Registration No.KA04G1044
by name Mr.Harish, due to his rash and reckless driving
hit the two wheeler of his brother, which caused the
accident. Thereafter, the injured was brought to the
Baptist hospital, Subsequently, due to his critical
condition, brought to the Narayana Multi specialty
hospital on the same day. Thereafter, owner of the
vehicle asked the complainant to file the case, so that he
can compensate through the insurance policy.
17. It is pertinent to note that, alleged accident
had taken place on 12.06.2019 and complaint in this
regard gave on 24.06.2019. In connection with this
inordinate delay in giving first information about the
accident, it is noted in the Ex.P1 - Column No.3(c) that,
the complainant was providing treatment to his brother,
he gave belated complaint. In connection with this fact,
other side has not placed any materials to suspect about
12 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
the complaint of the complainant. Hence, on going
through the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that, point of delay in giving first
information in the case on hand is not fatal. When the
brother of the complainant was sustained grievous
injuries in the accident, one cannot expect immediate
complaint about the accident, without providing
treatment to the injured. The recitals of the Ex.P1 and
annexed complaint remained unquestioned and
unimpeached by the other side, to prove the innocence
of the driver of the offending vehicle and also to disprove
the involvement of offending vehicle in the accident.
18. Added to this, on going through the recitals of
the spot mahazar, marked at Ex.P2, reveals that, after
setting criminal law in motion against the driver of the
offending vehicle, the investigation officer in the
presence of punch witnesses executed the spot mahazar
and the said document, clearly speaks about the
involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident.
Another document Ex.P3 wound certificate marked at
13 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
Ex.P3 discloses that, on the history of RTA, the
petitioner had sustained two grievous injuries and three
simple injuries. Another document Ex.P4 - Motor
vehicle Accident Report, reveals that, alleged accident
was not due to any mechanical defects of offending and
defending vehicles. Ex.P5 Spot sketch and the place of
accident noted in the said sketch and the movement of
offending and defending vehicles shown in the said
sketch, clearly speaks about rashness and negligence on
the part of the driver of the offending vehicle to cause
the accident.
19. Ultimately, on scrutiny of the final report
marked at Ex.P6 speaks that, after due investigation
process, final report has been filed against the driver of
the offending vehicle by name Harish.S., on the
allegation that, he has committed the offences
punishable U/S 279 & 338 of IPC and also U/S 134(b)
and 187 of the Motor vehicle Act. To impeach the
police papers submitted by the petitioner, the
14 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
respondents have not placed any contra materials and
the respondent No.1 has not placed any satisfactory
evidence to show that, the petitioner himself is
responsible for the accident and to prove all the defenses
forthcoming in the written statement. Even at the time of
cross examination of PW1, in spite of several questions
and suggestions, nothing worthwhile is elicited to
disbelieve the assertion of the petitioner against the
driver of the offending vehicle. Apart from this, no
rebuttal evidence from the side of the respondents, to
show that, the petitioner has concocted the prosecution
documents to get compensation.
20. In the light of the evidence placed on record,
by the petitioner, in the case on hand, by way of affidavit
and the documentary evidence, speak that, the alleged
accident was occurred, due to the negligence on the part
of the driver of the offending vehicle. The said evidence,
remained unimpeached by the other side. Accordingly, I
am of the view that, the petitioner has placed
satisfactory evidence to prove the above issue to the
15 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
effect that, the alleged accident had occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Car
bearing registration No.KA04G1044. Hence, without
making much discussion on the point of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, I
am answering the Issue No.1, in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 :
21. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of
reliefs claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner through
this petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/
on account of the injuries sustained by him in the
accident, under different heads.
22. Before appreciation of the evidence placed by
the petitioner about the injuries sustained by him, in the
accident and its consequences, it is apt to note herein,
the preposition laid down in the following land mark
judgment, while appreciating the injury cases in Motor
Vehicle Act.
16 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
Civil Appeal No.8981/2010 D.D. 18.10.2010
Rajkumar V/s Ajay Kumar & Another.
"In the aforesaid case, it was held that, the
court has to make judicious attempt to award
compensation to the loss suffered by the claimant.
The compensation should not be assessed
conservatively. On the other hand, compensation
should also not be endeavouring to secure some
uniformity and consistency. The object of
awarding compensation is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done, as far as money
can do so, in a fair reasonable and equitable
manner."
23. In the light of the preposition laid down in the
above case, it is also relevant to note that,
"while determining quantum of compensation, in
such cases, the court has to strike a balance
between the inflated and unreasonable demands of
a victim and the equally untenable claim of the
opposite party saying that nothing is payable.
That sympathy for the victim does not, and should
not, comes in the way of making a correct
assessment. But if a case is made out, and the
court must not be chary of awarding adequate
compensation. "
24. In connection with the injuries sustained by
the petitioner, in the accident, has produced wound
17 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
certificate marked at Ex.P3. The said document
discloses that, he sustained the following injuries:
1) 3X2 cms Abrasion over the right ankle
2) 2x2 cms. abrasion over the left elbow
3) Contusion over the left clavicle
4) Contusion over the knee with fracture of tibia
5) Fracture of left clavicle
25. According to the doctor, the injury Nos. 1 to 3
are simple in nature and the injury No. 4 & 5 are
grievous in nature. Apart from this, the petitioner has
produced, discharge summary, 2 deposit receipts,
prescriptions, 8 Medical bills and also MLC Extract,
inpatient records and clinical note as well as Xray as
per Ex.P7, 8, 10, 12, 16 to Ex.P19, through the evidence
of PW1 to 3 respectively. As per the Discharge summary,
the petitioner had taken treatment as an inpatient from
12.06.2019 to 15.06.2019. His operation was
conducted on 13.06.2019. As per the diagnosis, he
sustained lateral tibial pleateau fracture, clavicular fracture,
mild abrasions around legs. For having taken the note of
18 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
the nature of the injuries sustained by him, and by
keeping in mind about his sufferings during the said
period of treatment, in connection with the grievous
injuries, and by considering the mode of treatment given
to the petitioner, in the hospitals, I am of the view that,
the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.70,000/ towards pain and suffering.
26. Another point to be discussed herein, about
the loss of income during laid up period and rest period.
In the petition, it is the stand of the petitioner that, he
was doing the business and earning Rs.1,000/ per
month, as per main petition column No.6, and as per
column No.22, narrated that, he used to earn
Rs.1,000/ per day and in the examination in the chief
evidence, he noted that, he used to earn Rs.35,000/ per
day from his business. In support of his avocation relied
on Ex.P12 to Ex.P14 for consideration, Ex.P12 is the
offer letter, with respect to the post of General Manager
in SHYAM Stones Company Limited, And Ex.P13 pay
19 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
slips, reflects that, his basic salary was Rs.22,000/ and
total earning was Rs.35,200/. The said pay slip is of the
year April2019 & May2019. Further in the Ex.P14 -
Bank statement of the petitioner, no whisper about the
credit of his salary from SHYAM Stones. In support of
the pay slip of the petitioner, no documentary evidence
or evidence of the supportive witnesses is not available
on record. At the time of cross examination, it was
suggested to the witness that, the Ex.P12 and Ex.P13
are the created documents. The same has been denied
by the PW1, but he has not made an effort to examine
the witness in this regard. Apart from this, it is
necessary to note that Ex.P12 is only offer letter and no
confirmation letter document is available on record for
confirmation. But in the Ex.P13 - his joining date has
mentioned as 01.04.2019. No contra materials available
on record form other side, to show that, he was not
working in the said company, as on the date of the
accident.
20 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
27. Hence, with respect to the income of the
petitioner is concerned, it is apt to take basic salary
Rs.22,000/ plus HRA Rs.7,500/ in toto comes
Rs.29,500/. On the other hand, it is to be noted that,
the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature, as
per the wound certificate. On going through the
discharge summary marked at Ex.P7, the petitioner
had taken treatment as an inpatient at Narayana Multi
specialty hospital, on 12.06.2019 to 15.06.2019. On
going through the recitals of the discharge summary and
the nature of the injuries sustained by him, it is crystal
clear that, to recover from the injuries, the petitioner
would have taken bed rest at least for one month.
During that period, whether he was received salary or
not, no whisper in the evidence of PW1 or not placed any
documents for consideration in this regard. Hence, I am
of the view that, he is entitled for compensation of
Rs.29,500/ towards loss of income during the laid
up period and rest period.
21 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
28. The petitioner herein, in connection with his
treatment expenses, at the time of his evidence, placed
medical bill of Rs.93,576/ as per Ex.P11 along with
prescriptions as per Ex.P10. The said documents are
pertaining to N.H.Narayana Multi specialty hospital,
Bengaluru Baptist hospital and Med plus Pharmacy as
well as Mahaveer Orthopedic Clinic. No contra materials
placed on record to disbelieve the medical bills herein.
And also no material points to show that, the said
medical bills reimbursed from the company. Apart
from this, no material points called out from the mouth
of PW1, to disbelieve the medical bills placed by him.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.93,576/ under the head of medical expenses.
29. The petitioner herein, as per the medical
records, had sustained grievous injuries of "Left Lateral
Tibial condyle and fracture of the left clavicle". In the
evidence of the petitioner, stated that, he took
treatment in Narayana Multi Specialty Hospital from
22 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
12.06.2019 to 15.06.2019. Thereafter on 21.06.2019,
he was reviewed in OPD for dressing. On going through
the nature of the injuries, during the period of
treatment, petitioner could have taken the assistance of
the attendant for traveling, and he could have spent
some amount towards traveling, food and nourishment.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.10,000/ towards attendant charges, food, and
nourishment and conveyance charges.
30. Another material point of loss of future income
is concerned, the petitioner herein, asserting that, he
has sustained permanent disability, consequent upon
the injuries sustained by him. In order to prove the
same, the petitioner has relied on his evidence along
with the wound certificate, along with other medical
documents. In the evidence of the PW1, reiterated the
same thing forthcoming in the main petition. As already
discussed above, wound certificate placed by him as per
Ex.P8, goes to show that he had sustained "3X2 cms
23 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
Abrasion over the right ankle 2x2 cms. abrasion over the left
elbow, Contusion over the left clavicle, Contusion over the
knee with fracture of tibia, Fracture of left clavicle". To
substantiate this, the petitioner has placed, medical
documents fully mentioned above through the evidence
of PW1 to 3. In the evidence of PW1, being the petitioner,
reiterated the main petition averments. The PW2 being
the Medical Record Officer deposed only with respect of
Ex.P16 and Ex.P17. Another witness PW3 Dr.Nagaraj
B.N., deposed in connection with the disability of the
petitioner consequent upon the accident.
31. In the evidence of the PW2, only deposed
about the production of the medical documents
pertaining to the petitioner. This material witness, PW3
Dr.Nagaraj B.N., deposed that, on the history of RTA,
the petitioner had sustained, left lateral tibial condyle and
fracture of the left clavicle. Initially at Baptist hospital, the
petitioner had taken treatment. Thereafter, he was
shifted to Narayana Multi specialty hospital, with closed
reduction and percutaneous cancellous screws for the
24 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
tibial condyle on 13.06.2019, was conducted.
Subsequently, he was discharged on 15.06.2019. This
witness further deposed that, for the purpose of
assessment of disability, he examined the petitioner and
noticed about restricted left knee movements and weakness
in the left knee. As per the extract, noticed about united
fracture with implants in situ. On the basis of clinical
and radiological assessment and also on the basis of
mobility and stability components, and with respect to
the additional points of deformity, non functional
position, partial loss of sensation and also on going
through some of deep complications, the witness came
to the conclusion that, total physical disability of the
left lower limb of the petitioner is above 40% and
wholebody physical disability of the petitioner is
30%. And in support of the evidence he placed clinical
note and Xray as per Ex.P18 and Ex.P19. And also
stated that, the petitioner needs another surgery for
25 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
removal of implant and estimation of the said surgery is
around Rs.40,000/.
32. At the time of cross examination of PW3,
admitted that, now the injuries of the petitioner is
recovered and he is not the treated doctor of the
petitioner and denied the suggestion of other side that,
to help the petitioner, he assessed the disability in
higher side and admitted that, implants are to be
removed. Further denied the suggestion that, in the
absence of the documentary evidence that is estimation,
he falsely deposed about the expenses of future
treatment for removal of implants. Overall appreciation
of the evidence of PW3 along with the documentary
evidence and also the nature of the injuries sustained by
the petitioner, I am of the view that, whole body
percentage of disability expressed by the PW3 seems
little bit exorbitant. Hence, it is apt to take the whole
body disability of the petitioner as 9% instead of 13%.
The same will meet the ends of justice.
26 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
33. Along with the above aspects, on going
through the Ex.P9 - Aadhar card speaks that, his date
of birth is 08.08.1986. And the alleged accident had
taken place on 12.06.2019. As such, as on the date of
the accident his age was 33 years. Added to this, it is
the assertion of the petitioner in the main petition that,
he was doing business prior to the accident and used to
earn Rs.1,00,000/ per month. But on going through the
Ex.P12 to P.14 reflects that, as on the date of the
accident, he was working as Manager in Shyam Stones
Company Limited, Sarjapura, Bengaluru and used to
earn Rs.35,200/ including special allowance, LTA and
incentive. By taking into consideration of basic salary
along with HRA, his monthly income comes around
Rs.29,500/. After the accident, whether he is
continuing his job or not, whether resignation has been
given or not, no satisfactory documents are available on
record for consideration to assess about the loss of
future income. On going through the evidence of PW3,
27 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
and the answers given by him, at at the time of cross
examination, I am of the view that, no satisfactory
evidence available on record, from the side of the
petitioner, to show that, due to the injuries sustained by
him, there is a total loss of his future income.
34. On appreciation of all these materials in toto
clearly speak that, there is no satisfactory documentary
evidence on record, to show that after the accident the
petitioner has not continued his job. And also, no
documentary evidence is available on record to show
that, he has discontinued his job, after the accident.
This aspect and on appreciation of all the answers given
by the PW1 and PW3, at the time of cross examination,
clearly evident that, after the accident, he has not left
his job. In such a situation, question of loss of future
income does not arise all. And with respect to the
income of the petitioner, ongoing through the pleadings
and documents, reveal that, the petitioner is concealing
something before the court, about his income. At the
same time, it is to be noted that, due to the nature of
28 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
the injuries sustained by the petitioner, there would be
some difficulty to him, to do normal work, as he was
earlier.
35. In the authority reported in, ILR 2015 KAR
167 in between Dr.Yashawanth Dongre Vs. Salman
Rasheed and Others, it was observed, that.
"The claimant has got disability to the extent
of 46%. The doctor has not spoken about the
disability with regard to the whole body. The
claimant has permanent disability and thus has
permanent diminution of his earning capacity,
but he has been continued in the same
employment without deduction of salary, the
claimant is entitled for compensation for his
handicap in the labor market. In many cases of
comparatively not serious injuries, though there
is some permanent disability, the disability has
no immediate adverse effect on his salary. He
may be getting the preaccident salary. However,
such a man is at a disadvantage when compared
with his coworkers in the labour market. It may
so happen that he continues to work with
difficulty and gets the same salary but if there is
reduction in the workforce by the employers, this
worker with disability is likely to be sent off
first."
29 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
36. On perusal of the above said decision, it is
observed that, though the claimant is in a position to
work physically after the accident as before, the after
effects of the accident may make, it more difficult for
him to find work or to retain his work. There would be
some degree of physical handicap. Since the claimant is
continuing his employment, he may be entitled for
compensation under the head of reduced eligibility of
employment. In this regard, a suitable sum has to be
awarded by way of damages, having regard to his
disability. In the instant case, on going through the
nature of the injuries, sustained by the petitioner, and
also on going through the evidence given by the doctor,
in connection with the disability of the petitioner, I am of
the view that, though the petitioner has continued his
job, he has to suffer with the said disability throughout
his life and the eligibility of his employment has been
reduced due to the disability sustained by him, in a road
traffic accident. So, suitable sum has to be awarded by
way of damages having regard to his disability.
30 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
Considering the above facts, I am of the view that, it is
just and reasonable to grant for compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/ under the head of reduced eligibility
of employment or damages due to disability.
37. Next factual aspect loss of amenities is
concerned, due to the injuries mentioned in the wound
certificate and also as per the evidence of the doctor
PW3, and the disabilities mentioned with respect to
particular limb and also with respect to whole body
disability, definitely the petitioner will suffer a slight
problem in future also, to do his normal work. By taking
into consideration of all these aspects, and also on going
through the nature of the injuries, sustained by the
petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled
for Rs.30,000/ towards loss of amenities.
38. In connection with the future medication
expenses is concerned, the PW3 in his evidence has
stated that, petitioner needs one more surgery for
removal of implants, which cost Rs. 40,000/. But no
31 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
document is available on record with respect to the
definite cost of the said surgery. As such, by looking
into the entire medical record of the petitioner,
reasonable amount has to be fixed with respect to the
future medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner is entitled
for compensation of Rs.20,000/ under the head of
future medication.
39. In view of my due discussions held above, on
various aspects, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation in to to, under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Pain and Suffering Rs. 70,00000
2. Loss of income during laid Rs. 29,50000
up period and rest period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 93,57600
4. Attendant, Nourishment Rs. 10,00000
and Conveyance Charges
5. Reduced eligibility of Rs.2,00,00000
employment or damages due
to disability
6. Loss of Amenities Rs. 30,00000
7. Future medication Rs. 20,00000
Total Rs.4,53,07600
32 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
40. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.4,53,076/ (Rupees Four lakhs
fifty three thousand and seventy six only) along with
interest @ 6% per annum, as per the proposition laid
down by the Honourable High court of Karnataka in MFA
No.103557/2016, Between Sri Ram General Insurance
Company Limited V/S. Lakshmi And Others dated.
20.03.2018. And MFA No.30131/2019 dated.12.5.2020, from
the date of the petition, till the realization of the award
amount.
LIABILITY:
41. As regards the liability is concerned, it is the
assertion of the petitioner that due to the actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of the CAR vehicle
bearing registration No.KA04G1044, alleged
accident had taken place. The evidence given by the
petitioner in connection with the issue No.1, remained
unshaken. As such, it is the strong assertion of the
33 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
petitioner that, the respondent No.1 being the insurer
and the respondent No.2 being the owner of the
offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation to the petitioner.
42. Apart from this, as per the assertion of the
petitioner, insurance policy was valid on the date of the
accident from 09.12.2018 to 08.12.2019 as per policy
No.1223579. The alleged accident had taken place on
12.06.2019. Existence of the policy as on the date of
the accident has not denied by the Insurance Company
in the objection filed in answer to the petition, which has
been admitted in para No.8 of the written statement. As
such, the respondent No.1 and 2 cannot escape from
their liability to pay compensation to the petitioner.
However, the respondent No.1, being the insurance
company and indemnifier has to satisfy the award. In
view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.1,
is liable to pay the compensation with interest at 6%
p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
34 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019
Accordingly, I am answering the issue No.2 partly in
the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.3:
43. In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 &
2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The claim petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with cost.
Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,53,076/ (Rupees Four lakhs fifty three thousand and seventy six only), along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of the petition, till the realization of the award amount.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation with 35 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019 interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization within two months from the date of this order.
Expenses to be incurred for future medication shall not carry any interest.
After deposit of the compensation amount with interest, 40% is directed to be deposited in any nationalized/Schedule bank in F.D for a period of 3 years. And remaining 60% shall be released to the petitioner through due process of law.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer through on line, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 16th day of August 2022).
(V.NAGAMANI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, BANGALORE.
36 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Sri.Rajiv Goyal., PW2 Sri.Nagesha., PW3 Dr.Nagaraj.B.N.,
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Spot mahazar Ex.P3 True copy of wound certificate Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report Ex.P5 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P6 True copy of Chargesheet Ex.P7 Discharge summary Ex.P8 2 Deposit Receipts Ex.P9 Notarised copy of Aadhar Card Ex.P10 Prescriptions Ex.P11 Medical bills Ex.P12 Appointment letter Ex.P13 2 Salary slips Ex.P14 Bank statement (received through Online) Ex.P15 Notarised copy of Identity Card Ex.P16 MLC extract Ex.P17 Inpatient Record Ex.P18 Clinical notes Ex.P19 Xray List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
Nil 37 SCCH-18 MVC 4456/2019 List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Nil III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM, Bengaluru.