Bangalore District Court
In Miss.Aishwarya C vs M/S.Cosmos Industrial on 10 November, 2021
1 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER'2021
PRESENT : Smt. Prabhavati M. Hiremath,B.A., L.L.B.(Spl.)
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 4122/2017, 4123/2017 c/w 6294/2017,
6295/2017 and 6296/2017
PETITIONER IN MISS.AISHWARYA C.,
MVC D/o.Ramesh C.,
No.4122/2017 Aged about 22 years,
Residing at No.30/6,
Chennamma Kere Area,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
PETITIONER IN MISS.SANJANA,
MVC D/o.Sathya Prakash,
No.4123/2017 Aged about 21 years,
Residing at No.63,
Kanaka Layout,
Padmanabanagar,
Bengaluru 560 070.
PETITIONER IN SHAM D.KALE @ KALE SHYAM,
MVC S/o.Dashrath,
No.6294/2017 Aged about 35 years,
Prop.M/s.Yallavva Enterprises,
Franchisee of GOLI Vada Pav,
At No.32, 22nd Main,
22nd Cross, BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru - 85.
PETITIONER IN MR.KRISHNA NADIG T.N.,
MVC S/o.Nanjundaiah T.N.,
No.6295/2017 Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.263, 12th A Main,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru 560 010.
2 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
PETITIONER IN MR.MALLESHA S.,
MVC S/o.Sarpegowda,
No.6296/2017 Aged about 23 years,
R/at C/o.Mr.Sham D.Khale,
No.32, 22nd Cross,
BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 085.
Petitioners are represented by S.J.Krishnaji Rao, Advocate
- V/s -
Respondents: 1.M/s.COSMOS INDUSTRIAL
(Common in all the SYSTEMS PVT., LTD.,
cases) # 1254, 23rd Cross,
23rd Main, Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru 560 070.
Represented by its Manager.
(RC Owner of Car No.KA.05/MT.8865)
2.LIBERTY VIDEOCON GENERAL
INS.CO., LTD.,
Office No.1, Alyssa,
1st Floor, Rear Portion,
Old No.28, New No.23,
Richmond Road,
Bengaluru 560 025.
Rep. By its Manager
(Insurer of Car No.KA.05/MT.8865)
Policy No.2011-500201-16-1003566-
00-000
Validity period 12.08.2016 to
11.08.2017.
Respondent No.1 by K.S.Rajan, Advocates
Respondent No.2 by Kiran Pujar, Advocate
COMMON JUDGMENT
These 5 petitions are filed by the petitioners under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act with reference to the same
3 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
accident, averring similar facts with reference to the mode of
occurrence of accident, as follows:-
(2) On 03.11.2016, at about 07.00 pm., when the
petitioners Aishwarya, Sanjana, Mallesh were standing in front
of Goli Vada Pav Shop on 22 nd Main, 22nd Cross, BSK 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru, at that time, a Ford car No.KA.05/MT.8865 came in
high speed, rash or negligent manner and dashed against the
two wheeler No.KA.02/EY.6320 at the first instance, and after
dash to the two wheeler, car proceeded further and dashed to
Aishwarya, Sanjana and gone inside Goli Vada Pav Shop and
dashed to Mallesh and caused damage to the shop. In the said
accident, Sanjana, Smrithi Anand, rider of the two wheeler
Krishna Nadig, Mallesh have sustained severe injuries and Goli
Vada Pav shop has been damaged extensively.
(3) It is the specific case of the petitioner in MVC
4122/2017 that she sustained grievous bleeding injuries to her
abdomen, chest, back and other parts of the body.
Immediately, she was shifted to ProMed Hospital, wherein first
aid was administered and thereafter, she was shifted to Fortis
Hospital, BG Road, Bengaluru. In the accident, the petitioner
has sustained spleenic rupture, fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs
4 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
on right side, left lung contusion, left lumber L2, L3 and L4
transverse process fracture and lacerated wound on face and
hands and the petitioner underwent emergency diagnostic
laparoscopy converted laparotomy + spleenectomy on
04.11.2016 and wound debridement on 05.11.2016 and
12.11.2016. She was discharged on 13.11.2016 with advise to
take follow up treatment and complete bed rest. She has spent
morethan Rs.10 lakhs towards medical expenses and other
incidental expenses.
(4) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was aged
22 years, hale and healthy, studying BE 7 th Semester at BMS
School of Architecture, Yelahanka, Bengaluru and due to the
injuries sustained by her, she could not attend to her college
for a long time. The accident occurred due to the rash or
negligent act of driving of the car by its driver. Therefore, the
petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.1 crore jointly and
severally from the respondent No.1 being the owner and the
respondent No.2 being the insurer of the car.
(5) It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.4123/2017
that in the said accident, the petitioner sustained bleeding
injury to her abdomen, chest, back and other parts of the body.
5 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
She was shifted to Devagiri Hospital. After providing first aid,
she was shifted to Sagar Hospital, Bengaluru. She has
sustained multiple ribs fracture with hemopneumothorax, ICH
insertion was done bilaterally on 04.11.2016, blunt injury on
abdomen and fracture of left scapula and fracture of right shaft
of humerus with wrist drop and CT abdomen showed multiple
liver lacerations and complete transaction of head from body of
pancreas with hemoperitonium. The petitioner was later
shifted to BGS Hospital for management on 07.11.2016. She
was given ventilator support along with supportive measures.
On 08.11.2016, she undergone emergency laperotomy and
spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy was done. She was
treated in ICU. She underwent ORIF of shaft of humerus on
18.11.2016 with 7 holed locking plate and 3 screws applied on
either side and she was discharged on 21.11.2016. Again, she
was admitted to BGS Hospital on 22.11.2016 with high fever.
She spent morethan Rs.20 lakhs towards hospitalisation and
conveyance and other treatment.
(6) At the time of accident, she was aged 21 years,
hale and healthy and studying BE 7 th Semester at BMS School
of Architecture, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. Due to the injuries
6 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
sustained in the accident, she could not attend the college for
a long period. She attended the examination with the help of a
scribe, but failed in one subject. Due to the rash or negligent
act of driving of the car by its driver, the accident occurred and
therefore, the petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.1
crore, jointly and severally from the respondent No.1, the
owner and the respondent No.2, the insurer of the car.
(7) It is the specific case of the petitioner in MVC
No.6294/2017 that the car dashed to Vada Pav Shop, on
account of which, PoP in the the shop, showcase, refrigerator,
stand, chimney, juice maker, microoven and interior and
exterior decoration of the shop was damaged. Entire masala
food products were damaged. The petitioner got the damage
assessed through a private valuer ie., M/s. R & G Associates
and the loss was assessed to the tune of Rs.9,34,475/-. The
petitioner has already incurred expenses of Rs.10 lakhs,
excluding the incidental expenses towards repairs of shop and
purchase of electrical items. At the time of the accident, the
petitioner was aged 34 years, doing business of food vending
under the name and style M/s.Yallavva Enterprises as a
franchisee of Goli Vada Pav and earning Rs.50,000/- per month.
7 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Due to the accident and the damage caused to the shop, the
petitioner could not run his business for a period of 6 months
and thereby suffered huge loss towards loss of earnings. The
accident occurred only due to the rash or negligent act of
driving of the car by its driver and hence, he has claimed a
compensation of Rs.25 lakhs, jointly and severally from the
respondent No.1, the owner and the respondent No.2, the
Insurer of the car.
(8) It is the case of the petitioner in MVC no.6295/2017
that in the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries and his
motorcycle is also extensively damaged. Immediately, he was
shifted to ProMed Hospital wherein it was diagnosed that he
sustained fracture of metacarpal bone and treated at OPD and
he was discharged on the same day with advise to take follow-
up treatment.
(9) The petitioner has incurred expenses to the tune of
Rs.50,000/- towards hospitalisation, conveyance and medical
tretament. At the time of the accident, he was aged 45 years,
hale and healthy and working as Senior Project Manager at
Healthfore Technologies Limited and getting a monthly salary
of Rs.95,893/-. The accident occurred only due to the rash or
8 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
negligent act of driving of the car by its driver and hence, he
has claimed a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs, jointly and
severally from the respondent No.1, the owner and the
respondent No.2, the Insurer of the car.
(10) It is the case of the petitioner in MVC No.6296/2017
that at the time of accident, he was prepared snacks in the Goli
Vada Pav Shop and he sustained grievous injuries and
immediately, he was shifted to Devagiri Hospital, wherein he
undergone wound debridement and discharged on 04.112016
and thereafter, he was treated at Victoria Hospital and then at
Sanjeevini Hospital wherein on examination, it was noticed
total burn area of 10% over anterior abdomen wall measuring
30 x 20 cms and over left hand measuring 8 x 10 cms., and
treated as inpatient with daily dressings and discharged on
11.11.2016 with an advise to visit on alternative day for
dressing and to be under regular follow up treatment and
complete bed rest. It is the further case of the petitioner that
he incurred Rs.1 lakh towards hospitalization, conveyance,
medical treatment, attendant, nursing care and other
incidental expenses and at the time of accident, he was aged
23 years, hale and healthy and working as Cook at M/s.Yallavva
9 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Enterprises, a franchisee of Goli Vada Pava and drawing a
monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- apart from food and shelter.
(11) The accident occurred only due to the rash or
negligent act of driving of the car by its driver and hence, he
has claimed a compensation of Rs.15 lakhs, jointly and
severally from the respondent No.1, the owner and the
respondent No.2, the Insurer of the car.
(12) After service of notice of these petitions, the
respondent No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective
advocates and filed separate statement of objections.
(13) The contentions raised by the respondent No.1, in
brief are that:-
Except the fact that the vehicle was owned by him, the
other averments in the petition are denied by the respondent
No.1, in toto. The age, avocation and income of the
petitioners, injuries sustained, treatment taken amount spent
for their treatment and the damage caused to the Vada Pav
Shop are denied. It is specifically contended that the vehicle is
insured with the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has to
indemnify the respondent No.1. At the time of the accident,
10 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
the driver of the car was holding valid and effective driving
licence and hence, prayed to dismiss all the petitions.
(14) In brief, contentions raised by the respondent No.2
in its Statement of Objections, are as follows:-
Car No.KA.05/MT.8865 is insured with the respondent
No.2 and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of
the policy. The driver of the car had no valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle had
no valid Fitness Certificate. Therefore, there is violation of
terms and conditions of the policy. There is no compliance of
mandatory requirements of Section 134(c) of the MV Act either
by the petitioners or Section 158(6) of the MV Act by the Police.
The averments in the petition with reference to the mode of
occurrence of the accident is denied in toto. The age, avocation
and income of the petitioners, injuries sustained by them,
amount spent for treatment and the damage caused to the Goli
Vada Pav Shop is denied in toto. The amount of compensation
claimed in all the petitions is excessive and exorbitant and
prayed to dismiss all the petitions.
11 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(15) From the above pleadings of the parties, the
following Issues are settled for trial by my learned Predecessor
in Office:-
Issues in M.V.C.No.4122/2017, 4123/2017, 6295/2017
and 6296/2017:
1.Whether the petitioner proves that she/he sustained
grievous injuries in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 03.11.2016 at about 07.00 pm., in front
of Goli Vada Pav Shop, 22 nd Main, 22nd Cross,
Banashankari 2nd Stage, Bengaluru within the
jurisdiction of Banashankari Traffic Police Station on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Ford
Car bearing registration No.KA.05/MT.8865 by its
driver?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that the
accident was occurred on account of negligent act
of petitioner herself/himself?
3.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much and from whom ?
4. What order ?
Issues in MVC No.4294/2017:
1.Whether the petitioner proves that the accident that
occurred on 03.11.2016 at about 07.00 pm., at Goli
Vada Pav Shop, 22nd Main, 22nd Cross, Near BDA
Complex, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru within the
jurisdiction of Banashankari Traffic Police Station on
account of rash and negligent driving of the Ford
Car bearing registration No.KA.05/MT.8865 by its
driver and in the said accident, the petitioner has
sustained damages to his shop?
12 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
2.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much and from whom ?
3. What order?
(16) In support of their case, the petitioners of these
cases have got examined, invariably, as PW 1 to 5. They have
also examined 9 witnesses as PW 6 to 14. On behalf of the
petitioners, 80 documents are got marked as Ex.P.1 to P.80. On
behalf of the respondents, two witnesses are examined as RW
1 and 2 and 6 documents are got marked as Ex.R.1 to R.6.
(17) Heard arguments on both sides.
(18) For the reasons stated in the subsequent
paragraphs, I answer the above Issues as under:-
Issues in M.V.C.No.4122/2017, 4123/2017,
6295/2017 and 6296/2017:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the negative,
Issue No.3 : Accordingly,
Issue No.4 : As per final order,
Issues in MVC No.4294/2017:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Accordingly,
13 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
(19) Issue No.1 and 2 in MVC No. 4122/2017 ,
4123/2017, 6295/2017 and 6296/2017 and Issue No.1 in
MVC No.4294/2017:- These Issues are with reference to rash
or negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the car.
Therefore, to avoid repetition of discussion, these Issues are
taken up together for discussion.
(20) It is the case of the petitioner that only due to the
rash or negligent act of driving of the car by its driver, the
accident occurred. To prove the same, the petitioners have
relied on their own oral evidence as PW 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the
Police records.
(21) Ex.P.1 is the FIR along with copy of two complaints,
one lodged by Devaraj, an eyewitness to the accident and
another one lodged by father of victim Smrithi Anand. They
lodged two complaints simultaneously. On the basis of the
complaint lodged by Devaraj, FIR is registered.
(22) Ex.P.2 is the Seizure Mahazar, Ex.P.2(a) is the Spot
Mahazar, Ex.P.3 is the Spot Sketch. Ex.P.51 and P.52 are the
statement of owner of shop and 9 photographs with CD of the
14 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
damaged shop. Ex.P.39 is the IMV Report. Ex.P.54 is the plea
of guilt of the accused before the criminal court and Ex.P.53 is
the order sheet in CC No.4404/2017 on the file of the 4 th MMTC
Court, Bengaluru.
(23) From going throuhg Ex.P.3 - Sketch of the scene of
offence, wherein, the course of the car and the motorcycle and
their direction is shown by putting arrow mark. Prior to the
accident, the car was proceeding in Northern-South direction
and in the circle, it was supposed to take turn towards Eastern
side. After taking turn towards East, though it was supposed to
go straight, however, the car came towards Southern side on
the East-West Road and dashed to the two wheeler. Even after
dash, it was not stopped and further proceeded and by
crossing the pedestrian path, it entered the Vada Pav Shop. In
that process, it dashed to the petitioners, Smrithi Anand and
damaged the shop extensively.
(24) From going through Ex.P.52 - 9 photographs, which
were taken immediately after the accidentand Ex.P.39 - IMV
Report, it is clear that due to the accident, there is damage to
the Vada Pav Shop.
15 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(25) From Ex.P.5, it is clear that after completion of the
investigation, charge sheet is filed against the driver of the car
Shivakumar. As per Ex.P.54, the driver of the car has pleaded
guilty before the criminal court and as per Ex.P.53 Order Sheet,
he has paid fine of Rs.3,500/- imposed by the criminal court.
(26) From the oral evidence of PW 1, 2, 4 and 5, coupled
with the above referred documentary evidence, the petitioners
have proved that only due to the rash or negligent act of
driving of the car by its driver, the accident occurred.
(27) To prove that the petitioner in MVC No.4122/107 has
sustained injuries in the accident, she relied on Ex.P.6 and 7 -
Wound Certificate, Ex.P.8 and 9 - Discharge Summaries. Ex.P.10
- Lab Report, Ex.P.11 - Medical Bills and Ex.P.12 to 16 -
Photographs with Cd and X ray. From these documents, the
petitioner in MVC No.4122/2017 has proved that she sustained
grievous injuries in the accident.
(28) To prove that Sanjana, the petitioner in MVC
No.4123/2017 has sustained injuries in the accident, she relied
on Ex.P.16 and 17 - Wound Certificates, Ex.P.18 to 20,
Discharge Summaries, Ex.P.21 Medical Report, Ex.P.22 -
Prescriptions, Ex.P.23 - Medical Bills and Ex.P.30 - 10
16 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Photographs and CD. From these documents, it is clear that
she has sustained injuries in the accident.
(29) In MVC No.6294/2017, the petitioner has contended
that due to dash of the car to the Vada Pav Shop, the shop has
been extensively damaged. For that, he relied on his oral
evidence as PW 5 and 9 Photographs with CD marked as
Ex.P.52.
(30) From going through the positive photographs at
Ex.P.52, it is clear that due to the impact, there is severe
damage to the electric items as well as to the shop.
(31) The petitioner in MVC No.6295/2017 has contended
that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and his
motorcycle has also damaged and to prove the same, he has
relied on his own oral evidence and the IMV Report in respect
of his motorcycle and also produced Ex.P.34 - Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.35 - Prescriptions and Ex.P.36 - Medical Bills.
From going through the said documents, it is clear that in the
accident, the petitioner has sustained injuries and his
motorcycle has been damaged.
(32) The petitioner in MVC No.6296/2017 has contended
that in the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries and to
17 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
prove the same, he relied on his oral evidence as PW 5 and the
Wound Certificate at Ex.P.44, Discharge Summary at Ex.P.45,
Medical Bills at Ex.P.46 and Prescriptions at Ex.P.47 and
Photographs with CD ata Ex.P.48. From going through the said
documents, it is clear that the petitioner has sustained
grievous injuries in the accident.
(33) Therefore, from the available evidence on record,
the petitioners have been able to prove that only due to the
rash or negligent act of driving of the car by its driver, the
accident has occurred and in the accident, the petitioners have
suffered injuries and the shop, electric items and interior and
exteriors of the shop belonging to the petitioner in MVC
No.6294/2017 has been damaged. Hence, Issue No.1 in all the
petitions is answered in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in MVC
No.4122/2017, 4123/2017, 6295/2017 and 6296/2017 are
answered in the negative.
(34) Issue No.3 in MVC No.4122/2017:- In this case,
the petitioner - Aishwarya C., has claimed a compensation of
Rs.1 Crore for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
(35) In the decision reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 (Raj
Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another), Division Bench of the
18 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down on what grounds
compensation is required to be awarded in personal injury
case. In para 6 of the said judgment Their Lordships have
demarcated the heads in which compensation is required to be
considered are reads as under:
" The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal
injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages(Special damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,
transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous
expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would
have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) future medical expenses
Non-pecuniary damages(General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence
of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life(shortening of normal longevity).
(36) From going through the above said decision, it is
clear that under the pecuniary damages expenses relating to
the treatment, hospitalisation, medicines, transportation,
19 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure are required to
be considered with. In the second head loss of earning and
other gains of the injured person is required to be considered.
In the background of the principle laid down by their Lordships
in the above said decision, we can consider what amount the
petitioner is entitled for compensation.
(37) In the written submission, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, under 8 different heads, ie., pain and suffering,
loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects, medical
expenses, incidental expenses, loss of earnings of parents,
future medical expenses, and loss of future earnings, has
claimed a compensation of Rs.38,79,877/-.
(38) To prove the same, the petitioner has relied on her
own oral evidence and the evidence of PW 14, the doctor. The
documents relied on by the petitioner, in support of her case
are, Ex.P.6 and 7 - Wound Certificates, Ex.P.8 and 9 -
Discharge Summaries, Ex.P.80 - Case Sheet produced by PW
13 - Medical Records Officer.
(39) From going through the above said documents, it is
clear that as per the Wound Certificates at Ex.P.6 and 7, the
petitioner has sustained 4 injuries. All the 4 injuries are
20 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
mentioned as grievous in nature. From Ex.P.8, it is clear that
the petitioner has sustained the following injuries:-
1) RTA Blunt Trauma,
2) Splenic Rupture,
3) Facial and Hand wounds,
4) Fracture right 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs,
5) Left Lung Contusion,
6) Left Lumbar L2, L3 and L4 Transverse Process
Fracture
(40) As per Ex.P.9 - the petitioner underwent surgery
and the details of which are provided in page 2 of Ex.P.9, which
reads as under:-
"Patient had been admitted to undergo wound
debridement and dressing along with staple and
sutures removal under anaesthesia. Patient had a
history of RTA, following which, she had to undergo
(1)Emergency - Laparoscopy converted to
laparotomy + spleenectomy on 04.11.2016.
(2) Wound Debridement under GA on 05.11.2016.
(3) Wound Debridement under GA on 12.11.2016
at another center..... With adequate workup,
patient underwent (1) Wound Debridement, (2)
Removal of Multiple sutures, (3) Removal of
multiple staples under general anaesthesia..."
21 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(41) From going through the above treatment taken by
the petitioner, it is clear that she underwent debridement ie.,
the procedure for treating the wound in the skin. It involves
thoroughly cleaning the wound and removing all
hyperkeratotic (thickened skin or callus), infected and
nonviable (necrotic or dead) tissue, foreign debris and residual
material from dressings.
(42) Further, the petitioner has underwent
hemoperitoneium, which is a type of internal bleeding and
when one has this condition, blood is accumulated in the
peritoneal cavity. The peritoneal cavity is a small area of
space located between internal abdomen organs and inner
abdominal wall and the blood in this part of body can appear
because of physical trauma, a ruptured blood vessel or organ,
or because of an ectopic pregnancy. Hemoperitoenum can be
a medical emergency.
(43) The petitioner has underwent surgery for removal of
spleen, which is called as splenectomy and is defined to be a
major intervention into the immunologic system. Spleen is a
small organ located on the left side of abdomen under the rib
cage. This organ is a part of immune system and helps to fight
22 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
off infections and while filtering damaged and old cells out of
blood system, Splenectomised patients have been shown to
have low concentrations of IgM, decreased production of
antibodies directed against pneumococci and escherichia coli,
and several defects in cellular immune function, including
decreased numbers of T cells and a reduction in lymphocyte
proliferative responses. Thus, the removal of spleen affects
certain immunological reactions, which are reflected by a
number of clinical findings. Undergoing spleen removal leaves
one with a compromised or weakened, immune system, Since
infections can be more dangerous without a spleen, such
patients need yearly vaccines and prophylactic antibodies.
Prophylactic antibiotics are used to prevent a bacterial
infection from occurring. On account of the above said
medical emergency, the petitioner underwent splenectomy.
(44) Apart from the above injuries, the petitioner has
sustained fracture of L3, L4 and L5 left lumbar transverse
fracture. In view of removal of spleen, throughout her life, the
petitioner is required to accustom herself to a different lifestyle
other than a normal person in view of her loss of immunity, as
a result of absence of spleen. Considering all these facts, the
23 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.1 lakh under the
head pain and sufferings.
(45) It is the case of the petitioner that she spent huge
amount for her medical treatment. For that, the petitioner has
relied on Ex.P.11 - Medical Bills. Ex.P.11 is the Medical Bill
issued by Fortis Hospital, Bengaluru for Rs.5,45,310/-. Out of
this total amount, a discount of Rs.4,253/- was given. The
details as to how the above figure was arrived, is shown in the
said bill. To doubt the genuinity of the bill issued by the
hospital authorities, nothing is elicited during the course of
cross-examination. An amount of Rs.5,41,057/- was paid by
the petitioner under different receipts. The Receipt Number
and the calculation of the amount is mentioned in Ex.P.11
itself.
(46) The second bill of Ex.P.11 issued by ProMed Hospital
are the duplicate copies of the bills. The petitioner has not
produced the original bills and there is no explanation as to
why original bills are not produced. As there is possibility of
reimbursement of these bills, by the medical insurer if any, in
the absence of original bills, the petitioner is not entitled for
the amount mentioned in the bills issued by ProMed Hospital.
24 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Therefore, the petitioner is awarded compensation of
Rs.5,41,057/-, which is rounded off to Rs.5,41,060/-, towards
medical expenses.
(47) From going through Ex.P.8 - Discharge Summary, it
is clear that the petitioner has taken treatment as Inpatient till
13.11.2016 for a period of 11 days. Therefore, the petitioner is
awarded compensation of Rs.11,000/- towards Food,
Nourishment and Attendant Charges.
(48) It is the case of the petitioner that she suffered
permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by
her in the accident. To substantiate the same, she relied on
the evidence of PW 14. In his chief examination affidavit,
PW 14 has reproduced the contents in the Discharge Summary
with reference to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the
accident. His observations are in Para No.3 to 5 of his
affidavit. He has stated that the petitioner complained bone
swelling over the right thumb. There is restricted movement
of MP joint. Flexion less by 30', Extension less by 30', Multiple
scar over face, right ear, right arm, below left fore arm. On the
basis of these observations, he has assessed the locomotory
25 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
disability of 10%, disfigurement disability of 18% and total
permanent disability of 28%.
(49) From going through the medical records referred
above, it is clear that major problem sustained by the
petitioner is due to spelenectomy. The above said disability
assessed by PW 14 is with reference to right thumb and scar
over the face, right ear, right arm, below left fore arm.
(50) From the positive photographs produced by the
petitioner as per Ex.P.12 which are not disputed,, it is clear
that there are scars on different parts of the body of the
petitioner.
(51) From going through literature on splenectomy, it is
clear that the spleen is one of the largest lymphatic organ and
the only one that is directly connected to the blood circulatory
system. It makes an important contribution to the cellular
and humoral immune response, in addition to its filter,
catabolic and reservoir functions.
(52) Splenectomy patients should receive pneumococcus
vaccine. The immunization should be given at least 1 week
before the scheduled operation. A person having undergone
splenectomy, has to lead a compromised life. He will have
26 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
weakened immune system as infection can be more dangerous
without spleen.
(53) Function of the spleen in body is a part of blood
system and immune system. It works as a blood filter. It
removes old red blood cells and holds on to a reserve of other
red blood cells to release in an emergency plus it helps recycle
iron. Another important function of the spleen is that they can
make antibodies to remove bacteria and any other cells that
become coated in antibodies. If a person does not have
spleen, he or she will be more vulnerable to bacteria especially
a category of bacteria called encapsulated bacteria due to a
special carbohydrate (specifically a polysaccharide) capsule
surrounding them. Therefore, the risk of spleen removal are:
1) During formation of blood clot in the vain that moves
blood to lever;
2) Iron at the incision site,
3) Internal infection,
4) Collapse of lung,
5) Damage to organs in the spleen including stomach,
colon,
27 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
6) Pancreas,
7) Collection of puss in diaphragm.
(54) In view of removal of spleen as an emergency to
save the life of petitioner, through out her life, she is required
to avoid some food and avoid traveling as travelling may
encounter germs. In some places, there may be different
infections. The petitioner is required to avoid mosquitoes.
Without spleen, petitioner may prone to having a deep vain
thrombosis.
(55) Even though there is no oral evidence of doctor on
this point, but from the medical records produced by the
petitioner, it is clear that her spleen has been removed and 3
liters of blood was found, which resulted in emergency
operation of removal of spleen. Vaccination are available to
prevent infection. Such vaccination are required to take 15
days prior to the surgery. In view of emergency surgery, such
vaccination was not given to the petitioner. She is required to
opt for vaccination after surgery.
(56) At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the
judgment of the Madras High Court dated 26.02.2013 in CMA
No.3565/2012 (MP No.1 of 012) (Between Royal Sundaram
28 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Ramaswamy and
others). In view of the injury sustained by the victim in that
case, he underwent splenectomy surgery and 50% disability
was considered by the Tribunal. Even though there was no
sufficient medical evidence to that effect, the judgment of the
Tribunal was upheld by the Madras High Court.
(57) As already stated above, in the case on hand,
PW 14 has not at all averred anything in his chief examination
affidavit regarding the complications required to be faced by
the petitioner in view of removal of spleen.
(58) In para No.7 of the said judgment, injury sustained
by the claimant is referred. Considering the principles
laiddown by His Lordhip in the said Judgment and taking into
account the answer given by PW 1 in her cross-examination
that after undergoing surgery, she continued her education,
completed her degree and now she is accustomed to a
different style of life, the percentage of disability is taken as
30%.
(59) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was
studying in 7th semester of BE Architecture. She has no actual
income. Her notional income considering her qualification and
29 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
age, to calculate under the head of loss of amenities and
future earning capacity, is taken as Rs.12,000/- per month.
(60) 30% of Rs.12,000/- comes to Rs.3,600/-. After
multiplying the same by 12, annually it comes to Rs.43,200/-.
As per the records, as the petitioner was aged 22 years at the
time of the accident, as per the principle laiddown in the case
of Sarla Varma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation, the
multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,77,600/-
under the head loss of amenities in life and loss of future
earning capacity.
(61) In view of my above said observation regarding the
future complication of petitioner, as she is prone to infection
and she has to avoid bacteria, thrombosis, she needs to
bestow more attention towards her routine life and therefore,
she is required to take vaccine regularly. Considering all these
aspects, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards
future medical expenses.
(62) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was
unmarried. From the positive photographs produced at
Ex.P.12, it is clear that there are scars on different parts of
30 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
body of the petitioner ie., fore arm, back, chest and other parts
of the body. Considering all these aspects of the matter and in
view of health deterioration in absence spleen, the marriage
prospects of the petitioner has certainly become bleak and
therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards
loss of marriage prospects.
(63) After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to
hospital, wherein she was treated as an inpatient and after
discharge, she followed treatment and thereby, the petitioner
may have incurred some amount for her conveyance. Hence,
the petitioner is awarded Rs.5,000/- towards conveyances
expenses.
(64) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as
under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Pain and suffering 1,00,000.00
2. Medical Expenses 5,41,060.00
3. Food, Nourishment and Attendant 11,000.00
charges
4. Loss of Amenities in life and Loss 7,77,600.00
of future earning capacity
5. Future medical expenses 1,00,000.00
6. Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000.00
7. Conveyance expenses 5,000.00
16,34,660.00
31 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(65) The respondent No.1 and 2, respectively being the
owner and insurer of the car, are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the petitioner together with interest at
6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly,
Issue No.3 is answered.
(66) Issue No.3 in MVC No.4123/2017:-In this case,
the petitioner - Sanjana has claimed a compensation of Rs.1
crore on various heads, for the injuries sustained by her in the
accident.
(67) In the written submission, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has delineated the heads of compensation and
arrived at the total compensation at Rs.49,01,401/-.
(68) To substantiate the same, the petitioner relied on
her own oral evidence as PW 2 and also the evidence of PW 6
and 12 who have produced the medical records as per Ex.P.62,
63, 74 to 78.
(69) With reference to the permanent disability, the
petitioner relied on the oral evidence of PW 10.
(70) To prove what are the injuries sustained by her in
the accident, the petitioner relied on Ex.P.16 and 17 - Wound
Certificates, Ex.P.18, 19 and 20 - Discharge summaries.
32 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(71) From going through Ex.P.18, 19 and 20 - Discharge
Summaries, it is clear that on 03.11.2016, Sagar Hospital
diagnosed the following injuries, details of which are shown in
Ex.P.18, which reads as under:-
1) Blunt Abdominal trauma with multiple liver
lacerations (Aast Grade IV) and pancreatic
transection (Grade III),
2) Multiple bilateral rib fractures with bilateral
pneumothorax,
3) Fracture of right humerus with fractures in left
scapula, secondary to RTA.
(72) The petitioner got discharged from Sagar Hospital
on 07.11.2016 and got re-admitted to BGS Global Hospital on
07.11.2016 itself. In Ex.P.19, the course and management in
the hospital is explained in detail. As per Ex.P.19, petitioner
was managed with IV antibiotics, ventilator support along with
other supportive measures. The petitioner was taken for
emergency laparotomy on 08.11.2016. Perop findings
included 2 liters of hemoperitoneum and complete transection
of head from body of pancreas. Spleen preserving distal
pancreatectomy was done. Tachosil applied to cover head.
Abdomen closed in layers with 3 drains, 2 in lesser sac and
33 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
one in pelvis. She was shifted to ICU for further care. She was
extubated on 10.11.2016 and managed with NIV. Ortho
reference was taken who had advised for ORIF once her GC
stabilizes. She was discharged on 21.11.2016. However, as
the petitioner developed fever, she got re-admitted on the
next day ie., on 22.11.2016. In Ex.P.20 - Discharge Summary,
the course and management in the hospital is mentioned in
detail, which shows that the petitioner was empirically started
in IV Meropenem. The petitioner continued to have febrile
spikes. Pus from aspirated fluid had shown growth of E.coli
(Amp C Producer). There was continuing fever and
de-saturation. NCCT abdomen with HRCT was done which
showed no fresh intra abdominal collection.
(73) As per Ex.P.19, during course and management in
the hospital, spleen preserving distal pancreatectomy was
done. As per the medical literature, a pancreatectomy is the
surgical removal of all or part of the pancreas. The pancreas is
an organ about the size of a hand located in the abdomen in
the vicinity of the stomach, intestines and other organs. It lies
behind the stomach and in front of the spine. Pancreas has
two critical functions in the body (1) Production of juices that
34 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
help digest food and (2) Production of hormones such as
insulin and glucagon that maintain optimal blood sugar levels
and help the body use and store energy from food.
(74) As per the medical literature, post pancreatectomy,
most patients are not hungry and will have some nausea and
abdominal bloating in the early postoperative period. Patients
undergoing this operation are typically offered a clear liquid
diet on the second day after surgery and advanced to solid
food as tolerated. The tail of the pancreas lie directly behind
the stomach and the trauma from the surgical procedure will
result in inflammation along the back of the stomach where
the removed portion of the pancreas had been. This
inflammation will cause temporary stomach dysfunction for a
period of time in most patients. As the inflammation subsides,
the stomach will begin to function properly again. This process
can taken a little as a few days or as much as several weeks in
a patient who has leakage of pancreatic enzymes after the
surgery.
(75) With reference to post operative recovery, the
literature reveals that the length of hospitalisation depends on
the specific procedure that was performed and the approach
35 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
that was undertaken. After discharge, full recovery is expected
to take 6 to 8 weeks. The body has to work hard to recover
from the operation and many patients will feel fatigued.
During this period of time, patients struggle the most with
eating. After pancreatic surgery, patients can expect to have a
reduced appetite and fill up quickly when eating. Many
patients are not hungry and experience symptoms of nausea
and bloating.
(76) From the Discharge Summaries at Ex.P.18 to 20, it
is clear that even after discharge on 21.11.2016, the petitioner
has faced problems as she was suffering from fever and hence,
she was re-admitted to the hospital and on 29.11.2016, she
was discharged.
(77) Considering the above said health complications
secondary to removal of pancreas, the petitioner is awarded
compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- towards pain and
sufferings.
(78) From Ex.P.18, 19 and 20, it is clear that the
petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient upto
29.11.2016 for a period of 26 days. Therefore, an amount of
36 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Rs.26,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head
Food, Nourishment and Attendant charges.
(79) The petitioner has claimed compensation of
Rs.16,01,401/- towards medical expenses incurred for her
treatment. For that, she relied on Ex.P.23 - Medical Bills.
(80) It is the case of the respondent No.2 that the
petitioner had taken medical insurance policy from Medi Assist
India Private Limited and the petitioner has got reimbursed the
medical expenses incurred by her in this case and therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head
medical expenses. For that, the respondent No.2 relied on the
evidence of RW 1 and RW 2 and they have produced Ex.R.2 to
R.5 documents.
(81) The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently
argued that even though some portion of the medical bills of
petitioner Sanjana is reimbursed by the Medical Insurance
Company, however that amount cannot be deducted in the
medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, as it is a separate
and distinct contract between the medical insurance company
and the petitioner.
37 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(82) In support of his arguments, the learned Advocate
for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in ILR 2008
Kar.3277 (Shaheed Ahmed Vs. Shankaranarayana Bhat and
another) wherein it is held that :
Motor Vehicles Act,1988 - Accident Claim -
Compensation - inadequacy of - appealed against
- Denial of compensation by the Tribunal, under
the Head of Medical Expenses - Grievance of the
Insurance Company that the Claimant got
reimbursement of the money spent by him for
medical expenses under a Medical Policy - Held -
Compensation payable under Motor Vehicles Act
is statutory, while the amount receivable under
the Life Insurance Policy or Mediclaim Policy is
contractual - Further Held - The insurance money
is by virtue of a contractual relationship between
the deceased/injured and the insurance company
and is payable to the legal heirs of the
deceased/injured in terms of the contract. Such
money cannot be said to have been received by
the heirs/injured only on account of the accidental
death of the deceased/accidental injuries of the
claimant, but truly it is a fruit of the premium paid
by the deceased during his life time/injured. The
amount received by the claimant herein under
Mediclaim policy from Sundaram Insurance
Company would not come within the periphery of
Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary
advantage' liable for deduction. The Mediclaim
amount received by the claimant from Sundaram
Insurance Company in this matter cannot be
deducted from out of the total compensation to
be paid to the claimant. In view of the same, the
deduction of Rs.1,22,000/- (Mediclaim insurance
amount) paid to claimant from the total amount of
compensation is unsustainable. Therefore, the
respondent No.2 /insurance company is liable to
38 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
pay the medical expenses spent by the claimant.
Appeal allowed in part.
(83) In view of the contrary view taken by the
subsequent single bench in the case reported in 2010 ACJ
2742, the matter was referred to larger bench in
M.F.A.No.6950/2007 c/w M.F.A. Nos.6952/2007 and 15422/2007
(MV) ( The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sri Manish Gupta
and another).
(84) From going through the Division Bench Judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 11.10.2012, it is clear
that there was a reference under Section 9 of the High Court
Act and Rules for resolving the conflict and to pronounce on
the issue authoritatively.
(85) In para No.23 of said judgment by discussing
earlier judgments of Apex Court, the Division Bench of High
Court of Karnataka observed as:
23. We are of the view that the amount received
by the claimant under the Mediclaim policy is
required to be deducted from the total
compensation awardable to the claimants under
the head medical expenses. Indeed we hasten to
add, if the claimant has not received any amount
under the Mediclaim policy, the Tribunal is
required to assess the amount expended by the
claimant for the medical expenses and suitably
award with reference to the bills produced by
them. We also observe that if the amount
39 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
awarded under the Mediclaim policy is much less
than the actual amount expended by the claimant
towards medical expenses, the shortfall or the
balance is also required to be made good by the
tort-feasor. Therefore, the determination of
compensation on the head of medical expenses
would in any case have to be made by the
Tribunal. In other words, if the amount received
under a Mediclaim policy is less than what has
been determined by the Tribunal, the former
would have to be deducted from the latter. On the
other hand, if the amount received under the
Medicalim policy is higher than what is
determined by the Tribunal, then no
compensation under the head of medical
expenses can be awarded by the Tribunal. We
hasten to add that any compensation received by
the injured claimant on account of an accident
policy cannot be deducted from the compensation
determined by the Tribunal. Also the
determination of compensation on incidental
charges is independent of the determination
towards medical expenses and has to be paid by
the tortfeasor without any reference to a
Mediclaim policy that may be obtained by the
claimant.
(86) Thereby principle laid down by his Lordship in
Shaheed Ahmed's case is not applicable to the present case.
(87) The learned Advocate for petitioner relied on the
following decisions:
1) M.F.A.No.3942 of 2020(DB)
(Geetha Kumar B.N. Vs.Reliance GICL and
another)
2) ILR 2014 Kar.5169
(A Arun and another Vs. Shankaranarayana
Bhat and another)
40 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
3) (2013)7 Supreme Court Cases 476
(Vimal Kanwar and others Vs. Kishore Dan and
others)
(88) In the recent Division Bench judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied by the Advocate for
petitioner in M.F.A.No.3942 of 2020(DB) (Geetha Kumar B.N.
Vs Reliance GICL and another) dated 04.03.2021, in para
No.17 and para No.21 of the said judgment, their Lordships
have clearly discussed that "The pecuniary advantage would
have no correlation to the accidental death for which
compensation is computed. Any amount received or
receivable not only on account of accidental death, but that
would have come to the claimant even otherwise, could not be
construed to be the 'pecuniary advantage', liable for
deduction. However, where the employer insurer his
employee, as against "injury or death arising out of an
accident", any amount received out of such insurance on the
happening of such incidence may be an amount liable for
deduction".
(89) Their Lordships held that deduction cannot be
allowed from the amount of compensation either on account of
insurance or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or
41 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main
reason is that all these amounts are earned by the deceased
on account of contractual relations entered into by him with
others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the
dependents or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of
his death in a motor vehicle accident. If any amount is
received by the legal heirs due to the death of a person in a
motor accident, then such amounts are required to be
deducted in the determined compensation. If the amount is
receivable by the legal heirs on his death even other than in
the motor vehicle accident, then such amount is not to be
deducted in the compensation amount.
(90) In this case, the dispute is as to whether reimbursed
medical expenses is required to be deducted from the
compensation to be awarded, is the question.
(91) In the 3rd judgment relied on by the petitioner is ILR
2014 Kar.5169 (A.Arun and another Vs. Smt.H.B.Pushpa and
another), the same question was discussed by their Lordships.
In that case their Lordships held that "except income tax and
professional tax, no other amount is liable to be deducted from
the salary of the deceased for the purpose of taking the
42 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
income of the deceased to determine the compensation
payable to the claimants. The amount paid by the employer in
the Personal Accident Insurance cannot be deducted.
(92) Similar point was raised by the insurance company
as an appeal ground, stating that the Tribunal has committed
error in granting medical expenses even though medical
expenses are reimbursed by the Mediclaim insurance. Same
was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
M.F.A.No.2081/2013 (N.Sree Krishna Vs. Padma Jaiswal)
reported in 2017 SCC Online Kar.3552.
(93) From going through the above said judgment of
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, it is clear that the point No.1
for consideration is "whether compensation of Rs.2,10,451/-
awarded by the Tribunal under the head Medical Expenses is
contrary to the evidence on record or in consonance with the
same? "
(94) While discussing that point, Their Lordship
observed that in that case 20 bills were produced towards
medical expenses as Ex.P.9. Considering the admission given
by the claimants in the cross-examination that Medi Assist
insurance company has paid medical bills, totally to the tune
of Rs.3,50,000/-, deducting Rs.1,40,000/- out of the said bills
43 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
and taken into consideration original bills available on record.
The bills related to subsequent period are not reimbursed by
the Medi Assist insurance company. Balance medical bills of
Rs.2,10,451/- was awarded by the Tribunal same was upheld
by the Division Bench in the said judgment.
(95) From the above said discussion, it is clear that as
per the Division Bench judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka referred above dated 11.10.2012 and the judgments
reported in 2017 SCC Online Kar.3552, it is clear that the
petitioner's claim of medical expenses twice, one from the
insurance company in which medical insurance was done and
also under the compensation on the head of medical
expenses, Mediclaim insurance company had made payment
of the bills due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
Therefore, there is a direct nexus between the injuries
sustained in the accident and payment made by the Mediclaim
insurance company. Therefore, the amount paid by the
Medical Insurance Company is required to be deducted in the
total medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.
(96) From going through the evidence of RW 1 and RW 2,
it is clear that out of total bill amount, an amount of
44 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Rs.3,16,500/- was paid by the Medical Insurance Company and
the petitioner has paid Rs.21,009/-. As per the evidence of
RW 2, BGS Hospital has received the reimbursement of gross
bill amount as Rs.10,00,388/-, out of which, the petitioner has
paid Rs.8,84,946/-, excluding the deposits of Rs.30,003/-,
remaining amount was reimbursed.
(97) From going through Ex.R.2 to R.5, it is clear that an
amount of Rs.2,71,848/-, Rs.1,75,343/-, Rs.1,03,897/- was
reimbursed towards bill of the petitioner in 2 hospitals. Out of
Ex.R.2, R.4 and R.5 bills, the petitioner has paid Rs.21,009/-,
Rs.30,003/- and Rs.8,84,946/-.
(98) From these bills, it is clear that the total reimbursed
amount in 3 different bills is Rs.5,51,088/- and the petitioner
has paid totally a sum of Rs.9,35,958/-, and hence, the
petitioner is entitled for Rs.9,35,958/- towards medical
expenses incurred for her treatment.
(99) Excluding the above said 3 bills, the petitioner has
produced 29 bills, which are marked as Ex.P.23, Sl.No.4 to 32.
Out of which, Sl.No.14 bill is towards Nursing Charges, which
cannot be included in the medical bills. Excluding the said
Sl.No.14 bill for Rs.2,700/- and above referred 3 bills, with
45 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
reference to Sl.No.4 to 30, 15, 32 of Ex.P.23, the petitioner is
entitled for medical bill amount. During the cross-examination
of PW 1, nothing is elicited to doubt the genuinity of these
bills.
(100) The total of these bills comes to Rs.73,716/-. As
already stated above, in Ex.R.1, Ex.R.4 and R.5, which are at
Sl.No.1 to 3 in Ex.P.23, the petitioner is entitled for balance
amount of Rs.9,35,958/-, which amount is not reimbursed and
the petitioner is entitled to the said amount also and the total
amount of other Bills referred above, amounts to Rs.73,716/-
towards medical expenses. Thus, in all, the petitioner is
entitled for total medical expenses of Rs.10,09,074/-.
(101) It is the case of the petitioner that she sustained
permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by her in the
accident. To substantiate the same, the petitioner relied on
the evidence of PW 10, the doctor. In the chief examination
affidavit of PW 10, he has assessed 51.98% disability with
reference to left upper limb and 17.33% with reference to
whole body. He has also mentioned that the fracture of shaft
of right humerus shows union with implants in situ. But
fracture of left scapula shows malunion. Fracture of ribs 1 st on
46 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
right, 1st and 2nd on left side shows union. There is no medical
evidence with reference to permanent disability with reference
to removal of pancreas of the petitioner.
(102) As per the medical literature, in view of removal of
pancreas, the petitioner's digestion system and production of
insulin will be stopped. Therefore, she is required to be
diabetic throughout her life. The petitioner has to adjust her
life style to a defined diet. After removal of pancreas, most
patients are not hungry and will have some nausea and there
will be abdominal bloating in early post operative period.
(103) From going through the cross-examination of PW 2,
after recalling her, it is evident that she is pursuing her higher
education by staying abroad. Therefore, it is clear that now
she is accustomed to lead life without pancreas. Considering
the evidence of PW 10 with reference to restriction of
movements o joint, shoulder and right elbow, which did not
cause any hurdle, petitioner though continued her studies, but
she has been facing physical inconvenience and due to
removal of pancreas, there is reduction of life span.
Considering all these aspects of the matter, the percentage of
disability is assessed at 20% to whole body, as PW 10 has not
47 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
considered the fact of removal of pancreas of the petitioner.
(104) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was
studying in 7th semester of BE Architecture. She has no actual
income. Her notional income considering her qualification and
age, to calculate under the head of loss of amenities and
future earning capacity, is taken as Rs.12,000/- per month.
20% of Rs.12,000/- comes to Rs.2,400/-. After
multiplying the same by 12, annually it comes to Rs.28,800/-.
As per the records, as the petitioner was aged 21 years at the
time of the accident, as per the principle laiddown in the case
of Sarla Varma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation, the
multiplier applicable to the case on hand is 18. Therefore, the
petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,18,400/-
under the head loss of amenities in life and loss of future
earning capacity.
(105) As per the evidence of PW 10, the doctor, the
petitioner is required to undergo another surgery for removal
of implants. In view of my above said observation regarding
the complications that the petitioner has to face throughout
her life in view of removal of pancreas, an amount of
48 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards future medical
expenses.
(106) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was
unmarried. On account of removal of pancreas, certainly there
will be deterioration of health condition and thereby, the
marriage prospects of the petitioner will certainly become
bleak and therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded
towards loss of marriage prospects.
(107) After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to
hospital, wherein she was treated as an inpatient and after
discharge, she followed treatment and thereby, the petitioner
may have incurred some amount for her conveyance. Hence,
the petitioner is awarded Rs.5,000/- towards conveyances
expenses.
(108) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as
under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of
Compensation
1. Pain and suffering 1,25,000.00
2. Food, Nourishment and Attendant 26,000.00
charges
3. Medical Expenses 10,09,074.00
49 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
4. Loss of Amenities in life and Loss 5,18,400.00
of future earning capacity
5. Future medical expenses 1,00,000.00
6. Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000.00
7. Conveyance expenses 5,000.00
18,84,074.00
(109) The respondent No.1 and 2, respectively being the
owner and insurer of the car, are jointly and severally liable to
pay compensation to the petitioner together with interest at
6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly,
Issue No.3 is answered.
(110) Issue No.2 in MVC No.6294/2017 :-In this case,
the petitioner - Shyam D.Kale @ Kale Shyam has claimed
compensation of Rs.25 lakhs, contending that due to the
damage caused to the shop, including the electrical
equipments, interiors and exteriors, he could not run his
business for 6 months and thereby suffered huge loss on
account of damages and loss of earnings.
(111) In the written submission, the learned counsel for
the petitioner has contended that as a fanchisee of Goli Vada
Pav, he was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. As per the
estimation made by the Civil Contractor, damage of the worth
50 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
of Rs.9,34,475/- has been caused to him. He got repaired the
shop by spending Rs.6,55,000/- and PW 8 has issued receipt
for Rs.3,30,000/- and agreed to receive the balance of
Rs.3,25,000/- in due course. He has spent substantial amount
for replacing the damaged kitchen, equipment and electrical
goods worth of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest.
(112) To substantiate the same, the petitioner Sham
D.Kale @ Kale Shyam has relied on his oral evidence as PW 5,
the evidence of PW 8, a Civil Contractor of M/s.R. & G
Associates and Ex.P.52 - 7 Photographs and CD of the
damaged shop. Ex.P.55 is the Estimation of the damaged
property, Ex.P.56 is the receipt issued for damage estimation
consultancy charges. Ex.P.57 is the Invoice with reference to
the damage caused to the Vada Pav Shop. Ex.P.58 is the
Receipt for having purchased electrical goods.
(113) From going through the evidence of PW 5 and 8, it is
clear that at the time of the accident, PW 5 was not at all present at
the spot. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that two hours
after the accident, he visited the spot. From Ex.P.52-7 Photographs,
which are not challenged during the course of cross-examination of
PW 5, it is clear that there is extensive damage
51 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
caused to the electrical goods and damage to the PoP interior
and exterior in the shop.
(114) PW 8 in his chief examination, has deposed that he
repaired the shop and charged Rs.6,55,000/- to the petitioner
and he further deposed that he has received Rs.3,30,000/-
from the petitioner and he agreed to receive the balance of
Rs.3,25,000/- after receipt of the compensation amount.
During the course of cross-examination of PW 5 and 8, the
genuinity of Ex.P.55 and 56 are challenged. During the course
of cross-examination of PW 8, he has clearly stated that he has
only executed the civil work and further admitted that there is
no damage to the brick wall.
(115) Considering the admission given by PW 8 during the
course of his cross-examination and Ex.P.52 - 7 Photographs,
there is no major damage to the structure. Therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled for the compensation as estimated
under Ex.P.55 ie., towards PoP, interiors and exteriors.
(116) Considering the damage caused to interior PoP work
and damage caused to the electrical goods, which the
petitioner has to redo and other things, a compensation of
Rs.3,30,000/- is awarded to the petitioner towards damage
52 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
caused to Goli Vada Pav Shop. As PW 8 has clearly deposed
that he has already received Rs.3,30,000/-, his evidence that
he has agreed to receive balance of Rs.3,25,000/- after the
compensation is granted, is not believable one. Therefore,
that claim is rejected.
(117) From Ex.P.58, it is clear that the petitioner has
purchased different electrical items required for the shop for
its repair which are depicted in Ex.P.52 photographs. The total
amount of Ex.P.58, ie., the amount spent for purchase of
electrical goods, comes to Rs.1,82,880/- for which the
petitioner is entitled as he has replaced all the electrical
equipments which are installed in the shop.
(118) It is the specific case of the petitioner that he could
not run the shop for a period of 6 months, on account of the
damage caused to the shop in the accident. Ex.P.59 is the IT
Return of PW 5 for the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. From
Ex.P.59, it is clear that during the year 2017-18, he showed the
loss of business as zero. The annual income declared by the
petitioner for the assessment year 2017-18 is Rs.4,51,736/-
and the monthly income comes to Rs.37,644/-. Considering
Ex.P.59, during the year 2017-18, the net income of the
53 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
petitioner is taken as Rs.37,700/- per month. From Ex.P.58 and
Ex.P.57, it is clear that in the month of April, the petitioner has
purchased electrical goods. Therefore, the fact that he has not
earned anything for a period of 6 months is not acceptable
one. Till purchase of electrical materials and repair of the
shop, it would not have been possible for the petitioner to earn
from that shop and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for 1 ½
months income at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per month. Hence,
the petitioner is awarded Rs.57,000/- towards loss of
income for 1 ½ months.
(119) Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.3,30,000/-
towards civil works of the shop, Rs.1,82,880/- towards
electrical items replaced and Rs.57,000/- towards loss of
income for 1 ½ months at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per month,
and thus, in all the petitioner is awarded compensation of
Rs.5,69,880/-, and the same is described in the table below:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of Compensation
1. Expenses incurred towards repair of the shop 3,30,000.00
ie., PoP, interior and exteriors
2. Expenses incurred towards repair of the 1,82,880.00
damaged electric items
3. Loss of Income during shop repair period 57,000.00
@ Rs.38,000/- per month for 1 ½ months
Total 5,69,880.00
54 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(120) The respondent No.1 and 2, being the owner and
insurer of the car, are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner together with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly,
Issue No.2 is answered.
(121) Issue No.3 in MVC No.6295/2017:- In this case
the petitioner - Krishna Nadig T.N., has claimed a
compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondents.
(122) In the written submission, the learned advocate for
the petitioner has sought for a total compensation of
Rs.37,79,877/-, including Rs.45,499/- towards vehicle repair
charges. He claimed compensation on the heads of pain and
suffering, loss of amenities and permanent disability, medical
expenses, incidental expenses and loss of earnings during
treatment.
(123) In order to prove what are the the injuries sustained
by the petitioner in the accident, the petitioner - Krishna Nadig
T.N., has relied on his own oral evidence as PW 3 and further
has produced, Ex.P.34 - Wound Certificate, Ex.P.35 -
Prescriptions and Ex.P.36 - 4 Medical Bills.
55 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(124) From going through Ex.P.34 - Wound Certificate, it is
clear that in the accident, the petitioner has sustained cut
lacerated wounds and abrasion and both the injuries are
described as grievous in nature. Except Ex.P.34 to 36, the
petitioner has not produced any other medical records. The
petitioner has taken treatment as an Outpatient and he has
purchased medicines. Considering the nature of the injuries
sustained ie., cut laceration and abrasion, which caused no
other complications and as per Ex.P.36, the petitioner has
purchased medicines and paid charges and the total of Ex.P.36
comes to Rs.4,091/-, and thus, considering the nature and
gravity of injuries sustained, treatment taken and the amount
spent for purchase of medicines, the petitioner is awarded a
global compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
(125) Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by
the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner has
sustained any permanent disability or there is loss of amenities
in life and further, it cannot be said that due to the injuries
sustained by the petitioner, for months together, the petitioner
has not discharged his duties. Therefore, the petitioner is not
entitled to compensation on any other heads.
56 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(126) It is the further case of the petitioner that in the
accident, his motorcycle has been extensively damaged and to
get the same repaired, he incurred Rs.45,499/-. Ex.P.39 is the
IMV Report.
(127) From going through Ex.P.39 - IMV Report, it is clear
that in all, 7 damages, as extracted below, are noted by the
Motor Vehicles Inspector with reference to the motorcycle of
the petitioner:-
1) Front side both the shock absorbers were bent
2) Front side wheel mud guard broken
3) Front side wheel rim bent
4) Front side handle bent
5) Rear side brake pedal cut due to compact
6) Fuel tank deeply dented at left side
7) Front side head light doom, indicators and crash guard
were damaged.
(128) The petitioner has also relied on Ex.P.40 - Invoice of
Labour Bill issued by Bridge Stone Service for having repaired
the vehicle. The learned advocate for the respondent No.2
vehemently argued that as per Ex.P.42 - Insurance Policy of the
two wheeler, it is clear that at the time of insuring the vehicle,
the insured ie., the petitioner himself has declared the IDV
57 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
value of the two wheeler as Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, when the
IDV value of the vehicle itself is Rs.15,000/-, Rs.45,499/- as
claimed by the petitioner, cannot be awarded based on Ex.P.40.
(129) From Ex.P.42, it is clear that at the time of obtaining
insurance policy, the petitioner himself has declared the IDV
value of the two wheeler as Rs.15,000/- and hence, as the
motorcycle of the petitioner has been extensively damaged in
the accident, the petitioner is awarded Rs.15,000/- towards the
damage caused to his vehicle. Hence, the petitioner is
awarded a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- ie., Rs.25,000/-
towards pain and suffering, amount spent for treatment and
Rs.15,000/- towards the damage caused to the motorcycle of
the petitioner.
(130) The respondent No.1 and 2, being the owner and
insurer of the car, are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner together with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly, Issue
No.3 is answered.
(131) Issue No.3 in MVC No.6296/2017:- In this case,
the petitioner - Mallesha S., has claimed a compensation of
58 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Rs.15 lakhs from the respondents for the injuries sustained in
the accident.
(132) In the written submission, the learned advocate for
the petitioner has calculated the compensation on 8 different
heads and the total compensation claimed is Rs.12,08,787/-.
(133) It is the case of the petitioner that in the said
accident, he sustained grievous injuries, resulting in permanent
disablement.
(134) To substantiate the same, the petitioner has relied
on his own oral evidence and the evidence of PW 11, the
doctor. Ex.P.44 is the Wound Certificate, Ex.P.45 is the
Discharge Summary, Ex.P.46 are the Medical Bills and Ex.P.48
are 9 photographs with CD.
(135) PW 7 and PW 9 have produced Ex.P.64 to 67 and 70.
the medical records with reference to the petitioner Mallesh.
Ex.P.64 to 67 are the medical records pertains to Devagiri
Hospital and Ex.P.70 are the medical records pertains to
Sanjeevini Hospital.
(136) From going through Ex.P.44 and P.45, the Wound
Certificate and Discharge, it is clear that the petitioner has
59 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
sustained 3 injuries. Scald (Thermal Injury) over front of
abdomen and upper limbs (round 15-.20% body surface).
Abraded laceration over lower lip,small multiple lacerations at
place over lower limbs. Scald injury is described as grievous in
nature and other 2 injuries are described as simple in nature.
As per Ex.P.45, Sanjeevini Hospital described the injuries under
the head local examination. Total burn area of 10%, anterior
abdomen wall 30x20 cms., left hand 8 x 10 cms. Abrasion
present over face. Sutures present over face and head. The
petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient in 2 hospitals till
11.11.2016 ie., in Devagiri Hospital for 2 days and for 7 days
in Sanjeevini Hospital.
(137) From going through the medical records, it is clear
that he was required to attend regular dressing for the burn
injuries.
(138) At the time of the accident, the petitioner was
preparing snacks on a fry pan containing hot edible oil and the
car has dashed the shop on account of which, hot oil in the fry
pan spilled on his lower abdomen, which caused burn injuries
on lower abdomen and arm. Considering the nature and
gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the
60 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
accident, the petitioner is awarded compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering.
(139) It is the case of the petitioner that he has incurred
huge medical expenses for his treatment. For that, he relied on
Ex.P.46 medical bills.
(140) From going through Ex.P.46 Medical Bills, it is clear
that after discharge from the hospital, he has repeatedly
visited the hospital for dressing purpose and the above
referred bills are with reference to dressing charges paid by the
petitioner on different visits to the hospital. The Inpatient Bills
are at Ex.P.46 at Sl.No.1 and Sl.No.3. To doubt the genuinity of
these documents, nothing is elicited during the course of his
cross-examination. From the medical records produced by PW
7 and 9 as per Ex.P.67 and 70, it is clear that the petitioner has
taken treatment as an inpatient in two hospital and the
petitioner is entitled for the total amount of these two bills,
which comes to Rs.53,787.77 and by rounding off to the
nearest figure, the petitioner is awarded Rs.53,800/- towards
medical expenses.
(141) From Ex.P.45 IP Records, it is clear that the
petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient from 30.10.2016
61 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
to 11.11.2016 for a period of 9 days. Therefore, the petitioner
is awarded an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards Food,
Nourishment and Attendant Charges.
(142) From the Medical Records, it is clear that the
petitioner has visited the hospital on number of occasions for
dressing purpose. Considering the same, the petitioner is
awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation
charges.
(143) It is the case of the petitioner that he sustained
permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the
accident. To substantiate the same, the petitioner has relied
on the evidence of PW 11, the doctor. In the chief examination,
PW 11 has deposed that the petitioner has sustained oil scalds
on 03.11.2016. He sustained burn injuries over abdomen and
left fore arm. PW 11 in Para 7 of the chief examination affidavit,
averred that the petitioner complained hardening, pain and
itching in the scars over abdomen and left forearm. He has
difficulty in standing and working for long hours. He also
complained increase of pain on exposure to heat. In para No.9
of his chief examination affidavit, he has calculated the
percentage of disability towards burns scarring of abdomen
62 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
5%, burns scarring of forearm 3% and additional points 2% and
permanent physical impairment due to burn scars is shown as
10%. Even though in Para No.7 of his chief examination, he
has mentioned that the petitioner is facing difficulty in standing
and working for long hours, restriction of movements due to
burnt injuries, however, the petitioner has not produced the
recent photographs of particular injuries sites. Further,
whether the injuries are healing or not, whether skin is properly
developed or not and there is any shortening of skin is not
either deposed by PW 4 or PW 11.
(144) Therefore, the evidence of PW 11 is not helpful to
the petitioner in assessing the permanent disability. From the
evidence of PW 11, it is proved that there is permanent scar in
the burnt site on the body of the petitioner. In para No.10 of
the chief examination affidavit, PW 11 has averred that he
suggested tissue extension surgery over a period of 2-3 years
and estimated cost will be Rs.4 lakhs. During the course of
cross-examination of PW 11, he has admitted that he has not
treated the petitioner. He has admitted that the petitioner has
not sustained any fracture injuries and he has not given
estimation for tissue extension surgery.
63 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(145) It is the case of the petitioner that he was working
as a cook at M/s.Yellavva Enterprises, a franchisee of Goli Vada
Pav and drawing a salary of Rs.12,500/- per month with free
food and shelter. Even though, in his cross-examination, he
has admitted that he has not produced any document to prove
his avocation and income, however, PW 5 - Sham D Kale, the
owner of the Vada Pav Shop, in para No.5 of his chief
examination affidavit, has reiterated the said fact. Even
though PW 5 in his socs-examination, has denied the
suggestion that he has falsely stated that he had a permanent
employee by name Mallesha as cook and paying Rs.12,500/-
per month, but the fact remains that at the time of the
accident, the PW 4 - Mallesha was preparing snacks in the shop
and suffered oil scalds on account of oil spilling on his body, on
account of dashing of car. Considering the said fact and also
the fact that the petitioner was aged 25 years at the time of
accident and being a cook, it can be presumed that he was
earning Rs.12,5000/- per month.
(146) The petitioner having suffered oil scalds and having
taken treatment as an inpatient in the hospitals, he must have
suffered loss of income, at least for two months and hence, the
64 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income
during treatment for two months at the rate of Rs.12,500/-
per month.
(147) From going through the Discharge Summary, it is
clear that in Ex.P.45, it is mentioned that patient discharged
with stable condition. Considering the above facts and the fact
that the petitioner can undergo plastic surgery or skin grafting
surgery with reference to burn injuries and considering the fact
that there is permanent scar present over fore arm as well as
abdomen, the petitioner is awarded a compensation of Rs.2
lakhs towards future medical expenses and hence, the
petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,32,800/-
and the details of compensation awarded to the petitioner is as
under:-
Sl.No. Heads of Compensation Amount of compensation
1. Pain and suffering 40,000.00
2. Medical Expenses 53,800.00
3. Food, Nourishment and Attendant charges 9,000.00
4. Transportation charges 5,000.00
5. Loss of income during treatment 25,000.00
6. Future Medical Expenses 2,00,000.00
3,32,800.00
Total
65 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
(148) The respondent No.1 and 2, being the owner and
insurer of the car, are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the petitioner together with interest at 6%
p.a., from the date of petition till realisation. Accordingly,
Issue No.3 is answered.
(149) Issue No.4 in MVC No.4122/2017, 4123/2017,
6295/2017 and 6296/2017 and Issue No.3 in MVC
NO.6294/2017:- In view of my discussion made as above, I
proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
M.V.C. No.4122/2017 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.16,34,660/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum , on Rs.15,34,660/- only, from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order. 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and the balance 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to her. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
66 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017MVC No.4123/2017 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.18,84,074/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on Rs.17,84,074/- only, from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order. 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of 5 years and the balance 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to her. Interest on FD is payable on maturity.
MVC No.6294/2017 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,69,880/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
The petitioner spent the amount for repair of the damaged shop and its electrification from his pocket and hence, entire compensation amount together with accrued 67 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017 interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
MVC No.6295/2017 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner with interest within 2 months from the date of this order.
As compensation amount awarded is meager, entire compensation amount together with accrued interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner. MVC No.6296/2017 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,32,800/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, on Rs.1,32,800/- only, from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order. 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of his choice for a period of 5 years and the balance 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released to him. Interest on FD is payable on 68 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017 maturity.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.4122/2017 and its copy in other cases.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription therefore, revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on 10.11.2021) (PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Aishwarya C., P.W.2 : Sanjana P.W.3 : Krishna Nadig T.N., P.W.4 : Mallesha S.,
P.W.5 : Sham D., Kale @ Kale Shyam P.W.6 : Vinay Kumar S., P.W.7 : Praveena C., P.W.8 : Devaraj C., P.W.9 : Santhosh Kumar D.R., P.W.10 : Dr.S.Ramachandra P.W.11 : Dr.Naren P.W.12 : Stalin Christopher P.W.13 : Raghu Y.C., P.W.14 : Dr.Priyadarshan Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P-1 : Copy of FIR
69 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017
Ex.P-2 : Copy of Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-3 : Copy of Sketch
Ex.P-4 : Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P-5 : Charge Sheet
Ex.P.6 & 7: Wound Certificates
Ex.P.8 & 9 : 2 Discharge Summaries
Ex.P.10 : 10 Lab Reports
Ex.P.11 : 4 Medical Bills
Ex.P.12 : 16 Photos with CD
Ex.P.13 : Notarised copy of College ID Card
Ex.P.14 : 12 X rays
Ex.P.15 : 12 CT Scan Films
Ex.P.16 & 17 : 2 Wound Certificates Ex.P.18 to 20: 3 Discharge Summaries Ex.P.21 : 16 Lab Reports Ex.P.22 : 7 Prescriptions Ex.P.23 : 32 Medical Bills Ex.P.24 : Schedule of Medical Insurance Scheme Ex.P.25 : Authorisation letter of M/s.Medi Assist Ex.P.26 : Medi Claim Policy of Apollo Ex.P.27 : Settlement of Canara Bank regarding payments towards medical reimbursement Ex.P.28 : ID Card Ex.P.29 : 2 Self Attested Marks Statements Ex.P.30 : 10 Photos with CD Ex.P.31 : CD containing MRI Scan Ex.P.32 : 13 X ray films Ex.P.33 : 23 MRI Ex.P.34 : Wound Certificat Ex.P.35 : 2 Prescriptions 70 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017 Ex.P.36 : 3 Medical Bills Ex.P.37 : Pay Slip Ex.P.38 : Bank Statement Ex.P.39 : IMV Report Ex.P.40 : Vehicle Repair Bill Ex.P.41 : Copy of Driving Licence Ex.P.42 : Policy Copy Ex.P.43 : No Claim Certificate Ex.P.44 : Wound Certificate Ex.P.45 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.46 : 51 Medical Bills Ex.P.47 : 45 Prescriptions Ex.P.48 : 9 Photographs with CD Ex.P.49 : Copy of RC Book Ex.P.50 : OP File of Columbia Asia Hospital Ex.P.51 : Copy of Section 161 Statement Ex.P.52: 7 Photos with CD Ex.P.53 : Copy of Order Sheet in CC 4404/2017 Ex.P.54 : Statement of Pleading Guilty Ex.P.55 : Estimation of property damage Ex.P.56 : Damage assessment consultant charges Ex.P.57 : Damages Invoice Ex.P.58 : 3 Electronic Goods Purchasing Receipts Ex.P. 59 : Copy of IT Returns for the year 2017-18, 2018-19 Ex.P.60 : Copy of Food Licence Ex.P.61 : Copy of GST Registration Certificate Ex.P.62 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P.63 : IP Reocrd Ex.P.64 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P.65 : Attested copy of MLC Register 71 MVC No.4122, 4123, 6294 to 6296 of 2017 Ex.P.66 : Carbon Copy of Police Intimation Ex.P.67 : IP Case Sheet Ex.P.68 : Copy of Loan Agreement Ex.P.69 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P.70 : IP Case Sheet of Mallesh in MVC 6296/2017 Ex.P.71 : OPD Book in MVC 4123/2017 Ex.P.72 : 3 X ray Films Ex.P.73 : OP Record Ex.P.74 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P.75 : IP Record of petitioner in MVC 4123/2017 Ex.P.76 : MLC Register Extract Ex.P77 : 9 Xray Films Ex.P.78: 13 Ct Scan Films Ex.P79 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P.80 : Case Sheet Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents :
RW-1 - Srinivas RW-2 - Rajesh Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 Authorisation Letter Ex.R.2 Copy of Consolidated Bill Ex.R.3 Bifurcation of Bills Ex.R.4 & 5 2 Inpatient Bills Ex.R.4(a) Covering Letter Ex.R.6 Copy of Policy ( PRABHAVATI M.HIREMATH) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.