Bangalore District Court
Chikkamma vs Ningaiah on 1 March, 2024
KABC020244152022
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU CITY
SCCH4
PRESENT: RAJU.M.., M.A., LL.B.,
Member, MACT
XVIII ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 1st day of March2024
MVC No.4420/2022
PETITIONERS: Sri.Chikkamma,
W/o Rajanna,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Chowdripalya Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkuru District,
(By Sri.G.P.Shivaprasad.,Adv.,)
V/s
RESPONDENTS: 1. Ningaiah,
S/o Rangaiah,
R/at Boregowdanapalya
Village, Kothagere Hobli,
SCCH4 2 MVC No.4420/2022
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkuru District.
(Exparte)
2. United India Insurance
Company Ltd.,
D.O. 6th Floor, Krushi Bhavan,
Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru560 001.
(By Sri.Anil Kumar.H.S.,Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition U/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries said to have sustained by her in a road traffic accident that occurred on 26.09.2021.
2. The petition averments in brief are as under:
On 26.09.2021 at about 7.15 p.m., the petitioner was walking from Bilidevalaya side towards Gunnagara side, while so walking near Gangamma House at Chowdripalya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, SCCH4 3 MVC No.4420/2022 Tumkur District, at that point of time the rider of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA02HB5849 had ridden his two wheeler in a very high speed with rash and negligent manner from Bilidevalaya side towards Gunnagara side and dashed against the petitioner from back side and dashed the petitioner from back side and caused this accident. Due to the this accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries.
Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to CHC Kunigal wherein first treatment was given and then shifted to A.C.Giri Hospital, Belluru wherein he was treated as an inpatient and he has spent huge amount towards hospitalization and nourishment expenses.
Prior to the accident, petitioner was very hale and healthy and he was working as labour work and he was earning a sum Rs.20,000/ per month. Due to the SCCH4 4 MVC No.4420/2022 accidental injuries petitioner is not able to do his psychical work or lead a normal life as he was doing prior to the said accident and thereby he has suffer permanent loss of income.
The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, prays to award compensation of Rs.25,00,000/ with interest.
3. After service of notices the respondent No.1 is placed as exparte. The respondent No.2 has entered appearance through its advocate but inspite of given sufficient time objection statement is not filed.
4. On the basis of the rival contention, the following points are framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained grievous injuries due to the actionable negligent riding SCCH4 5 MVC No.4420/2022 of motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA02 HB5849 by its rider, in RTA took place on 26.09.2021 at about 7.15 p.m., from Bilidevalaya side towards Gunnagare road, near Gangamma House at Chodripalya village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. In order to prove the claim petition, the petitioner is examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 10. One witness is examined as PW.2, through him got marked documents at Ex.P.11 and 12.
6. Heard the arguments of petitioner side.
7. My findings on the above points are as under.
Point No.1 : In the affirmative;
Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative,
Point No.3 : As per the final orders
for the following:
SCCH4 6 MVC No.4420/2022
: R E A S O N S:
ISSUE NO.1 :
8. That by reiterating all the averments made in the petition, the petitioner has filed his affidavit in lieu of examination inchief, which is considered as P.W.1. In support of his case, he has produced certified copies of FIR, complaint, spot mahzar along with sketch, IMV report, wound certificate, charge sheet and discharge summary. All these documents are marked under Ex.P.1 to 7.
9. On going through the documents, the petitioner's daughter Gangamma has lodged a complaint with Kunigal Police, on 08.10.2021, alleging that on 26.09.2021 the complainant and her mother were going by walk on the foot path of main road of Bilidevalaya to Gunnagare, at about 7.15 p.m., the rider of TVS XL Moped bearing Reg.No.KA02HB5849 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the SCCH4 7 MVC No.4420/2022 complainant's mother. Due to which the petitioner sustained injury, after the accident, the rider of the TVS XL left the vehicle at the spot and went away. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Kunigal Hospital, thereafter A.C.Giri Hospital. Since the complainant was looking after her mother in the hospital, after discharge the complainant came and lodged belated complaint.
10. On the basis of the complaint, the police have registered FIR against the rider of the TVS XL referred in the complaint. After registering FIR the police have visited the place of the accident and also drawn spot mahazar as well as sketch which disclose that, the accident has occurred on the foot path which is situated near the house of the complainant. The damages sustained to moped involved in the vehicle is also noted in the IMV report. As per the wound certificate issued by Kunigal General Hospital the petitioner has taken SCCH4 8 MVC No.4420/2022 treatment as on the date of the accident. The injuries caused to the petitioner is also noted in the wound certificate.
11. After completion of investigation, the jurisdictional police have filed chargesheet against Rangappa, for the offences punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC. The copy of charge sheet is marked at Ex.P.6 . The allegation made in the complaint and charge sheet are one and the same.
12. Looking to the documents the complaint is lodged after 12 days from the date of the accident. As per the discharge summary marked at Ex.P.17 the petitioner was discharged on 04.10.2021 but the complaint has lodged on 08.10.2021. However, the petitioner has taken treatment immediately after the accident. In the wound certificate it is also noted that, SCCH4 9 MVC No.4420/2022 the petitioner sustained injury in the alleged RTA hit by two wheeler while crossing the road.
13. On this aspect on the intent to refer the Judgment Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2011 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.11974 of 2008] in the case of Ravi V/s Badrinarayan & Ors, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held follows;
"The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate SCCH4 10 MVC No.4420/2022 satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."
14. The respondents are not contesting the claim petition. Without rebuttal evidence the evidence of petitioner cannot be brushed aside.
15. As per well settled principle of law the standard of proof in the claim petition like the present is preponderance of the probability. There are no grounds to disbelieve the case of petitioner in the abstinence of rebuttal evidence. All the materials available on record SCCH4 11 MVC No.4420/2022 leading to show that, petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident took place on 26.09.2021 which is caused by the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA02HB5849 which belonging to respondent No.1. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2:
16. As already held herein above, the petitioner has proved that he has sustained injuries in RTA which is caused by respondent No.1. Hence, the petitioner is entitle for compensation. Now the quantum of compensation is to be ascertained on the different heads.
17. The petitioner to prove the nature of his injuries, has examined Dr.Ramesh.B, Orthopedic Surgeon, Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru, as PW.2, through him OPD book with clinical notes and recent xray which are marked under Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12. As per the evidence of PW2, the petitioner has sustained fracture SCCH4 12 MVC No.4420/2022 both bones right leg. Further PW.2 deposed that, petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability for right lower limb at 28% and to the whole body at 14%.
According to the evidence of PW.2 the petitioner need another surgery for removal of implants estimate cost is not mentioned. This aspect is not impeached during the course of crossexamination. It is also not the case of respondent that, implant is removed. Hence, it can be considered that the petitioner is required at least Rs.25,000/ for future medical expenses.
18. According to the petitioner he was working as Labour and he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/ per month. The petitioner has not produced any document to prove his income. Hence, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances, nature of the injury avocation of the petitioner, it is consider that petitioner SCCH4 13 MVC No.4420/2022 sustained permanent avocational disability at 14% to whole body.
In the absence of proof of income it is to be considered that, the notional income of the petitioner in the year 2021 was Rs.15,000/, then one day wages would be Rs.500/.
19. As per the discharge summary produced at Ex.P.7, the petitioner was admitted as inpatient for a period of 9 days, there was need of rest at least for a period of 21 days. So, the petitioner is entitled compensation of Rs.30,000/ (30 days X Rs.500/ = Rs.15,000/) during the laid up period and one attendant charge at the same rate.
20. The petitioner has produced medical bills which are marked at Ex.P.9 amounting to Rs.68,365/. These documents are not disproved by the respondents, except mere denial and there is also no reasons to SCCH4 14 MVC No.4420/2022 disbelieve the medical bills. Hence the petitioner is entitle for medical expenses.
21. As mentioned in Aadhar card marked Ex.P.10 the date of birth of the petitioner is mentioned as 01.01.1961. The accident was occurred on 26.09.2021. so, the petitioner was aged 60 years as on the date of the accident.
22. As per Sarala Verma's case, the proper multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner is '09. Hence, I inclined to award future loss of income at Rs.15,000/ X 12 X 9 X 14% =Rs.2,26,800/, which is the total loss of future income.
23. Hence, I inclined to award the compensation to the petitioner under the following heads:
1. Loss of future income Rs. 2,26,800/
2. Loss of income during the laid Rs. 30,000/ up period and one attendant charge SCCH4 15 MVC No.4420/2022
3. Conveyance charges Rs. 20,000/
4. Pain, sufferings and loss of Rs. 1,00,000/ amenities
5. Food and nourishment Rs. 50,000/
6. Medical bills Rs. 68,365/
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/ Total Rs. 5,20,165/
24. According tot the petitioner the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Policy particulars is also mentioned in the claim petition. Whereas the petition averments remained unchallenged it is considered that, the respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and the respondent No.2 insurance company shall indemnify the compensation behalf of the respondent No.1 with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., Accordingly, I answer this issue partly in the affirmative.
SCCH4 16 MVC No.4420/2022
ISSUE NO.4:
25. For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation amount of Rs.5,20,165/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Twenty Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Five Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the realization from respondents.
The respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of this order.
Considering the quantum of amount awarded to petitioner, it is ordered to release the entire amount in her favour on proper identification.
SCCH4 17 MVC No.4420/2022 Advocate fee is fixed at 1,500/.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of March, 2024) (RAJU.M) XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioners:
PW.1 Chikkamma PW.2 Dr.Ramesh.B
List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar along with sketch
Ex.P4 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P5 True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P6 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P7 Discharge summary
Ex.P8 Medical Prescriptions (41 in nos.)
Ex.P9 Medical Bills (53 in nos.)
Ex.P10 Notarized copy of aadhar card
Ex.P11 OPD with clinical notes
Ex.P12 Recent xray
SCCH4 18 MVC No.4420/2022
List of witnesses examined for Respondents:
NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
NIL XVIII ADDL.JUDGE Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bengaluru.Digitally signed by RAJU M DN: cn=RAJU
RAJU M,ou=HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA,o=HIG
M
H COURT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Kar
nataka,c=IN
Date: 2024.03.15
10:56:16 IST