Bangalore District Court
Deepika M vs M/S Mphasis Ltd on 1 April, 2015
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-09)
PRESENT: SRI MANJUNATH NAYAK,
B.A.L, LL.B.,
Judge, Court of Small Causes &
XXVI ACMM,(SCCH-09) Bengaluru.
Dated: 1st APRIL 2015.
MVC.No.2027/2010
*****
PETITIONER: Deepika M., Aged 24 years,
D/o C. Munikrishna,
R/a Flat No. N-203, Purva Panorama,
Kalena Agrahara, Bannerghatta Main
Road, Near Meenakshi Temple,
Bengaluru - 560 076.
(By Pleader, Sri. S. Subramanya).
-Vs-
RESPONDENTS: 1. M/s Mphasis Ltd.,
No. 65/2, Bagmane Technology Park,
Byrasandra, CV Raman Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 093.
Represented by its Managing Director.
(By Pleader, Sri. Niranjan Kumar).
2. Sri. N. Jagadeesh, Major,
S/o. Sri. Nanjundappa,
R/a No.198, Thubarahalli,
Whitefield Main Road,
Ramagondanahalli Post,
Bengaluru - 560 066.
(Driver of Tata Sumo bearing
Reg. No.KA-53-980)
(Placed Exparte)
3. Sri. S. Siddarama, Major,
S/o Sri. Siddalingappa,
MVC No. 2027/2010
SCCH-9
2
All Well Engineering, No.1864/3,
Vijyanapura, Bengaluru.
Also having permanent address at:
No.10, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, NR Layout,
Dooravaninagar, Bengaluru - 560 016.
(Driver of Ashok Leyland
Goods/Carriage vehicle bearing Reg.
No. KA-10-9001)
(Placed Exparte)
4. Sri. Muthurajan, Major,
S/o. Late Sri. Senegoda,
R/a A 637, MIG Housing
Board Colony, Chamarajanagar,
(Registered owner of Ashok Leyland
Goods/Carriage vehicle bearing Reg.
No.KA-10-9001).
(Placed Exparte)
5. The New India Assurance
Company Limited,
No.67/1, 1st Floor, Reddy Complex,
Whitefield Road, Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
Represented by its Managing Director/
Authorized signatory
(Insurer of Ashok Leyland Goods/
Carriage vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-
10-9001).
(By Pleader, Sri. D.R. Ravishankar).
6. M/s. Reliance General Insurance
Co. Ltd., (A Dhiru Bai Ambani Group),
Environ Towers, 60,460/4, 2nd Floor,
Hosur Main Road, Electronic City,
Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560 100.
(Dismissed for not taking steps)
7. Mr. N. Ramesh,
No.198, Thurubarahalli,
Whitefield Main Road,
MVC No. 2027/2010
SCCH-9
3
Bengaluru - 560 066.
(Owner of Tata Sumo bearing
Reg. No.KA-53-980)
(Dismissed for not taking steps)
8. M/s. Comfort Can Transport
Solutions Group,
No.100/18, G/Street,
Lakshmamma Layout,
Jogupalya, Ulsoor, Bengaluru - 08.
Represented by its Proprietor,
Shri. Harsha K. Shetty.
(Dismissed for not taking steps)
*****
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident dated 18-04-2009.
2. The case of the petitioner, as set-out in the petition is as follows:
That, on 18-04-2009 at about 4.30. a.m., when the petitioner, as an employee of respondent No.1 company, was going in a Tata Sumo bearing Reg. No.KA-53-980, near ADE Company, at Suranjandas Road, Bengaluru, a Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-10- 9001 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tata Sumo, in which the petitioner was going, due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was hospitalized, taken treatment as an inpatient in the hospital and MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 4 incurred huge medical expenses. The petitioner is a B.E. Graduate and working in the respondent No.1 company and getting the salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. Due to the accidental injuries, petitioner is permanently disabled, completely bed ridden and unable to do any work and lost her earning capacity. The petitioner has also lost her bright future and put to mental agony due to the accidental injuries. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its driver. The respondents, being the owner and insurer of the vehicles involved in the accident, are liable and responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner. On all these grounds, petitioner prayed for awarding the compensation of Rs.1,10,40,000/- to her.
3. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 and 5 appeared before this Tribunal through their respective counsel, whereas, the respondent No.2 to 4 failed to appear before this Tribunal and placed exparte. The respondents No.6 to 8 were subsequently impleaded as parties to this petition and the petitioner failed to take steps against them. Therefore, petition against the respondents No.6 to 8 is dismissed for not taking steps. The respondent No.1 & 5, in their written statement, have categorically denied all the petition averments, including the accident, manner MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 5 in which the accident took place, rash and negligent driving of the Lorry by its driver, as the cause for the accident. The respondents also denied the injury caused to the petitioner, treatment taken for those injuries and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. The respondents also denied the permanent disability caused to the petitioner and loss of her earning capacity and she being put to irreparable loss and hardship, due to the accidental injuries. The respondent No.5 admitted that the offending Lorry was insured with them and insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. According to the respondent No.5, the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the Tata Sumo, in which the petitioner was going at the time of accident. The driver of the Lorry had no valid driving license and Lorry had no valid permit and fitness certificate. There is violation of policy conditions by the owner of the Lorry. Hence, they are not liable to indemnify the owner of the lorry and to pay compensation to the petitioner. On all these grounds, respondent No.5 prayed for dismissal of the petition with cost.
4. The respondent No.1, in their written statement, specifically contended that, the petition against them is not maintainable. According to the respondent No.1, petitioner was working in their firm with gross salary of Rs.1,80,000/- per MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 6 annum. The respondent No.1 out sourced the transport facility to its employees through M/s. Comforts Cabs Transport and as per the contract between them, said Transport Company is providing transport facility. There is no relationship of employer and employees between the respondents No.1 & 2. The petitioner sustained injuries due to the accident involving the Tata Sumo and Lorry. As a responsible and dutiful employer, the respondent No.1 ensured the best medical treatment to the petitioner and other employees, who had sustained injuries in the said accident. The respondent No.1 has paid the entire medical expenses incurred by the petitioner and they deposited a sum of Rs.5,24,328/- with competent authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The respondent No.1 has discharged all the obligations required under the law. They have also reimbursed a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month through the insurance partner. The driver of the Tata Sumo has got valid driving license and the insurance policy was also in force on the date of the accident. The respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 denied other petition averments and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with cost.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 7 18.04.2009 at about 4.30 a.m. near ADE Company at Suranjandas Road, he met with an accident and sustained injuries due to the actionable negligence on the part of driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.
No.KA-10-9001?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so how much and from whom?
3. What order?
6. To prove the above issues, petitioner examined before this Tribunal as P.W.1 and two witnesses on her behalf as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.470 documents. The respondent No.1 examined their Asst. Manager as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 to R.5 documents.
7. I have heard the arguments.
8. By considering the evidence on record and because of my below discussed reasons, I answer the above issues in the followings:
Issue No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE. Issue No.2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE Issue No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS ISSUE NO.1:
9. The petitioner was examined through the Court Commissioner as PW.1 and she has reiterated the petition averments in her examination-in-chief affidavit and deposed about MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 8 the accident, manner in which the accident took place and rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, as the cause of the accident. PW.1 further deposed about the injuries sustained by her due to the accident, treatment taken for those injuries and medical expenses incurred by her. PW.1 further deposed that she is working in the respondent No.1 company, at the time of accident and getting salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. PW.1 further deposed that due to the accidental injuries, she is permanently disabled, completely bed ridden and lost her earning capacity and put to irreparable loss and hardship.
10. The father of the petitioner was examined before this Tribunal as PW.2 and he deposed that, after the accident, the petitioner was permanently disabled and major portion of her body was paralyzed and she is unable to move about. PW.2 further deposed that doctors, who have examined the petitioner, have certified that the petitioner had 90% permanent physical impairment.
11. The petitioner examined Dr. Maheshwarappa B.M., Neuro Surgeon at Sakra World hospital, Bengaluru, as PW.3 and he deposed that the petitioner has taken treatment for the accidental injuries at Manipal hospital. PW.3 further deposed that MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 9 due to the accident, petitioner had Type-II Odontoid fracture, burst fracture of C5 vertebra and other severe injuries. PW.3 further deposed that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient at Manipal hospital and she has suffered multiple injuries. PW.3 further deposed that, despite of constant medication and treatment, they unable to improve her health conditions and she had disability to the extent of 90%.
12. The petitioner has produced the complaint lodged in respect of the accident as per Ex.P.1. The F.I.R. registered in respect of the accident is marked as per Ex.P.2. The Spot mahazar and sketch were marked as per Exs.P.3 & 4. The wound certificate of the petitioner is marked as per Ex.P.5. IMV report is marked as per Ex.P.6. The charge sheet filed against the driver of the Lorry is marked as per Ex.P.7. MLC register extract is marked as per Ex.P.8. The Medical bills are marked as per Exs.P.9 to P.197. The advance receipt is marked as per Ex.P.198. The Medical bills and advance bills are marked as per Exs.P.199 to P.236. The letter issued by Dr.Maheshwarappa i.e. PW.3 is marked as per Ex.P.237. The Degree certificate is marked as per Ex.P.238. The Bank account extract is marked as per Ex.P.239. The Employee Identity card is marked as per Ex.P.240. The Legal notice is marked as per MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 10 Ex.P.241. The reply notice is marked as per Ex.P.242. The Prescription chits and medical reports are marked as per Exs.P.243 to P.264. The Discharge summaries are marked as per Exs.P.265 and P.266. The Medical reports are marked as per Exs.P.267 to P.276. The Train ticket and flight ticket are marked as per Exs.P.277 to P.296. The copy of the E-mail confirming the railway reservation is marked as per Ex.P.297. The Discharge summary is marked as per Ex.P.298. The Photographs are marked as per Ex.P.299 & P.300. The X-ray films are marked as per Exs.P.301 to P.304. The examination report is marked as per Ex.P.305. The Original medical bills are marked as per Exs.P.306 to P.465 (These documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to P.465, during the course of evidence of PW.1, as the evidence of PW.1 was recorded by the court commissioner) Ex.P.466 are the medical bills. Ex.P.467 and P.468 are inpatient records. Ex.P.469 is the outpatient record and Ex.P.470 is the outpatient record with MRI and X-ray reports.
13. The respondent No.1 examined their Asst. Manager as RW.1 and he deposed that the petitioner was working in their company and while travelling in the Tata Sumo, she met with an accident and sustained injuries. RW.1 further deposed that they MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 11 have paid all the hospital charges relating to the medical treatment provided to the petitioner and also deposited the amount before the competent authority under the Workmen's Compensation Act. RW.1 further deposed that they have paid a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- to the petitioner towards her medical expenses and also reimbursed Rs.50,000/- per month through their insurance partner. RW.1 further deposed that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.
14. The respondent No.1 produced medical certificate issued by Dr.Maheshwarappa as per Ex.R.1. Ex.R.2 is the authorization letter of RW.1. The Agreement for transport services is marked as per Ex.R.3. Ex.R.4 is the letter issued by the Labour Department. The letter issued by City Bank is marked as per Ex.R.5.
15. There is no serious dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident. There is also no serious dispute about the injuries caused to the petitioner due to the accident. The respondent No.1 is a company, in which this petitioner was working as Technical Support Associate, at the time of accident. At the time of accident, petitioner was going in the Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-53-980, which was provided to her by the respondent No.1 company to MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 12 reach company from her residence. The respondent No.2 is the driver of Tata sumo, which was involved in the accident. The respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending lorry, which was involved in the accident. The respondent No.4 is the owner of the offending lorry and respondent No.5 is the insurer of offending lorry. During the pendency of this petition, on the application filed by the respondent No.1, respondent Nos 6 to 8 were impleaded as the parties to this petition. The respondent No.6 is the insurer of Tata sumo, whereas respondent No.7 is the owner of Tata sumo. The respondent No.8 is a company, which was providing the services of Tata sumo to the respondent No.1 Company, for conveyance of their employees. After impleading the respondent No.6 to 8, when the case was posted for taking steps against them, petitioners failed to take steps to serve the notice on them. Hence, this petition, as against respondent No.6 to 8, has been dismissed. I will consider in my latter discussion as to the effect, if any, due to the dismissal of this petition against the respondent No.6 to 8.
16. To prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of offending lorry by its driver, petitioner has produced the complaint and FIR as per Ex.P.1 and 2. It is evident from Ex.P.1 and P.2 that, on 18-04-2009 at about 4.30. a.m., MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 13 when the petitioner was going in a Tata Sumo bearing Reg.No.KA- 53-980, from her company premises to her residence, near ADE Company, at Suranjandas Road, Bengaluru, a Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-10-9001 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tata Sumo, in which, the petitioner was going, due to which, petitioner sustained grievous injuries. The Indiranagar Traffic Police, who have registered F.I.R., have conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry, as evident from Ex.P.7. The filing of charge sheet in the criminal case is a prima-facie evidence for this case to prove and establish that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending Lorry by its driver. The sketch and mahazar of the accident spot produced as per Ex.P.3 and P.4 would also indicate that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry by its driver. The IMV report produced as per Ex.P6 goes to show that there were no mechanical defects in the vehicles involved in the accident, to cause the accident. By producing all these documents, petitioner has discharged the initial burden placed upon her to prove the accident and rash and negligent driving of offending lorry by its driver as the cause for the accident. Even though, the respondent No.5, in their written statement, denied the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver, as the MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 14 cause for the accident and tried to impress upon this Tribunal that the driver of the Tata sumo, in which the petitioner was going, has contributed for the cause of the accident, they failed to prove and substantiate the same by leading any evidence before this Tribunal. Under such circumstances, this Tribunal has to accept the petitioner's version and hold that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.
17. To show that the petitioner has sustained injuries due to the accident, she has produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P5, discharge summaries as per Ex.P.265 and 266 and other medical records before this Tribunal. The petitioner has also examined Medical Officer, who has treated her and assessed her disability, as PW-3. All these evidence goes to show that due to the accident, the petitioner has sustained Type-II Odontoid fracture, burst fracture of C5 vertebra and fracture posterior arch and other injuries. I will discuss about all these evidence in detail, while determining the quantum of compensation. So far as, this issue is concerned, it is proved that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries due to the accident. Accordingly, I answer the Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 15 ISSUE No.2:
18. This issue is regarding the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner and liability to pay the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the decisions reported in 2011(10) SCC 683 (Govinda Yadav vs The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.,) unreported division bench decision of our Hon'ble High Court in MFA.11371/2008(MV) (Jayesh Arodi vs M/s Concorde Motors (India) Ltd., and others ) dated 26-11-14 and 2010 ACJ 1533 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs Baiju and others). I have carefully gone through the ratio laid down in the above decisions and also considered the facts and circumstances of those cases. Keeping in mind the ratio laid in the above decisions, coupled with the injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical expenses incurred by her and also evidence let in by her, let me determine the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner.
19. The wound certificate of the petitioner produced as per Ex.P5, coupled with the discharge summaries produced as per Ex.P.265 and 266 and evidence of PW-3 goes to show that due to the accident, the petitioner had sustained Type-II Odontoid fracture, burst fracture of C5 vertebra, fracture of posterior arch, MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 16 cervical cord contusions and other injuries. The petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient in the Manipal hospital for the period of 30 days from 18-04-2009 to 18-05-2009, as evident from Ex.P.265 and for the period of another 40 days from 29-05-2009 to 09-07-2009, as evident from Ex.P.266. Considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and number of days treatment, she has taken as an in-patient in the hospital, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.75,000/- to the petitioner under the head pain and sufferings.
20. As the petitioner had been in the hospital as an inpatient for the period of 70 days, as evident from Ex.P.265 and 266, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.11,000/- to the petitioner towards attendant charges and Rs.14,000/- towards the extra nutritious food. (Total Rs.25,000/-)
21. It is evident from Ex.P.298 that for further treatment the petitioner was taken to New Delhi in flight and she was given treatment at Nutech Mediworld Hospital, New Delhi for 2 days on 15-10-2010 and 16-10-2010. The flight tickets and train tickets of the petitioner and her attendants were produced as per Ex.P.277 to 277. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award Rs. 40,000/- to the petitioner towards the conveyance and transportation charges.
MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 17
22. The petitioner has produced medical bills as per Ex.P.9 to P.197, P.199, P.200 to P.213, P.214 to P.236, P.306 to P.465 and Ex.P.466. Some of those medical bills including the advance amount paid receipts to the hospital. In the Memo of Calculation produced at the time of addressing the arguments, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner shown the actual medical expenses incurred by the petitioner as Rs. 29,25,607/-. But, on careful perusal and calculation of the medical bills, after deducting the advance amount paid receipts, goes to show that the petitioner has incurred Rs. 93,819/- as per Ex.P.9 to P.197, Rs. 23,091/- as per Ex.P.199, Rs. 61,431/- as per Ex.P.200 to P. 213, Rs. 37,837/- as per Ex.P.214 to 236, Rs. 5,57,879/- as per Ex.P306 to 465 and Rs. 5,56,808/- as per Ex. P.466. In total as per the original medical bills produced before this court, the total medical expenses incurred by the petitioner would be Rs. 13,30,865/-.
23. The documents produced by the petitioner include some of the copies of the medical bills and original medical bills were not produced before this Tribunal. At the fag end of the proceedings the petitioner filed applications in I.A. No. XIV & XV to recall PW.1 to mark those copies of the medical bills. This court has rejected those applications vide order dated: 09.03.2015, on the ground MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 18 that original medical bills were not produced before this tribunal. In fact, the petitioner, who was examined as PW1, admitted during the course of her cross examination that an amount of Rs. 8,85,000/- incurred by her as a medical expenses, was paid by her employer i.e., the Respondent No.1 Company to the hospital. In some of the copies of the medical bills, which were not marked because of the non production of original medical bills, there is reference about the sponsor name as 'Medi Assist India Pvt. Ltd. In fact those copies of the medical bills shows the medical expenses to the tune of more than Rs. 10,00,000/-. It appears that the petitioner unable to produce the original bills before this Tribunal since those medical bills were paid by her employee i.e. respondent No.1 and portion of the same has been reimbursed to her through Medi Assist India Pvt. Ltd. Since the amount relating to those medical bills has not been paid by the petitioner, the petitioner unable to produce the original medical bills and receipts for having paid the amount relating to those medical bills. Hence, this Tribunal has rejected the applications filed by the petitioner at the fag end of the proceedings. Even after the dismissal of those applications, the petitioner has not made any attempt to secure the original medical bills and the receipts for having paid those bills by her. Since, the amount relating to those medical bills runs to the MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 19 tune of more than Rs. 10,00,000/-, if those amounts were paid by the petitioner herself, she would have got original medical bills or receipts for having paid those amount or any other documents with her. Non production of any of such documents goes to show that the amount relating to those medical bills were not paid by the petitioner personally. Rather, they were paid by the Respondent No.1 and reimbursed through the Medi Claim Policy. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation in respect of only the medical expenses incurred by her by producing the original medical bills, which runs to the tune of Rs. 13,30,865/-, which can be rounded of in to Rs. 13,31,000/-. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 13,31,000/- towards the medical expenses.
24. By examining PW-3, petitioner tried to impress upon this Tribunal that due to the accidental injuries, she is permanently disabled and lost her earning capacity and she became completely immobile and bed ridden. To prove and establish the same, the petitioner examined Dr. Maheswarappa B.M., Neuro Surgeon at Sakra World hospital, Bengaluru as PW-3. PW-3, on the basis of infirmities and difficulties the petitioner had and the present health condition, opined that the petitioner had the disabilities to the extent of 90%. The petitioner is completely bed ridden and she MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 20 is unable to move about, because of which, her evidence was recorded by appointing Court Commissioner. During the course of his cross examination, PW-3 specifically deposed that the major portion of the body of the petitioner is completely paralyzed and the medications, which given to her at present is only to keep her alive and there is no possibility of she recovering in any way, inspite of best treatment. The evidence on record, coupled with the evidence of PW-3, clearly establishes that this petitioner is permanently disabled, she became immobile, bedridden and she is completely paralyzed. Under such circumstances, the oral testimony of PW-3 that the petitioner got 90% of disability can be accepted by this Tribunal. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner has the disability to the extent of 90%.
25. The petitioner was employed under the respondent No.1 company as Technical Support Associate and getting salary of Rs.14,000/-p.m. To prove the same, petitioner has produced the documents like her Identity card and bank accounts extracts. Those documents coupled with the statement of respondent No.1 and the oral testimony of RW-1 proves that the petitioner was getting salary of Rs.14,000/-p.m. At the rate of Rs.14,000/- p.m. her annual salary would be Rs.1,68,000/-. As per the unreported division bench decision our Hon'ble High Court in MFA MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 21 No.11371/2008 (MV) (Jayesh Arodi vs M/s Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. and others ) dated 26-11-2014 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 SCW 724 (Syed Sadiq etc. vs Divisional manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd), even in the claim petitions filed for claiming compensation for injuries sustained in the accident, future prospectus has to be added to the income of the petitioner. This petitioner was aged 24 years at the time of accident. Therefore, 50% of her income has to be added as future prospectus. 50% of Rs. 1,68,000/- would be Rs.84,000/-. If Rs.84,000/- is added to Rs.1,68,000/-, it will be Rs.2,52,000/-
26. Due to 90% disability, annual loss of income would be Rs.2,26,800/-. Since the petitioner was aged 24 years at the time of accident, multiplier 18 is applicable for her age. If Rs.2,26,800/- is multiplied by 18, it would be Rs.40,82,400/- which can be rounded off to Rs.40,83,000/-. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.40,83,000/- under the head loss of future income due to permanent disability.
27. As the petitioner has got 90% of disability, she has to lead her future life with all those disabilities. The petitioner was aged 24 years, at the time of accident and rest of her life, she would be with all those difficulties, infirmities and disabilities.
MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 22 Therefore, I feel it is just and proper to award Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of amenities, happiness and loss of expectation in life.
28. Since, the petitioner is totally immobile and unable to move about, she requires future medical treatment. There is no evidence to show the actual amount required by this petitioner for her future medical expenses. In the absence of any evidence to show the actual medical expenses required to the petitioner, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the petitioner towards future medical expenses.
29. The petitioner was spinster at the time of accident and she was aged 24 years and she has lost all the prospectus of her getting marriage. Therefore, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner towards loss of marriage prospectus.
30. The evidence on record goes to show that the petitioner is totally bed ridden and she is unable to move about. Therefore, she has to be looked after by an attendant in future till her death. The petitioner requires to pay Rs.150/-per day to the attendant to look after her. At the rate of Rs.150/-per day, monthly attendance charges would become Rs.4,500/- and Rs.54,000/-per year. As the petitioner was aged 24 years at the time of accident, multiplier MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 23 18 is applicable for her age. If Rs.54,000/- is multiplied by 18, it would be Rs.9,72,000/-. Hence, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.9,72,000/-to the petitioner towards future attendant charges.
31. The petitioner is not entitled for compensation under other heads. So, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads:-
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/-
2 Attendant charges and
Rs. 25,000/-
nutritious expenses.
Rs. 40,000/-
3 Transportation charges
4 Medical expenses Rs. 13,31,000/-
5 Loss of future income due to Rs. 40,83,000/-
permanent disability
6 Loss of marriage prospectus Rs. 1,00,000/-
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 1,50,000/-
8 Loss of future amenities, Rs. 1,00,000/-
happiness and expectation in
life
9 Future attendant charges Rs. 9 ,72,000/-
Total Rs. 68,76,000/-
In total, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.68,76,000/-.
32. Now I have to consider the question of liability to pay the compensation. In view of my findings on issue No.1, it is proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. The respondent No.3 is the driver and MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 24 respondent No.4 is the owner and respondent No.5 is the insurer of the offending lorry. Among them, it is only the respondent No.5, who has contested the petition and respondent No.3 and 4 remained absent. The respondent No.5 admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with them and the insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. Even though, they tried to deny their liability to pay the compensation by alleging that the driver had no valid permit and fitness certificate, they failed to prove and substantiate the same by leading any evidence before this Tribunal. The driver of the lorry was not charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sec.3 and 181 of IMV Act, which clearly indicate that he has valid driving licence, at the time of accident. There is no such violation of policy conditions as alleged by the respondent No.5. The dismissal of the petition against the respondent No.6 to 8 would not effect in any way to this petition or to the success of the petitioner, because, they are not necessary parties to this petition. As it is only respondent No.3 to 5, who are necessary parties to this petition. Hence, the petition against respondent No.1 and 2 is also liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is the respondent No.5, who is liable and responsible to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 25 ISSUE No.3:-
33. In view of my above findings, the petition is deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s Sec.166 of MV Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is awarded with the
compensation of Rs.68,76,000/- (Rs. Sixty
eight lakhs seventy six thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The respondent Nos.4 & 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
The respondent No.5 shall deposit the compensation amount awarded with interest within two months from the date of award.
Out of the said compensation amount, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner as FD in any nationalized bank for a period of three years and 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest for five years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) MVC No. 2027/2010 SCCH-9 26 with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically.
Remaining 25% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner through A/c payee cheque on proper identification and verification.
The petition, as against respondent No.1 and 2 stands dismissed.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-
Draw award accordingly.
******* (Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 1st day of April 2015).
(MANJUNATH NAYAK), Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru.
()()()()() ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW.1 : Deepika M.
PW.2 : C. Munikrishna
PW.3 : Dr. Maheshwarappa B.M.
Documents marked on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.3 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.4 : Rough Sketch
Ex.P.5 : Wound certificate
Ex.P.6 : IMV report
Ex.P.7 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.8 : MLC register extract
Ex.P.9 to
MVC No. 2027/2010
SCCH-9
27
P.197 : Medical bills
Ex.P.198 : Advance receipt
Ex.P.199 : Medical bill
Ex.P.200 : Advance receipt
Ex.P.201 : Advance receipt
Ex.P.202 to
P.236 : Medical bills
Ex.P.237 : Letter issued by
Dr. Maheshwarappa
Ex.P.238 : Degree certificates
Ex.P.239 : Bank Account extract
Ex.P.240 : Employee's Identity card
Ex.P.241 : Legal notice
Ex.P.242 : Reply notice
Ex.P.233 to
P.264 : Prescription chits
Ex.P.265 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.266 : discharge summary
Ex.P.267 to
P.276 : Medical receipts
Ex.P.277 : Train Ticket
Ex.P.278 to
P.288 : Flight tickets
Ex.P.289 to
P.296 : Flight tickets
Ex.P.297 : E-mail confirming the railway
Reservation
Ex.P.298 : Original Discharge summary.
Ex.P.299 &
P.300 : Photographs
Ex.P.301 to
P.304 : X-ray films
Ex.P.305 : Examination report dt.28.11.2010
Ex.P.306 to
P.465 : Original Medical bills
Ex.P.466 : Medical bills
Ex.P.467 : Inpatient records
Ex.P.468 : Inpatient records
Ex.P.469 : Outpatient record of Sakra hospital
Ex.P.470 : Outpatient record of Manipal hospital
With MRI and X-ray
MVC No. 2027/2010
SCCH-9
28
Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
R.W.1 : Somashekar Documents marked on behalf of the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Disability certificate.
Ex.R.2 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.3 : Agreement for transport services
Ex.R.4 : Letter issued by the Labour
Department of Government of
Karnataka
Ex.R.5 : Letter issued by City Bank
(MANJUNATH NAYAK),
Judge, Court of Small Causes
& XXVI ACMM, Bengaluru.