Bangalore District Court
Vasantha Kumar M.S vs ) Icici Lombard Motor Ins. Co. Ltd on 23 March, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL;
B'LORE (SCCH-17)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF March, 2015
PRESENT; Sri. S.R. DINDALKOPP B.Sc., LL.B., ( Spl)
XIX Addl SCJ & MACT.
M.V.C.NO.708-2014
Petitioner: Vasantha Kumar M.S.
Aged 23 years,
S/o Siddagangaiah,
R/o Muskal at Post,
Gulur Hobli,
Tumkur District.
Present address:
No.45/A, 1st main,
1st Cross, Nagasandra,
T.R.Nagar,
Bangalore-560 028.
(By Sri.MNS)
V/s.
Respondents : 1) ICICI Lombard Motor Ins. Co. Ltd.,
SVR complex, No.89, II floor,
Hosur Road, Madiwala,
Bangalore-560 068,
2) Ganganarasaiah, Major,
SCH 17 2 M.V.C.No.708/14
S/o Siddappa,
R/o Bharathipura,
Billanakote Post,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore District.
(RC owner of JCB KA-52-M-2582)
(Respondent No.1 KMR
Respondent No.2 AKV)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 166 of MV Act for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a MV Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:
On 16-01-2014 at about 7.30 p.m., when petitioner was proceeding on motor cycle, bearing Regn.No.KA-06-EN-447 as a pillion rider met with an accident, it was ridden by one Hanumantharaju near Chandana Hosahalli Gate, NH.4 Road, at that time one JCB, bearing Regn.No.KA-52-M-2582 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle. The petitioner fell down and sustained injuries to the head SCH 17 3 M.V.C.No.708/14 and left eye. Immediately he was shifted to Harsha M.S. Ramaiah Hospital. After first aid he was referred to Columbia Asia Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient. The Doctor advised him to take rest for 6 months. The accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the JCB, which is owned by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2. Hence filed the petition against both the respondents.
3. On the contrary, the respondent No.1 filed the written statement by denying the contention of the petitioner. Apart from the denial, this respondent contend that the driver of the vehicle has no valid and effective driving licence. Hence there is a breach of policy conditions. This respondent is not liable to indemnify the same. Further this respondent contend that the owner of the vehicle and Police were not furnished necessary documents about the accident. Further this respondent contend that the unfortunate accident occurred only on account of negligent riding SCH 17 4 M.V.C.No.708/14 of the motor cycle by its rider in the middle of the road without giving any kind of indication, took a sudden turn in the cross. Hence the rider of the motor cycle is responsible for the accident. Hence this respondent denied the contention of the petitioner and prays to reject the claim petition.
Respondent No.2 appeared and filed written statement by denying the contention of the petitioner. Apart from the denial this respondent contend that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.1. Hence if any liability on his part it is to be indemnified by the respondent No.1. The driver of the JCB was having valid and effective driving licence and the policy was also in force. Further this respondent contend that the rider of the motor cycle was proceeding with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, he himself fell down by skid of the vehicle. Hence the accident is caused by the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. Further this respondent contend that as per the IMV report, motor cycle did not get any damages, complainant by colluding with Police SCH 17 5 M.V.C.No.708/14 falsely implicated JCB vehicle to get compensation. Hence this respondent prays to reject the claim petition filed against him.
4. On the basis of above facts, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 16.01.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. he was proceeding as a pillion on a Motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KA-06-EN-447, on NH-4, near Chandana Hosahalli Gate. At that time JCB bearing Reg.No.KA-52-M-2582 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Motor cycle. As a result of which, he had sustained injuries as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 30 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.30. Further in support of his case, examined the Medical Officer of ESI Hospital as PW.2 and examined the Doctor as PW.3 and got SCH 17 6 M.V.C.No.708/14 marked documents as per Ex.P14 to 20. Further the rider of the motor cycle and eyewitness as PW.4 and closed their side.
On the contrary respondent examined the driver of JCB as RW.1. The Official of respondent No.1 examined as RW.1 and got marked policy as per Ex.R1 and closed their side.
6. Heard the arguments on both side and also perused the written arguments filed by the petitioner.
7. I answer the above issues as follows;
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly affirmative.
Issue No.3: As per final order for the following R E A S O N S
8. ISSUE NO.1 On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents, the petitioner in order to prove his case, apart from SCH 17 7 M.V.C.No.708/14 examining himself and the rider of the motor cycle produced several documents.
On perusal of the said documents Ex.P1- FIR, Ex.P2- complaint, which shows that one Ramachandra filed the complaint to the Police on 17.04.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., in which he has stated that on 16.01.2014 in the evening when the petitioner along with Hanumantharaju proceeding on the motor cycle at about 7.30 p.m., near Hosahalli Gate, JCB while taking U-turn dashed to the motor cycle. As a result of which petitioner sustained injuries. Further he has stated the rider of the motor cycle also sustained simple injuries, the public gathered shifted the injured to the hospital. Further as per direction of the Doctor he was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital. After admitting the injured to the hospital, he filed the complaint. Hence there is a delay in filing the complaint. Ex.P3 is the statement of petitioner given before Police. Ex.P4- spot sketch, Ex.P5- charge sheet, Ex.P6 - wound SCH 17 8 M.V.C.No.708/14 certificate, Ex.P7- marks card, Ex.P8- Provisional marks card of Trade, Ex.P10- certificate issued by Kennametal, Ex.P11- SSLC marks card, Ex.P12- certificate issued by ESI Hospital, Ex.P13 certificate issued by Ravi Enterprises.
From these documents, it shows that there is an accident, in which the petitioner sustained injuries. Though the respondent denied the contention of petitioner but as per wound certificate Ex.P6 petitioner was admitted to Columbia Asia Hospital on 16.01.2014 with history of RTA. The respondent though in the cross-examination of PW.1 contended that their vehicle not at all involved in the accident and it has been falsely implicated. But nothing is elicited to disbelieve the contention of the petitioner. Further the respondent in order to disprove the case of the petitioner examined the driver of JCB as RW.1. On perusal of the evidence of RW.1 though he deposed as per the contention of the respondent in his chief examination, in the cross-examination SCH 17 9 M.V.C.No.708/14 admitted that Police have filed the charge sheet against him, he has not complained regarding his vehicle not involved in the accident. Further he admitted guilt before the Criminal Court. Hence he himself has admitted that there is case filed against him and he voluntarily admitted the guilt, then naturally the contention of the petitioner shows that they are admitting the accident. Hence from all these aspects, it shows that the petitioner apart from his evidence and also from the evidence of PW.4/witness proved that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative. 9 ) ISSUE NO.2:
Petitioner produced wound certificate as per Ex.P6. On that basis he is entitled for compensation on the following heads:
a) PAIN AND AGONY:- As per wound certificate Ex.P6 sustained three injuries, which are all grievous in nature. Injury No.1 is a head injury with 8 sub injuries. Since it is a grievous in SCH 17 10 M.V.C.No.708/14 nature for that he is entitled compensation of Rs.6,000/-. Injury No.2 is a fracture of spine, which is also grievous in nature, for that he is entitled compensation of Rs.20,000/-. Injury No.3 is also a grievous in nature, for that he is entitled compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Hence totally he is entitled compensation of Rs.31,000/- under this head.
MEDICAL EXPENSES:- The petitioner has not produced the medical bills. Hence he is not entitled any compensation under this head.
b) DISABILITY: According to petitioner because of the head injury and injury to the left eye he was not able to do the work. Hence he was permanently disabled. In order to establish the same he examined the Doctor. On perusal of the evidence of the Doctor, who deposed that the petitioner is having 68% neurological disability. The respondent contends that, the Doctor wrongly stated the disability to an extent of 68%. . The petitioner SCH 17 11 M.V.C.No.708/14 aged 23 years at the time of accident and he sustained head injury and injury to the left eye. So because of the grievous injuries, naturally he might be having disability to the extent of 60%. For the whole body it would be 1/3rd of particular limb. Hence the disability would be 20%. The age of the petitioner is 25 years. T he appropriate multiplier applicable is '18'. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 18 x 20% = Rs.2,59,200/-.
(c) LOSS OF INCOME; This petitioner contend that he was working as ITI Fitter and earning income of Rs.6,000/- per month as per Ex.P13.
Because of the injury to the left eye and head injury, he might have taken rest for a period of 3 months. The petitioner produced discharge summary as per Ex.P7, which shows for about 19 days he has taken treatment. Because of the head injury and injury to the left eye, it may require at least 3 months to recover from the injuries. Hence definitely he is entitled for the loss of SCH 17 12 M.V.C.No.708/14 income for about 3 months. Hence, he is entitled Rs.6,000/- x 3 = Rs.18,000/- under this head.
e. FOOD AND NOURISHMENT; Further as the petitioner treated as inpatient for about 19 days. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained and treatment taken, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head food and nourishment. Accordingly, same is awarded.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
a) Towards pain and agony Rs. 31,000/-
b) Towards disability Rs. 2,59,200/-
c) Towards loss of income Rs. 18,000/-
d) Towards food & nourishment Rs. 15,000/-
d) Towards attendant charges Rs. 3,000/-
Total Rs. 3,26,200/-
SCH 17 13 M.V.C.No.708/14
10. LIABILITY: According to petitioner the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the JCB vehicle, which is owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.1. Hence both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent though denied the contention of the petitioner not produced any material to disprove the contention of the petitioner. Hence both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly I answer this issue in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.3: In view of my findings on issue nos.1 & 2, the petition is liable to be allowed in part with cost against the respondents. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
SCH 17 14 M.V.C.No.708/14
ORDER
The petition is hereby allowed in part with cost against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 3,26,200/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred Only) with interest @ 6%p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
Hence respondent are directed to deposit the aforesaid compensation amount within 30 days from the date of this judgment.
In the event of deposit, 50% of the amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalised or schedule bank for a period of 3 years in the name of petitioner, without any encumbrance and remaining 50% shall be released in favour of petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.500/-.
Draw decree accordingly.
(S.R.DINDALKOPP) XIX ADDL.SCJ. & MACT:
BANGALORE.
SCH 17 15 M.V.C.No.708/14
A N N E X U R E
LIST OF WITNESSES & DOCUMENTS EXAMINED & MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:
FOR PETITIONER:
Pw.1: Vasantha Kumar M.S. P.w.2: Dr. Anand Kumar N., Pw3: Dr Raghuram Gopalakrishnan Pw4: Hanumantharaju DOCUMENTS:
Ex.P.1 FIR of Dabaspet PS Crime No.11/2014
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Statement of witness
Ex.P.4 Spot panchanama
Ex.P.5 Charge sheet
Ex.P.6 Wound certificate
Ex.P.7 Markscard for apprentices (ITI)
Ex.P.8 Certificate of provisional Trade certificate
Ex.P.9 Certificate of provisional national apprentiship
Ex.P.10 copy of certificate issued by Kennametal Ex.P.11 Copy of SSLC markscard Ex.P.12 Certificate issued by ESI hospital Ex.P.13 Certificate issued by Ravi Enterprises SCH 17 16 M.V.C.No.708/14 Ex.P.14 Inpatient records of petitioner Ex.P.15 inpatient record for 2nd time Ex.P.16 Lab reports Ex.P.17 Radiological report Ex.P.18 OP records Ex.P.19 X-rays Ex.P.20 2 CT scan films FOR RESPONDENTS:
Rw1: Krishnappa Swamy
Rw2: Venu K.L.,
DOCUMENTS:
Ex.R1 Policy copy
(S. R.DINDALKOPP)
XIX ADDL.SCJ. & MACT:
BANGALORE.