Bangalore District Court
Sri.Abdul Jalil vs United India Insurance Co on 23 September, 2022
KABC020028742019
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
(SCCH24)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
C/c XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER MACT,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.630/2019
PETITIONER/S: Sri.Abdul Jalil
S/o Moosabba K.
Aged about 30 years,
Since the petitioner is in coma
Rept., by his natural guardian
mother Smt.Sairabanu
W/o Moosabba K.
R/at No.3/241, near well
Jyothinagara, Kavoor,
Kunjathbail,
Dakshinakannada575015.
(By Sri.Manjunath N.,
Advocate.)
V/S
SCCH - 24 2 MVC 630/2019
RESPONDENT/S: 1.United India Insurance Co.,
Regional office, 5th floor,
Nrupathunga road,
Krishibavana,
Near Hudson circle,
Bengaluru.
(Policy No.0723003118P110093859
Valid 05.11.2018 to 04.11.2019)
(By Sri.B.R.Basavaraju,
Advocate.)
2. Sri.Kantharaju K.
S/o Krishnappa,
Machohalli Colony,
Bapagrama, Machohalli,
Magadi road 560091.
(Exparte)
......
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 04.01.2019.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, on 04.01.2019 at about 11.00 p.m., the petitioner being pedestrian was waiting for bus at Garvebavipalya subway, Madival in very carefully and cautiously observing the traffic SCCH - 24 3 MVC 630/2019 rules and regulation, at that movement all of sudden the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA02AA9952 came in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life at high speed and lost the control and hit to him. Due to which impact he fell down and sustained head injury, Traumatic brain injuryContusion of right frontal lobe and Basifrontal region, Diffuse axonal injury, SAH along bilateral anterior frontal lobes, multiple fractures of facial and orbital bone and multiple abrasions all over the body. Immediately after the accident he was rushed to Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient for a period of week and again was shifted to Father Muller Hospital, Mangalore, for higher treatment and he is still taking treatment as an inpatient and multiple operations were done. So far he has spent Rs.10,00,000/ towards medical and other allowances.
3. The petitioner further submitted that, at the time of accident he was hale and healthy and was working as a SCCH - 24 4 MVC 630/2019 Assistant Manager at Aegis and earning a sum of Rs.50,000/ p.m.. Due to the accidental injuries he has become disabled to earn for is lively hood and lost his earning. The Madivala Traffic Police have registered a criminal case and filed chargesheet against the driver of the Tempo traveler in Cr.No.01/2019 u/Sec.279 and 338 of IPC. The 1st respondent is being the insurer and the 2 nd respondent is being the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.
4. In response to service of notice issued by this court/Tribunal, the Respondent No.1 has appeared and filed written statement. In spite of due service of summons, the Respondent No.2 did not appear, hence placed exparte.
5. The Respondent No.1 in the written statement have denied the case of the petitioner as false, admitted issuance of policy but their liability if any is subject to terms and conditions and submitted that there is non compliance SCCH - 24 5 MVC 630/2019 of Section 134(c) and Section 158(6) of M.V. Act. Further submitted that the insured vehicle was not at all involved in the alleged accident and the alleged accident occurred only on the sole negligence on the part of the petitioner and there was one day delay of lodging the complaint. The driver of the Tempo Traveller vehicle driven it without having valid and effective DL, knowingly entrusted by its owner and vehicle was not having valid permit to ply in place of accident which are in contravention of policy conditions. Further submitted that the petitioner is not in a coma as mentioned in claim petition and as per the discharge summary of Father Mullar medical College Hospital on general examination "Patient is Conscious, Cooperative Oriented to time, place and person". Further submitted that as per the crime records the alleged accident place is near Garvebhavi Playa service road, it would clearly discloses that there is no zebra crossing and there is iron wall and pedestrian are not suppose to cross the road, there is gross violation of the traffic rules on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. SCCH - 24 6 MVC 630/2019
6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that on 04.01.2019 at about 11.00 p.m., while he was waiting for the bus near Garvebhavipalya Subway, Hosur main road, Bengaluru city, the driver of Tempo Traveller bearing Reg.No.KA 02AA9952, driven the same in a high speed, rash and negligent manner dashed against him and caused accident, resulting which he sustained injuries ?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In support of the case, the Mother/Natural Guardian of the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and produced documents as per Exs.P.1 to 27 and P.43. Mr.Alwyn Roshan V.P., MRD at Father Muller Hospital, Mangalore, is examined as PW.2 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P28 to 31. Dr.Srihari B.G., Associate SCCH - 24 7 MVC 630/2019 Professor, Department of Neurosurgery at BMC and RI Super Specialty Hospital (PMSSY), Victoria Hospital Bengaluru, is examined as PW.3 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P32 to 35. Mr.Punit S., HR at AEGIS Company is examined as PW.4 and produced 5 documents as per Exs.P36 to 40. Sri.R.Vimalraj Manager, MRD Section at Baptist Hospital is examined as PW.5 and produced 2 documents as per Exs.P.41 and 42. Sri.G.S.Rakesh, FDA at Transport commissioner office, Santhinagar, is examined as PW.6 and produced 2 documents as per Exs.P44 and P45 and closed their side. On the other side, the respondent No.1 has examined its Administrative officer as RW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and closed.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the materials on record. The both counsel have also filed written arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions SCCH - 24 8 MVC 630/2019 which are as follows : 1) 2014 ACJ 627: Syed Sadiq & Ors., Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Ins.Co.Ltd., 2) 2014 ACJ 692: Sanjay Verma V.s Haryana Roadways 3) 2011 ACJ 2168: Pola Bhadramma Vs. G.Kumar & Anr., 4) 2007 ACJ 13: New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Papamma & Anr., 5) 2011 ACJ 1 SC: Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another, and 6) 2012 ACJ 28 SC : Govind Yadav V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. The counsel for the 1 st respondent has relied upon the decisions as follows; (1) 2005 ACJ 1323: National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Premabai Patel & Ors., (2) ILR 2004 KAR 1104: Koosappa Poojari Vs. K.Sadabba & Ors., (3) ILR 1998 KAR 1934:
Sri.Narasimhaiah Vs. The General Manager & Anr., (4) MFA 100090/2014: Vijay Ishwar Jadhav & Ors., Vs. Ulrich Belchior Fernandes & Anr.. I have perused the said decisions in detail.
9. On hearing both sides and perusal of the evidence on record this court answers the above issues as follows: SCCH - 24 9 MVC 630/2019 Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative, Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
10. Issue No.1: At the time of filing of this petition the I.A.No.1 is filed seeking permission to appoint Smt.Srabanu who is the mother of the petitioner as natural guardian as the petitioner
- Addul Jaleel is in coma stage and the said IA is allowed and natural guardian is appointed. Therefore, the mother/next friend of the petitioner is examined as PW.1 and deposed that on 04.01.2019 at about 11.00 p.m., his son being pedestrian was waiting for bus at Garvebavipalya subway, Madival in very carefully and cautiously observing the traffic rules and regulation, at that movement all of sudden the driver of Tempo Traveler bearing No.KA02AA 9952 came in rash and negligent manner endangering the human life at high speed and lost the control over the said SCCH - 24 10 MVC 630/2019 vehicle and hit her son and caused accident. Due to which impact the he fell down and sustained head injury, Traumatic brain injuryContusion of right frontal lobe and Basifrontal region, Diffuse axonal injury, SAH along bilateral anterior frontal lobes, multiple fractures of facial and orbital bone and multiple abrasions all over the body. The respondent No.1 have denied the case of the petitioner and contended that there was no involvement of the insured vehicle and the accident took place on the sole negligence of the petitioner who was crossing the road wherein no zibra line was there. In support of the evidence the PW.1 has produced 7 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7. In the cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited there is a pedestrian sub way a little further from the spot of accident as per the spot sketch.
11. In support of the defence the respondent No.1 got examined its official as RW.1 who has deposed that as per the sketch of the accident place the petitioner was standing on the road where there was no zebra crossing and SCCH - 24 11 MVC 630/2019 pedestrian are not supposed to cross the road/stand on the road and there was Gril fixed and near to the accident spot there is subway meant for pedestrian, hence there was gross violation of the traffic rules on the part of the petitioner and as such the petitioner was solely responsible for the alleged accident but even then filed false case against the driver of the tempo traveler and prayed for dismissal of the petition. In the crossexamination it is elicited that the chargesheet is filed against the driver of insured vehicle, at the time of alleged accident the injured was standing.
12. Now the documentary evidence needs to be appreciated to come to conclusion whether there was any contributory negligence or complete negligence on the part of the petitioner or not. The Ex.P.2/first information clearly shows that the petitioner and the first informant stood in the service road. The Ex.P.3/chargesheet also shows that they stood on the service road. The Ex.P.4 is the spot sketch clearly shows the accident spot is on the service road near SCCH - 24 12 MVC 630/2019 the grill and not on the main road. Admittedly there was no any crossing line or facility to the pedestrians and there was subway for the pedestrians. From all the police records there is no any averment that the petitioner was crossing the road. The counsel for the R1 contends that the petition itself is not maintainable as the petitioner was at negligent. No doubt in the police records it is mentioned that the petitioner and first informant were crossing the road but in the medical records i.e. MLC/Ex.P.41 and case sheet of Baptist hospital it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was crossing the road and hit by four wheeler. The Baptist hospital records came into existence very first after the alleged accident and before the police records and hence the said Baptist hospital records have got more presumptive value and same are needs to be considered. No doubt the police records are contrary to the police documents and though the PW.1 also deposed contrary to the medical records about the manner of accident but it should be criteria to disentitle the petitioner from getting SCCH - 24 13 MVC 630/2019 compensation. Therefore, as from the medical records it is clearly forthcoming that the alleged accident occurred while the petitioner crossing the road and hence it is clear that there was gross negligence on the part of the petitioner. The counsel for the R1 in the written arguments submitted that in view of variance between the pleadings and evidence as per the decision in 2009 ACJ 295 the petition needs to be dismissed. The said argument cannot be considered as in this case the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with the police documents and the medical records are asserting the clear manner of accident and hence the evidence of PW.1 cannot be completely brushed aside simply because she deposed the manner of accident as stated in the police records.
13. Further the counsel for the R1 argued that as the burden of proving the rash or negligence is on the part of the petitioner and as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the tempo traveller and hence petitioner is to be dismissed and relied upon decisions reported in, (1) 2005 SCCH - 24 14 MVC 630/2019 ACJ 1323 : National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premabai Patel and others, (2) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Meenavariyal and others reported in 2007 ACJ 1284, and (3) Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premalatha Sukla and Others reported in 2007 AIR SCE 3591. No doubt in a claim petition u/Sec.166 of M.V. Act the burden is on the petitioner to prove by preponderance of probability that there was negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. No doubt in the present case the petitioner was crossing the road/service road but mere crossing the road cannot be held complete negligence but it definitely attracts the contributory negligence and hence the petition is very well maintainable but the degree of contributory negligence needs to be appreciated. With due respect to the decision relied upon by the counsel for R1 reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1081 referred above this Tribunal is of the view that the facts and circumstances of that case and this case are different. The second decision relied upon by the counsel for the R1 is SCCH - 24 15 MVC 630/2019 aptly applicable to the present case as in this case also the petitioner was crossing the road.
14. Therefore, from the materials on record it is crystal clear that the accident occurred while the petitioner was crossing the road and hence the ratio of 25:75 is the negligence on the part of the petitioner and offending vehicle.
15. Therefore, as per the discussion made above on appreciating the entire evidence on record, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the accident occurred due to the rash or negligent driver of the offending Tempo Traveller bearing Reg.No.KA02AA9952 alongwith the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner assessed at 25% and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, issue No.1 is held partly in the affirmative.
16. Issue No.2: The PW.1 has further averred that, on account of accident, her son sustained grievous injuries and it has SCCH - 24 16 MVC 630/2019 caused him permanent disability and hence his son has lost his 100% memory and he cannot remember anything of his past and present memories. Her son is not having any control over urine pass and motion and he is like a breathing body, totally her son is in a pathetic conditions and it is permanent in nature throughout his life. The PW.1 in this regard has entered into witness box and deposed that due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from permanent disability. Apart from that, she has produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P.6. As per Ex.P.6, the Petitioner has sustained head injury with contusion of right frontal lobe and basifrontal region, diffuse axonal injury, SAH along bilatral anterior frontal lobes and multiple fractures of facial and orbital bone, the doctor opined that injuries are grievous in nature. As per Ex.P.8 and 9 discharge summaries at Father Muller Medical College Hospital, Mangalore, the petitioner admitted as an inpatient from 12.01.2019 to 14.02.2019 and Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein admitted as an inpatient from 05.01.2019 to SCCH - 24 17 MVC 630/2019 12.01.2019 and Lab reports are produced as per Ex.P.14 and P27. The Petitioner has also examined Dr.Srihari B.G. as PW.3 and produced OPD book, MRI (Brain) with films, Xrays along with reports and CD and Neurophysiologist opinion alongwith report as per Ex.P.32 to P35. The PW.4 has deposed supporting the version of the Petitioner. This court while considering the Issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured offending vehicle alongwith contributory negligence. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Respondents.
DISABILITY:-
17. In the chiefexamination, the PW.3 has deposed that, patient had alleged that he met with an accident on 04.01.2019 was hit by ambulance, CT alone showed Hypodense area with hemorrhagic Foci right frontal lobe and Subarachnoid hemorrhagen alongwith bilateral anterior frontal lobes, anterior flax and right sylvain fissure, large SCCH - 24 18 MVC 630/2019 scalp hematoma in right frontal scalp with contigious small hematoma alongwith right upper lid, comminuted fracture of left frontal bone and Petitioner was in tubated in view of low GCS, Serial CT scan showed no increase in contusion, he was treated conservatively with antioedema measures, antibiotic and analgesics coordination with the neurosurgeon. The PW.3 further deposed that, recently he examined the patient/petitioner and presently, patient attender complained of inability to speak and follow command, patient attenders also given h/o patient requires attender to perform daily activities and MRI shows diffuse mild cerebral atrophy and Gliotic Changes with old Haemorrhagic residue in the right frontal region with other small ill defined areas of T2 hyperintensity involving the left frontal region and splenium of corpus callosum and not in position to move one place to another place and require support of attender. The PW.3 has further deposed that as per WHOAIIMS BGHS guidelines and as per formula, the patient/petitioner has got permanent disability to the whole SCCH - 24 19 MVC 630/2019 body 72% and he advised neuro rehabilitation and physiotherapy. In the crossexamination of PW.3 it is brought out that he has not treated the petitioner, he is a Neurosurgeon at BMC, he examined the petitioner on 15.12.2020, he examined the petitioner before nine months of the present date, he has mentioned the detail examination conducted by him in the OPD book produced by him and admits that the disability certificate can only issued by the committee formed and the guidelines issued in the year 2018.
18. The Ex.P.9 is the discharge summary of Bangalore Baptist Hospital, wherein the admission of the petitioner shown as 05.01.2019 and date of discharge is 12.01.2019, wherein the course in the hospital mentioned as 31 year of male patient admitted with history of RTA on 04.01.2019, clinical examination patient drowsy but aurosable GCS -
10/15 and relevant investigation s done, CT scan of head revealed gliotic area in the right frontal lobe and multiple SCCH - 24 20 MVC 630/2019 fractures as mentioned above. However, he had features of cognitive dysfunction with poor recall of immediate events and he was found to have uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. Medicine opinion was sought for diabetes and sugars were controlled with adequate doses of insulin. Patient party have been taught to administer insulin does. Daily physiotherapy was done. Patient managed conservatively and improved symptomatically in the course of hospital stay and hence being discharged with stable vitals and following advice.' It shows after improvement in the GCS he was extubated on 09.01.2019 and shifted to HDU on 10.01.2019 and further hospitalization and evaluation needed but the attenders got discharged against medical advise.
19. The Ex.P.8 is the another discharge summary issued by Father Mullar Medical College, wherein the history of present illness mentioned as 'patient had an alleged history of RTA on 04.01.2019 was hit by an ambulance, history of loss of consciousness present, history of injury to SCCH - 24 21 MVC 630/2019 face and anterior chest wall present on the right side, no history of ENT bleed, vomiting, seizures, no other external injuries, was admitted and managed at another hospital and was intubated in view of loss of consciousness and then extubated currently drowsy but arousable. The past history shown as, 'K/C/O diabetes Mellitus on irregular medication not a known case of hypertension/bronchial asthma'. Further in the general examination the GCS score of the petitioner shown as 10/15 and it is also mentioned that patient is conscious, cooperative, oriented to time, place and person. Under the head of course it is mentioned as '31 year old male patient admitted with history of RTA on 04.01.2019, clinical examination patient drowsy but arousable GCS 10/15 and relevant investigations done, CT scan of head revealed gliotic area in the right frontal lobe and multiple fractures as mentioned above, However he had features of cognitive dysfunction with poor recall of immediate events and he was found to have uncontrolled diabetes millitus, medicine opinion was sought for diabetes and sugars were SCCH - 24 22 MVC 630/2019 controlled with adequate doses of insulin, patient party have been taught to administer insulin dose, daily physiotheraphy was done, patient managed conservatively and improved symptomatically in the course of hospital stay and hence being discharged with stable vitals and advice'. Accordingly medicines advised. As per the systemic examination the higher mental functions normal and the treatment given is only conservative treatment. Further, the condition at the time of discharge shown as improved symptomatically and hence being discharged with stable vitals and with advice.
20. From the Ex.P.8 it can be make out that the petitioner was the case of uncontrolled diabetes and was advised insulin. As per Ex.P.8 the petitioner discharged from the hospital on 14.02.2019 itself. The PW.3 assessed the disability on 15.12.2020. The Ex.P.32 is the OPD book shows that the petitioner himself visited the hospital on 15.12.2020 as could be make out from the detailed OPD slip affixed to the book which shows patient's name with age and SCCH - 24 23 MVC 630/2019 contact number and in the column brought by it is mentioned as 'self' and occupation shown as Private employee. When the petitioner visited the hospital with attendee then why the information in the OPD slip is written as above and the said information is the contrary to the evidence of PW.3. The Ex.P.35 assessed on 19.1.2021 and MRI done on 19.1.2021. The author of Ex.P.35 is not examined before the court. The above OPD book slip clearly shows that the petitioner himself went to the hospital. The PW.3 has only stated about the MRI report but not deposed about the Ex.P.35/report and he has opined that the petitioner is not in a position to move from one place to another place and requires support of attender appears to be without any basis as the OPD slip details clearly shows that the petitioner himself/self present and stated that he is a private employee. The PW.3 has not deposed as to on what basis he came to the said conclusion that the petitioner suffers disability of 72% and hence it appears that without any detail evaluation and assessment has deposed and SCCH - 24 24 MVC 630/2019 further it also appears that he has not followed the guidelines for assessment of disability and there is no any explanation given by the PW.3 as to how he came to the conclusion that the petitioner is suffering from 72% of disability when the Ex.P.35 report shows neurobehavioral and cognitive disability as 43.33%. Therefore, from the assessment of evidence it is clear that the PW.3 has assessed the disability on the very higher side without any basis and detail explanation as per guidelines as to whether the petitioner is suffering from moderate disability or severe disability etc. The above referred four decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable as the facts and circumstances of those cases are different. The other two decisions are applicable and accordingly considered. Therefore, appreciating the evidence on record and the treatment underwent by the petitioner the whole body functional disability of the Petitioner is considered as 15% only.
SCCH - 24 25 MVC 630/2019
Monthly income:
21. The PW.1 has deposed in his evidence that, he was working as Assistant Manager at AEGIS Company and drawing salary of Rs.50,000/ per month and due to accident he become 100% disabled to earn to his lively hood and he is in coma and he lost his job and also his earning permanently. PW.1 has produced Offer letter, Appointment letter, Termination letter, bank statement, Employment ID card and Pan card of Abdul Jaleel as per Exs.P15 to 20.
The HR at AEGIS company is examined as PW.4 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P37 to 40. In the cross examination of PW.4 it is elicited that he is working as HR at AEGIS company, their centralized team has issued appointment letter to the petitioner, the petitioner paid last salary during January 2020, his full and final settled done during January 2020 itself, the petitioner has worked only for 4 months, incentives are variable components, basic and SCCH - 24 26 MVC 630/2019 HRA are fixed components of salary. In the reexamination by counsel for petitioner he admitted that they have not paid any salary to the petitioner during the period of his absence from January 2019 to January 2020 and towards full and final settlement a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ was paid to the petitioner from their company. On perusal of the Ex.P.37/true copy of offer letter it shows the basic salary as Rs.15,000/, HRA as Rs.15,000/ and incentives as Rs.16,975/. Admittedly incentives are variable one. Further, judicial notice can be taken that the incentives depends on the performance of the employee or the reaching specified target, then how the fixed incentives mentioned in the Ex.P.37 i.e. prior to appointment itself is not explained by the PW.4. In the Ex.P.37 and P.38 with the above components two other components are there which are bonus and P.F. and the salary shows as Rs.50,000/. The Ex.P.39 shows the salary for the months of August 2018 to December 2018 as Rs.39,399/, R.49,228/, Rs.46,975/, Rs.46,975/ and Rs.50,650/, in the five months the salary SCCH - 24 27 MVC 630/2019 reached to Rs.50,650/. The Bank account (HDFC Bank) statement of the petitioner is not produced to support that the said amounts have been credited in the respective months. There is no explanation as to how the fixed incentives are given. Therefore, the evidence of PW.4 and the documents produced by him are not acceptable in support of the case of the petitioners and the income as claimed is not proved by the petitioner by cogent evidence. Therefore, notional income needs to be considered. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 32 years as could be make out from Ex.P10 Adhaar card of the petitioner Abdul Jaleel is shows that his year of birth is 1987. He was hale and healthy before the accident. The accident took place in the year 2019. In absence of cogent evidence for income proof, therefore, by relying the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda &Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) wherein the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly SCCH - 24 28 MVC 630/2019 the monthly notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.14,000/ per month. As such, Petitioner is entitled for the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING: After the accident, the Petitioner Abdul Jaleel was taken to Baptist Hospital, Bengaluru wherein admitted as an in patient from 05.01.2019 to 12.01.2019 and then shifted to Father Muller Medical College Hospital, Mangaluru wherein treated as an inpatient from 12.01.2019 to 14.02.2019 for 40 days as per Ex.P.8 and 9 Discharge summaries. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment he has underwent, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ under this head.
ii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD: As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries After the accident, the Petitioner was taken treatment in the above mentioned hospitals. Therefore, SCCH - 24 29 MVC 630/2019 considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment it can be said that the Petitioner has required at least Four months time for recovering from the injuries sustained by him. Hence, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.56,000/ under this head.
iii) MEDICAL EXPENSES: The PW.1 stated that, she has incurred Rs.10,00,000/ towards medical expenses and other expenses. In this regard, she has produced 97 medical bills for a sum of Rs.2,80,926/, 19 Advance receipts and 48 medical bills amounting to Rs.56,792/ as per Ex.P.12, P13 and P.43. In total the amount comes to Rs.3,37,718/. There is no contrary evidence lead to these documents from the Respondent No.1. Therefore, the petitioner in total entitled for a sum of Rs.3,37,718/ under the head of Medical Expenses.
SCCH - 24 30 MVC 630/2019
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: In so far as age of the Petitioner is concerned, the Aadhaar card is produced as per Ex.P.10. As per this document his age was 32 years as on the date of accident. Therefore, as on the date of the accident the Petitioner's age is considered as 32 years. As per Sarala Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable to his age is 16. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.4,03,200/ (Rs.14,000/ x 12 x 16 x 15% = Rs.4,03,200/) under this head.
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:
The Petitioner was aged about 32 years at the time of accident. He has sustained grievous injuries and as per consideration of this Tribunal, he is suffering from 15% permanent disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this disability throughout his life. Because of this he will have to lose some amenities and comforts. Therefore, considering the SCCH - 24 31 MVC 630/2019 age and nature of injuries that the Petitioner has suffered a sum of Rs.17,000/ is awarded under this head.
vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND
NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner took treatment in two hospitals. He was treated as an inpatient and underwent conservative treatment. Therefore, as during this period he must have spent considerable amount on his conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment etc.. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head.
vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENES:
Though the PW.3 has deposed that the petitioner advised neuro rehabilitation and physiotherapy but the petitioner has not produced any documents for having underwent neuro rehabilitation treatment and physiotherapy treatment and therefore the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under this head.SCCH - 24 32 MVC 630/2019
22. The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.1,00,000/
2. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.56,000/
3. Medical expenses Rs.3,37,718/
4. Loss of future income Rs.4,03,200/
5. Loss of future amenities and happiness Rs.17,000/
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.20,000/ nourishment charges TOTAL Rs.9,33,918/ If it is rounded off it comes to Rs.9,34,000/ and same is awarded to the petitioner.
23. The respondent No.1 took defence that the owner of the insured vehicle was not holding valid permit as on the date of accident and committed breach of policy conditions but has not lead any evidence to prove the same. In order to disprove the said defence the petitioner has got examined the PW.6/FDA from Transport Commissioner office, Shanthinagar, who has deposed that as on the date of accident the insured vehicle had valid permit. From this it is clear that there was no breach of any policy conditions and the Respondent No.1 has not proved its defence as discussed above. Therefore, the Respondent Nos.1 SCCH - 24 33 MVC 630/2019 and 2 are being the Insurer and the Owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. However, as the Petitioner has proved the existence of insurance policy, the Respondent No.1 - insurer has got primary liability to compensate the Petitioner. The Petitioner has claimed for a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/ but he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.9,34,000/ with interest @ 6% per annum.
Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.
24. Issue No.3: For the reasons and discussions made above and finding to the above issues this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,34,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand only) from the SCCH - 24 34 MVC 630/2019 Respondents alongwith interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.
However, the Respondent No.1/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within sixty days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 20% of compensation shall be deposited in any nationalized or schedule bank in the name of the Petitioner for period of 3 years and balance amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of epayment and on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules.
SCCH - 24 35 MVC 630/2019
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the computer by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 23rd day of September 2022).
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Smt.Saira Banu PW.2 Mr.Alwyn Roshan V.P. PW.3 Dr.Srihari B.G. PW.4 Mr.Punit S. PW.5 R.Vimalraj PW.6 Sri.G.S.Rakesh
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 True copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P.3 True copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.4 True copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P.5 True copy of Spot panchanama
SCCH - 24 36 MVC 630/2019
Ex.P.6 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P.7 True copy of IMV report
Ex.P.8 & Discharge summaries
P.9
Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of petitioner
(Original compared and returned)
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of Aadhar card of PW.1
(Original compared and returned)
Ex.P.12 Medical bills for amounting Rs.2,80,926/
(97 in no's)
Ex.P.13 Advance paid receipts (19 in no's)
Ex.P.14 Lab reports (11 in no's)
Ex.P.15 Offer letter
Ex.P.16 Appointment letter
Ex.P.17 Termination letter
Ex.P.18 True copy of bank statement
Ex.P.19 Notarized copy of Employment ID card of
Abdul Jaleel (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of PAN card of Abdul Jaleel (Original compared and returned) Ex.P21 Legal notice dated 28.10.2019 Ex.P.22 Legal Notice dated 17.06.2019 Ex.P22 Legal notice dated 24.04.2019 Ex.P24 Legal notice dated 15.10.2019 Ex.P25 Legal notice dated 27.05.2019 Ex.P.26 Medical bills (25 in no's) SCCH - 24 37 MVC 630/2019 Ex.P.27 Lab report Ex.P.28 Authorization letter Ex.P.29 Inpatient case sheet Ex.P.30 Xrays (2 in no's) Ex.P.31 CT Scan (1 in no) Ex.P.32 OPD Book Ex.P.33 MRI(Brain) with films Ex.P.34 Xray (2 in no's) along with reports and CD Ex.P.35 Neurophysiologist opinion along with the report Ex.P.36 Authorization letter along with notarized copy of my ID card Ex.p.37 Offer letter of the petitioner issued by our company Ex.P.38 Appointment letter of the petitioner issued by our company Ex.P.39 Salary slips of the petitioner (16 in no's) Ex.P.40 Termination letter of the petitioner along with payment details Ex.P.41 MLC Register Extract (Original compared and returned) Ex.P.42 Case sheet Ex.P.43 Medical bills amounting to Rs.56,792/ (48 in no's) Ex.P.44 Authorization letter Ex.P.45 True copy of permit of vehicle bearing Reg.
No.KA02AA9952 SCCH - 24 38 MVC 630/2019 List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Sri.Jayashankar List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 True copy of the Policy
Ex.R.2 Authorization letter
Ex.R.3 Letter addressed to the insured
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI)
C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM
Bengaluru.
SCCH - 24 39 MVC 630/2019
23.09.2022
PNM
R1BRB
R2Ex
For Judgment
Pronounced vide separate judgment with following operative portion:
ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,34,000/ (Rupees Nine Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand only) from the Respondents alongwith interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount.SCCH - 24 40 MVC 630/2019
However, the Respondent No.1/insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within sixty days from the date of this judgment.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 20% of compensation shall be deposited in any nationalized or schedule bank in the name of the Petitioner for period of 3 years and balance amount shall be released in favour of the Petitioner by way of epayment and on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per Rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw decree accordingly.
(Miss B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) C/c XXII Addl. SCJ & ACMM Bengaluru.SCCH - 24 41 MVC 630/2019