Bangalore District Court
In Sri.Umapathi S vs Sri.G.P.Lokesh on 20 April, 2016
SCCH-13 1 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 20th DAY OF APRIL 2016.
PRESENT :
SMT.B.PUSHPANJALI, B.A., LL.M.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.1298 & 1299 of 2015.
PETITIONER IN Sri.Umapathi S., 40 years,
MVC.1298/15: S/o Subramnayam N.,
R/at No.3120, Ganigarapete,
Doddabaallapura Town,
Bengaluru Rural dist.
PETITIONER IN Smt.Vijayamma, 60 years,
MVC.1299/15: W/o Subramnayam N,
R/at No.229, Durgi Jogihalli,
Doddabaallapura Tq.,
Bengaluru Rural dist.
vs.
RESPONDENTS 1.Sri.G.P.Lokesh, Major
IN BOTH THE S/o Late G.T.Puttaswamy,
PETITIONS: R/at No.19, behind
Chamudeshwari Temple,
Gottigere, Bannerughatta Road,
Bengaluru-560 083.
(RC Owner of Matiz Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345)
2. M/s.United India Ins.Co.Ltd.,
By its Regional Manager,
SCCH-13 2 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
T.P.Hub, 5th floor, Krishibhavan
Building, N.R.Road,
Near Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru.
(Insurer of Matiz Car bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345)
(Vide Policy
No.0704813114P106842612
Valid from 26.11.2014 to 25.11.15)
-o0o-
COMMON JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed these petitions under
Sec.166 of M.V. Act, claiming compensation on account of
their sustaining injuries in the motor vehicle accident.
Since these petitions are arising out of the same accident,
they are clubbed together for common consideration.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners case are that:-
On 20.01.2015, at about 7.30 p.m. petitioner-
S.Umapathi was driving a Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KA-
04-MF-9589 in which petitioner-Smt.Vijayamma was one
of occupants, were proceeding from Doddaballapura to
Shrinagar and when they reached near N.Hosahalli Gate &
SCCH-13 3 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
Handli Cross Center, NH-206 road, Nitturu Hobli, Gubbi
Taluk, Tumkur dist, by that time, a Matiz car bearing
Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, endangering to human life while coming
from opposite direction and dashed against their car. As a
result of which, both the petitioner sustained injuries to
all over the body. Immediately, they were shifted to
General Hospital, Tumkur, after first aid treatment,
petitioner- S.Umapathi shifted to M.C. Orthopedic,
Arthroscopy & Joint Replacement Centre, Ashok Nagar,
Tumkur, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient.
Petitioner-Smt.Vijayamma shifted to Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital, Doddaballapur, for further treatment.. It is
contended in the petitions that due to the said accident,
they suffered injury, pain & suffering and they spent
considerable amount towards their treatment and
nourishment. Therefore, petitioners have filed these
petitions for claiming compensation.
3. In response to the notices, respondent No.1 and 2
in both the cases placed their appearance through its
SCCH-13 4 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
counsel, but only 2nd respondent filed written statement
with the following contentions:-
2nd Respondent/Insurance company denied all the
averments made in the petition, except admitting of the
fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with it,
but the liability if any is subject to the terms and
conditions of the policy. It has disputed the cause of the
accident and contended that it is occurred due to the sole
negligence of the petitioner -S.Umapathi and in order to
make an unlawful gain, the petitioners and their family
members lodged a false complaint. It also disputed the
age, income of the petitioners, reduction of their working
capacity, their spending of the amount towards medical
treatment. It has also contended that the compensation
claimed in the petitions are exorbitant, therefore, the
instant petitions may be dismissed.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues
have been framed which are common in both the
petitions:
SCCH-13 5 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 20.1.2015
at about 7.30 p.m, when he was proceeding in
Omni car bearing No. KA-04-MF-9589, near N.
Hosahalli Gate & Kondli Cross Centre, NH-206
Road, Nitturu Hobli, Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur
District, at that time a driver of Matiz car bearing
No. KA-05-MC-2345 drove the vehicle at high
speed in a rash or negligent manner so as to
endanger human life and dashed against the
petitioner due to which he had sustained
grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent and from
whom?
3. What order or award?
5. The petitioners in MVC.No.1298 and 1299 of
2015 and Dr.Ramesh B. were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and
got marked the documents Ex.P.1 to P.14. The
respondents have not led any oral evidence nor produced
any documents.
6. Heard arguments.
7 My findings to the above common issues are:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
SCCH-13 6 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the
following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 in both the cases:- It is the case of
the petitioners that they sustained grievous injuries in the
motor vehicle accident that occurred on 20.01.2015, at
about 7.30 p.m. petitioner- S.Umapathi was driving a
Omni Car bearing Reg.No.KA-04-MF-9589 in which
petitioner-Smt.Vijayamma was one of occupants, were
proceeding from Doddaballapura to Shrinagar and when
they reached near N.Hosahalli Gate & Handli Cross
Center, NH-206 road, Nitturu Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur dist, by that time, a Matiz car bearing Reg.No.KA-
05-MC-2345 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life while coming from
opposite direction and dashed against their car. As a
result of which, both the petitioner sustained injuries to
all over the body.
SCCH-13 7 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
9. In order to prove that the accident is on
account of rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle by its driver, petitioners in both the cases were
examined as PWs.1 and 2, reasserting the petition
averments. They have also got marked the documents at
Exs.P1 to P12. Petitioner- S.Umapathi also examined
Dr.Ramesh, Orthopedic Surgeon of Victoria Hospital, who
assessed the disability and got marked Exs.P13 and P14.
10. A careful perusal of the records, it reveal that
though the 1st respondent who is the owner of the
offending vehicle appeared before the court, neither filed
written statement nor led evidence. The 2nd respondent
who is the insurer of the offending vehicle filed written
statement inter-alia contending that the petition is not
maintainable either in law or on facts. Despite, the
accident is on the negligence of the petitioner in
MVC.No.1298/15, with an oblique motive to get
compensation, a false case is registered against the
offending vehicle. On the date, the petitioner-S.Umapathi
being the driver of the car drove the same in a rash and
SCCH-13 8 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
negligently and dashed against the offending vehicle.
Despite, it is on the negligence of the petitioner-
S.Umapathi, colluding with the police and owner, a false
complaint came to be registered against the offending
vehicle. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for the
relief as claimed. Hence, requested to dismiss the claim
petition.
11. The records reveal that despite the 2nd
respondent has taken up a specific defence about the
cause of the accident, to substantiate the same, neither
examined the driver of the offending vehicle or any eye
witness to the accident before the court. In the absence
of any cogent evidence and rebuttal evidence on record,
the Tribunal cannot believe the assertion of the 2nd
respondent that the petitioner-S.Umapathi himself
negligence in causing the accident. The records reveal
that the sister of the petitioner-S.Umapathi namely
Smt.Indrani, wife of late Ravikumar, has filed complaint
on the next day. She has narrated the cause of the
accident as well as the vehicles involved in the accident.
SCCH-13 9 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
Though, the 2nd respondent has taken up a specific
contention that the petitioner-S.Umapathi himself sole
negligent in causing the accident. To substantiate the
same, absolutely, no iota of evidence is placed before the
court. No doubt, the learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent has made much emphasis contending that the
petitioners have withhold the sketch and mahazar only to
suppress the real fact before the court. According to the
2nd respondent that the petitioners have suppressed the
Sketch, what prevented it to produce the sketch before the
court. However, to establish that the accident is on the
centre of the road and it is head on collusion between the
vehicles, it has not produced any sketch before the court.
Besides, it has not examined the driver its insured vehicle
nor any eye witness to the accident, Because, they are
better persons to speak about the accident. The history
of injury recorded in the medical record reveal that the
petitioners were treated with the history of RTA.
Therefore, in order to brush aside the direct evidence of
the petitioners coupled with the investigation report,
absolutely no rebuttal evidence is placed before the court.
SCCH-13 10 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
So, in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Tribunal
cannot believe the assertion of the 2nd respondent that the
petitioner-S.Umapathi is negligent in causing the accident.
12. On the other hand, looking to the evidence of
PWs.1 & 2 and police papers like FIR, Charge sheet, spot
Mahazar & wound certificates, this court is of the opinion
that the accident in question was on account of the rash
and negligent driving of the offending Car by its driver and
in the said accident, the petitioners sustained injuries.
Consequently, Issue No.1 in both the petitions is answered
in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.2 in MVC No.1298/15:-
It is needless to say that the age, income, nature of
injuries, its impact on the working capacity of the
claimant and medical expenses incurred towards his
treatment are the considering factors to ascertain the
quantum of compensation.
15. In the petition, it is contended that the petitioner was
aged about 40 years, working as a Purohit and getting an
SCCH-13 11 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
income of Rs.20,000/- p.m. In order to substantiate his
age, the petitioner has produced the notarized copy of the
driving licence marked at Ex.P7. As per this document,
his date of birth is recorded as 15.04.1973. So, on the
date of accident, he was aged about 42 years. With regard
to his avocation and income, nothing is placed on record.
In the absence of material evidence this tribunal could
not believe that the he was earning Rs.20,000/- p.m. as a
Purohith. Therefore, taking into consideration, the nature
of avocation and his age, this Tribunal feels to take
notional income of the petitioner as Rs.7,000/- p.m.
14. Injury, Pain and suffering:-
According to the petitioner, he had sustained
grievous injuries in the accident, therefore he has under
gone treatment, during which he had suffered injury, pain
and suffering. On looking to Ex.P.4- Discharge summery
reveals that the petitioner had sustained Left tibia
communited fracture and fracture dislocation of right
torso metatarsal joint. He took treatment at M.C.
SCCH-13 12 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
Orthopedic, Arthroscopy & Joint Replacement Center as
an inpatient
15. According to the petitioner, soon after the
accident, he was shifted to General Hospital, Tumkur,
wherein first aid was given and thereafter he was shifted
to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, where he took treatment
as inpatient and during hospitalization, he underwent
wound debridement of left leg and fixation of left tibia
closed reduction of right foot and fixation with K-wires,
skin grafting and discharged with an advice for advice for
regular follow-up treatment. Again, on 22.6.2015, the
petitioner was admitted to the said hospital as inpatient
and he underwent bone Marrow injection and discharged
on 23.06.2015.
16. Apart from his evidence, petitioner has also
examined PW.3 Dr. Ramesh, Orthopedic Surgeon Victoria
Hospital who has produced OP slip & x-ray marked at
Ex.P.13 & P.14 and deposed about the injuries sustained
by the petitioner, treatment undergone & disability
SCCH-13 13 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
suffered by him. When the petitioner was subjected for his
clinical and radiological examination he found difficulties
faced by the petitioner & assessed the disability of the
petitioner at 34% of lower limb & 17% to whole body.
Hence, having regard to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, this tribunal could believe that the petitioner
has under gone treatment, during which period he had
suffered injury, pain and suffering. Therefore, taking note
of this material aspect, nature of injuries & also
difficulties faced by the petitioner, this Tribunal feels to
award Rs.60,000/-towards injury, pain and suffering.
17. Loss of earnings during the medical
treatment:-The income of the petitioner has already
considered at Rs.7,000/- per month. He has taken
treatment as inpatient on twice, totally for 13 days at
M.C.Orthopaedic, Arthroscopy & Joint Replacement
Center, Tumkur and thereafter he would have taken
follow-up treatment for another two months. Having
regard to the nature of the injuries and duration of the
SCCH-13 14 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
treatment, this tribunal feels that at least 4 months time
would have been taken for recovery. Therefore, this
tribunal feel that it is just and proper to provide
Rs.28,000/- towards loss of earnings during medical
treatment, which is the just and fair compensation.
18. Medical expenses:- So far as the medical
expenses is concerned, the petitioner has produced 116
medical bills and 84 prescriptions marked as Ex.P.5 & P.6
to the tune of Rs.1,80,730/-. A careful perusal of these
bills, IP bills are at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 to the tune of
Rs.65,750/- and 17.500/-, does not bear the signature of
the hospital authority. Since, it does not bear the
signature, the petitioner is not entitled for the same.
Further, the bills at sl.Nos.36 to 39, 44 to 46, 52 to 55,
57, 58, 63 to 68, 71, 72, 75 and 76, 82 to 87, 105 to 107
does not bear the medical store name and doctors name..
Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the amount
claimed at Sl. No.36 to 39, 44 to 46, 52 to 55, 57, 58, 63
to 68, 71, 72, 75 and 76, 82 to 87, 105 to 107. The rest of
the bills are pharmacy bills supported by authorised
SCCH-13 15 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
medical prescriptions. The x-ray and discharge summaries
and photograph with CD discloses that he was treated
surgically with implants and implants are insitu. In the
light of medical bills and prescriptions, if we had a look
once again as regards the nature of injuries, discharge
summary, definitely for the injuries as referred in the
foregoing paras, he had spent said amount for operation
and other requirements. Therefore, this Tribunal feels to
provide Rs.70,300/- by rounding of Rs. 70.207/- by
deducting the amount the amount claimed at Sl. Nos.1, 2,
36 to 39, 44 to 46, 52 to 55, 57, 58, 63 to 68, 71, 72, 75
and 76, 82 to 87, 105 to 107 towards the medical
expenses, which is the just and fair compensation.
19. Loss of future earnings :- Now I have to
ascertain reduction of the working capacity on account of
the accident, perhaps permanent disability coming in the
way of his future earnings. While the petitioner has filed
his affidavit in lieu of his oral evidence he has stated that
he is not in a position to do hisr work as doing prior to the
accident, which has resulted in the loss of present and
SCCH-13 16 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
future earnings. On examination, PW.3 Dr.B.Ramesh,
Orthopedic Surgeon, who has subjected the petitioner to
his examination in ascertaining his physical impairment
has come up with the evidence that the petitioner had
sustained left tibia communited fracture, fracture
dislocation of right torso metatarsal joint, difficulty to
stand on affected limb, difficult to climb upstairs, difficulty
to walk on steps, difficulty to kneel, difficulty to sit cross
legged, walks with limp with help of walker or stick.
Basing on the above difficulties suffered by the petitioner,
PW.3 has opined that petitioner has suffered disability of
34% of lower limb and 17% to the whole body.
20. At this juncture, the attention of this tribunal is
drawn towards cross examination of PW1 at page No.3
wherein, he has clearly stated that " Prior to the
accident, I am Purohith at Anjaneya Temple and now
also doing the same'. That means, the petitioner has
continued his avocation as he was doing prior to the
accident, definitely, he has not sustained any monitory
loss. On this aspect the Hon'ble High court had an
SCCH-13 17 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
occasion to consider and ultimately rejected the claim
when, service was continued in the company.
As a token on this point, this tribunal would like to
refer the judgment of Division Bench of Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka, reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2439
between Subhash Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
and Others, it reads thus:
"MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 - ACCIDENT
CLAIM - Judgment and award - inadequacy of
compensation - Appealed against by the
Claimant - Insurance company appeal seeking
reduction in compensation - Claimant continued
in the services after the accident - Award of
compensation towards loss of future income by
the Tribunal - Legality of - HELD, The Tribunal
has grossly erred in awarding compensation
towards loss of future income, resulting in serious
miscarriage of justice, when in fact, the claimant
has been continued in the services of the
Corporation as 'Conductor'. If the claimant is
continued in services, then, the question of
awarding compensation towards loss of future
income does not arise. - Therefore, compensation
awarded towards loss of future income is liable
to be set aside - Judgment and Award is
modified."
The ratio laid down in above decision is aptly
applicable to the case on hand. Therefore, though the
petitioner has placed materials to show that he is suffering
SCCH-13 18 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
from permanent physical impairment, but as he continued
in the same company and earning more income, he is not
entitled for compensation under the heads of loss of
income during laid up period and loss of future income
due to disability.
21. Loss of amenities:- On looking to the discharge
summary, the petitioner had sustained left tibia
communited fracture, fracture dislocation of right torso
metatarsal joint and he is facing difficulty to stand, sit
cross legged, climb upstairs, walk on slope, to squat on
floor and his working capacity has been reduced. On
examination, PW.3 has come up with the evidence that
there is union of fracture of left tibia with implants insitu
and right torso metatarsal dislocation reduced, difficulty
to sit cross legged, to squat, to climb up and down stair
case, use Indian toilet and walk on the slope and difficulty
to attend normal routine activities. Therefore, this tribunal
has no hesitation to award Rs.25,000/- towards the loss
of amenities. The said amount is awarded keeping in mind
SCCH-13 19 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
regarding the age of the petitioner as 42 years, he had a
long future and loss of enjoyment in his future life.
22. Conveyance, Nourishment, food and
attending charges :- Petitioner has undergone treatment
as inpatient at M.C.Orthopaedic Arthroscopy & Joint
Replacement Centre for 13 days and he has taken regular
follow-up treatment at least for two months. Though there
is no definite evidence on the record regarding the amount
spent towards the nourishment, conveyance, food and
attending charges, having regard to the duration of the
treatment, this tribunal feel to provide Rs.13,000/-
(Rs.1000 per day x 13 days) which is the just and fair
compensation.
23. Future medical expenses : PW.3 doctor has
stated that, petitioner has under one closed reduction of
right foot with fixation of K wire and he needs further
surgery for removal of implants. Counsel appearing for the
respondent-insurance company has not denied or
disputed the fact that the petitioner requires another
surgery. Since the petitioner is advised to undergo one
SCCH-13 20 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
more surgery for removal of implants, I find it is just and
necessary to award Rs.25,000/- as compensation under
the head future medical expenses. It is made clear that
the above amount will not carry any future interest.
Hence, the following calculation:-
1. Injury pain & sufferings: Rs. 60,000/-
2. Loss of earnings during 28,000/-
Medical treatment:
3. Medical Expenses: 70,300/-
4. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 13,000/-
and attending charges:
6. Future medical expenses 25,000/-
7. Loss of Amenities 25,000/-
Total Rs.2,21,300/-
Hence, this tribunal that feel it is just and proper to
award the compensation of Rs.2,21,300/- which is the
just and fair compensation.
24. Issue No.2 in MVC No.1299/15:-
It is needless to say that the age, income, nature of
injuries, its impact on the working capacity of the
claimant and medical expenses incurred towards his
treatment are the considering factors to ascertain the
quantum of compensation.
SCCH-13 21 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
25. Injury, Pain and suffering:
According to the petitioner, she had sustained
grievous injuries in the accident, therefore she has under
gone treatment, during which she had suffered injury,
pain and suffering. On looking to Ex.P10-Dischrge
summery, it reveals that the petitioner had sustained
injury to the right knee. She took treatment at General
Hospital, Tumkur, wherein suturing was done and
discharged. Thereafter, her right leg was infected started
oozing pus discharge from the wound site. So, she got
admitted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital as in patient on
29.1.2015 and underwent wound debridement under
regional block on 31.01.2015 and discharged on
03.02.2015. Taking note of nature of injuries referred in
the wound certificate and treatment taken, this Tribunal
feels to award compensation of Rs.25,000/- under this
heads.
26. Medical expenses:- So far as the medical
expenses is concerned, the petitioner has produced 32
SCCH-13 22 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
medical bills at Ex.P.11 to the tune of Rs.43,100/- and 40
Prescriptions marked at Ex.P12. A careful perusal of these
bills IP bill is to the tune of Rs.31,000/- which is
supported by IP deposit receipt and the rest of the bills
are pharmacy bills which are not included in the main IP
bill and they are supported by authorized medical
prescriptions. Therefore, this Tribunal feels to provide
Rs.43,100/- towards the medical expenses.
Further, The petitioner took treatment on the date of
accident on OPD basis and as an inpatient for 5 days at
Premier Sanjeevini Hospital from 29.01.2015 to
03.02.2015, So, Rs.5000/- is awarded towards food,
nourishment, conveyance and attending charges, which is
the just and fair compensation.
Hence, the following calculation:-
SCCH-13 23 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
1. Injury pain & sufferings Rs. 25,000/-
2. Medical expenses: 43,100/-
3. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 5,000/-
and attending charges
Total Rs.73,100/-
Hence, this tribunal that feel it is just and proper to award
the compensation of Rs.73,100/-which is the just and fair
compensation.
27. So far as interest is concerned, as per Sec.171
of Motor Vehicle Act tribunal is empowered for grant of
interest from date of claim at simple interest at such rate
as deems reasonable. The Division Bench ruling of the
Karnataka High Court in Managing Director, Karnataka
Power Corporation Limited Vs. Geeta and the Division
Bench ruling in P.Rama Devi Vs. C.B. Sai Krishna and
others are of the view that the rate of interest to be
awarded should be at the rate of 6%. In AIR 1994 Kar.8,
it was observed that "Compensation is an amount paid in
advance for any loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of
SCCH-13 24 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
earnings. It is not a debt. Therefore, the interest to be
awarded under Section 110-CCC of the Motor Vehicles Act
could only be at 6% per annum." Therefore, the petitioners
are entitled for the interest at 6% per annum on the said
amount from the date of the petitions till deposit of the
entire compensation amount.
28. So far as liability is concerned, it is not in
dispute that on the date of accident 1st respondent was
the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with
2nd respondent and policy was in force on the date of
accident. The fact that the driver of the offending vehicle
had possessed valid and effective DL on the date of
accident is also not in dispute. Therefore, both respondent
No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation and in view of subsistence of insurance
policy, 2nd respondent-insurance company shall deposit
compensation amount in the court with interest at 6% p.a.
Hence, I answer Issue No.2 accordingly in both the cases
SCCH-13 25 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
29. Issue No.3 in both the cases:- In view of my
findings on issue No.1 and 2 of both the cases, I proceed
to pass the following:-
ORDER
The Claim Petitions in MVC.Nos.1298/15 and 1299/15 filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act are allowed in part with costs.
Petitioner in MVC.1298/2015 is awarded compensation of Rs.2,21,300/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal. (Future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- will not carry interest.) Petitioner in MVC.1299/2015 is awarded compensation of Rs.73,100/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as awarded by this Tribunal and 2nd Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the said amount within 2 months from the date of this Order.
SCCH-13 26 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15After deposit of the compensation amount in both the cases, same shall be disbursed to the respective petitioners on proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.500/- in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.1298/2015 and the copies thereof in MVC. 1299/2015.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, corrected, signed and pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of April 2016.) (B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners in these cases P.W.1 : Sri.S.Umpathi PW.2 : Smt.Vijayamma PW.3 : Dr.B.Ramesh List of documents marked for petitioners :
Ex.P-1 : FIR with complaint Ex.P-2 : Charge sheet Ex.P-3 : Mahazar Ex.P-4 : 2 Discharge Summary SCCH-13 27 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15 Ex.P-5 : 116 Medical bills for RS. 1,80,730/-
Ex.P-6 : 84 Prescriptions
Ex.P-7 : NC of my DL (compared with original
and returned back)
Ex.P-8 : 1 photo with CD
Ex.P-9 : 18 X-rays
Ex.P-10 : Discharge summary
Ex.P-11 : 32 Medical bills for Rs.43,100/-
Ex.P-12 : 40 Prescriptions
Ex.P-13 : OP slip
Ex.P-14 : X-ray
Witnesses & documents for respondents in these cases:
-NIL-
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru SCCH-13 28 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15 AWARD SCCH.NO:13 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No.1298 of 2015.
PETITIONER: Sri.Umapathi S., 40 years, S/o Subramnayam N., R/at No.3120, Ganigarapete, Doddabaallapura Town, Bengaluru Rural dist.
vs. RESPONDENTS 1.Sri.G.P.Lokesh, Major : S/o Late G.T.Puttaswamy, R/at No.19, behind Chamudeshwari Temple, Gottigere, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru-560 083.
(RC Owner of Matiz Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345)
2. M/s.United India Ins.Co.Ltd., By its Regional Manager, T.P.Hub, 5th floor, Krishibhavan Building, N.R.Road, Near Hudson Circle, Bengaluru.
(Insurer of Matiz Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345) (Vide Policy No.0704813114P106842612 Valid from 26.11.2014 to 25.11.15)
-o0o-
SCCH-13 29 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt. B.Pushpanjali, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with costs.
Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.2,21,300/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal. (Future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- will not carry interest.) Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as awarded by this SCCH-13 30 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15 Tribunal and 2nd Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the said amount within 2 months from the date of this Order.
After deposit of the compensation amount same shall be disbursed to the petitioner on proper identification.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH-13 31 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
AWARD
SCCH.NO:13
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU CITY M.V.C.No. 1299 of 2015.
PETITIONER : Smt.Vijayamma, 60 years, W/o Subramnayam N, R/at No.229, Durgi Jogihalli, Doddabaallapura Tq., Bengaluru Rural dist.
vs. RESPONDENTS : 1.Sri.G.P.Lokesh, Major S/o Late G.T.Puttaswamy, R/at No.19, behind Chamudeshwari Temple, Gottigere, Bannerughatta Road, Bengaluru-560 083.
(RC Owner of Matiz Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345)
2. M/s.United India Ins.Co.Ltd., By its Regional Manager, T.P.Hub, 5th floor, Krishibhavan Building, N.R.Road, Near Hudson Circle, Bengaluru.
(Insurer of Matiz Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MC-2345) (Vide Policy No.0704813114P106842612 Valid from 26.11.2014 to 25.11.15) SCCH-13 32 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt. B.Pushpanjali, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The Claim Petition filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act is allowed in part with costs.
Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.73,100/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as awarded by this Tribunal and 2nd Respondent-Insurance company shall SCCH-13 33 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15 deposit the said amount within 2 months from the date of this Order.
After deposit of the compensation amount, same shall be disbursed to the petitioner on proper identification.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......day of ......... 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
Cost of the petition By the Petitioner/s Respondents No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs.
Decree Drafted Scrutinized by
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR
MEMBER, M.A.C.T,
METROPOLITAN AREA,
BENGALURU.
SCCH-13 34 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
ORDER
The Claim Petitions in MVC.Nos.1298/15 and
1299/15 filed under Sec.166 of M.V.Act are allowed in part with costs.
Petitioner in MVC.1298/2015 is awarded compensation of Rs.2,21,300/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal. (Future medical expenses of Rs.25,000/- will not carry interest.) Petitioner in MVC.1299/2015 is awarded compensation of Rs.73,100/- together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal.
Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as awarded by this Tribunal and 2nd Respondent-Insurance company shall deposit the said amount within 2 months from the date of this Order.
After deposit of the compensation amount in both the cases, same shall be disbursed to the respective petitioners on proper identification.SCCH-13 35 MVC.Nos.1298 & 1299 /15
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.500/- in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC.1298/2015 and the copies thereof in MVC. 1299/2015.
Draw award accordingly.
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru