Bangalore District Court
S.Supriya vs C.Venugopal on 10 November, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THIS THE 10th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
PRESENT :
SMT.PANCHAKSHARI M., M.Com., LL.B.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.985 of 2015.
PETITIONER: S.Supriya, 26 years,
D/o Srinivasa Reddy,
R/at No.473, Yamare Extension,
Dommasandra, Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban.
(By Sri.A.Sreenivasaiah, Adv.)
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1. C.Venugopal,
S/o N.S.Cholaraju,
No.324, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main,
Ramapura village, Jigani,
Anekal, Bengaluru Urban.
(Exparte)
2. The Manager,
Tata AIG Gen.Ins Co.Ltd.,
2nd Floor, JP & Devi Jambukeswar
Arcade, No.69, Millers Road,
Bengaluru -560 052.
(Policy No.015320108000
Validity 16.9.2014 to 15.9.2015)
(By Sri.K.Prakash, Advocate)
-o0o-
SCCH.13 2 MVC.985/2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act. 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:-
That on 12.2.2015 at about 9.05 a.m.when petitioner was riding Honda Activa bearing Regn.No.KA 01 HG 3360 near Ring Road on Agara flyover, HSR Layout, Bengaluru at that time, Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA 51 C 268 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner so as to endangering human life, suddenly stopped the vehicle without giving any indication or signal and due to this impact, the petitioner who was just behind the Bolero hit the same resulted in the accident and sustained severe injuries all over her body. Immediately, she was shifted to Greenview Hospital, HSR Layout, Bengaluru and took treatment as an inpatient and spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards hospital, medical expenses, food and nourishments, conveyances, attendant charges and SCCH.13 3 MVC.985/2015 other incidental charges. The Madiwala Police have registered a case in Crime No.25/2015 under Sec.279, 283 and 337 of IPC against the driver of said Bolero.
3. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and working as Asst.Professor at Oxford College and getting salary of more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries, she is not in a position to do his work as earlier to the accident and she become permanent handicap. Hence, she claims compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents with costs and interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. On the above grounds, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the petition.
4. Having served with the notice, the respondent No.1 remained absent and he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written statements with the following contentions:-
2nd respondent in its written statement had admitted that it has issued the policy in respect of said Bolero valid from 16.9.2014 to 15.9.2015, but the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that as on the date of accident, the driver of SCCH.13 4 MVC.985/2015 offending vehicle had no valid and effective licence and also permit to run the vehicle on road, at the time of accident. It has disputed the cause of accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Bolero and the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the scooter by the petitioner. She herself contributed negligence for causing the injuries to her. 2nd respondent had denied the age, income and expenses incurred for the treatment as contended by the petitioner and contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and fanciful and there is no nexus with the injuries sustained in the accident. On the above grounds, 1st respondent prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. On the basis of the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 12.2.2015 at about 9.05 a.m. when she was riding Honda Activa bearing Regn.No.KA 01 HG 3360 near Ring Road on Agara flyover, HSR Layout, Bengaluru at that time, Bolero bearing Reg.No.KA 51 C 268 suddenly stopped the vehicle without giving any indication and signal due to which the petitioner's vehicle SCCH.13 5 MVC.985/2015 dashed against the Bolero and she had sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. In order to prove the petition claim, the petitioner & doctor were examined as PW.1 and 2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.14. 1ST Respondent has examined two witnesses as RW.1 & 2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1 to R.4.
7. Heard the arguments of both the sides .
8. Taking into consideration, the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Tribunal, my findings to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3:As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 :- The petitioner being the injured had filed this petition claiming compensation in respect of the accidental injuries sustained by her. As per her SCCH.13 6 MVC.985/2015 contention, that on 12.02.2015 at about 9.05 a.m. when she was proceeding in a Honda Activa motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-01-HG-3360 and when she reached near outer ring road, on Agara Flyover, HSR Layout, one Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-C-0268 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner has suddenly stopped the vehicle without giving any indication and signal. Due to this impact, the petitioner who was riding her motor cycle just behind the Bolero vehicle hit against it resulting in the accident. The petitioner was grievously injured in the accident. So, as per the contention of the petitioner, the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-C-0268.
10. In order to substantiate the petition averments, the petitioner got herself examined as PW1 and in her affidavit filed for examination in chief, she reiterated the petition averments. In support of her oral evidence, she has produced documents which are marked as Exs.P1 to P11. Ex.P.1 to P.5 are the police papers whereby charge sheet - Ex.P.3, the driver of the Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-C-0268 is charge sheeted for the offence SCCH.13 7 MVC.985/2015 punishable under section 279, 283, 338 of IPC and section 3 (1) and 181 of MV Act. Further in order to prove her contention that, she had sustained injury in the road traffic accident, she has produced Ex.P.5 - Wound certificate which makes out that she had met with an accident and she had sustained injury in the road traffic accident on 12.02.2015. Ex.P.6 is the discharge summary which further supports the contention of the petitioner that, she had been treated as an inpatient at Green View Medical Center for the accidental injuries sustained. Thereby two discharge summaries and 30 medical bills which are marked as Ex.P.6 and P.8 and 18 prescriptions which are marked as Ex.P.9. In support of her contention to make out that she had sustained injuries in the road traffic accident and she had been treated for the same. The fact that the petitioner having sustained injury in the road traffic accident is not in dispute. The matter in dispute is that the driver of Bolero vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and the alleged accident had resulted due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner herself. So the fact of accident is not in dispute and also petitioner having sustained injury in the road SCCH.13 8 MVC.985/2015 traffic accident. In the circumstances, petitioner had substantially proved her contention that, she had sustained injury in the road traffic accident.
11. Now, coming to the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-C-0268, the petitioner having adduced oral evidence had relied on the prosecution papers i.e., FIR, Mahazar, Charge sheet and IMV report. The petitioner herein had lodged the complaint against the driver of Bolero vehicle alleging that the accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero vehicle. Ex.P.2 is the Mahazar but, by the contents of Mahazar makes out that Honda Activa vehicle and the Bolero vehicle are involved in the accident. The charge sheet contention makes out that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-C-0268. PW-1 has not opted to examine any independent eye witness to the incident. From the cross examination of PW-1, it can be made out that the road where the accident took place is a double road and there is a median and the accident had occurred on flyover slope. It is also made out that the traffic SCCH.13 9 MVC.985/2015 movement on the center road is normal. Further it is made out that her vehicle had contacted with rear side of Bolero vehicle. Further she has stated in her cross examination that, prior to the accident, she had maintained 5-6 feet distance while moving on the road. She had denied the suggestion that she had rode her two wheeler in a high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the rear side of the Bolero vehicle. Though RW-1 has examined on behalf of the insurance company, except the oral evidence nothing is made out to prove the contention on behalf of respondent No.2 that there is negligence on the part of the petitioner. So, by taking into consideration, the oral and documentary evidence which is placed on records whereby the prosecution papers clearly makes out that the alleged accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle as he suddenly stopped the vehicle, the alleged accident took place. Seeing the circumstance, petitioner had proved her contention with regard to the rash and negligent driving. In the circumstances, I hold the above issue in the Affirmative.
SCCH.13 10 MVC.985/2015
12. Issue No.2: As the petitioner had proved issue No.1 with regard to the fact of injury having sustained by her in the road traffic accident and the alleged accident being due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Bolero vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51-C-0268, she is entitled for compensation from the respondents.
Respondent No.1 who is the owner of the Bolero vehicle though served with the summons had remained absent and was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 is the insurer for the Bolero vehicle whereby it had appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement wherein it had denied its liability on the ground of violation of policy condition. The police had filed charge sheet against the driver of Bolero vehicle for the offences punishable under section 279, 283 and 338 of IPC and also for the offences under section 3 (1) and 181 of IMV act. The main contention of respondent No.2 is that the driver who was driving insured vehicle on the date of alleged accident had no valid and effective driving licence to drive and the 1st respondent had violated the policy conditions by entrusting the vehicle and allowing the driver to drive the insured vehicle without having valid and effective driving licence. Hence, it is not liable to pay compensation by SCCH.13 11 MVC.985/2015 indemnifying the respondent No.1. In order to prove its contention, it had opted to examine its official as RW-1, who had also deposed stating that the driver of the insured vehicle is charge sheeted for the offence committed under section 279, 283, 338 of IPC and under section 3 (1) read with section 181 of MV Act, as he was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. To prove, copy of policy is produced and marked as Ex.R.1 and driving licence extract is marked as Ex.R.2. In the cross examination, RW-1 had admitted that as per Ex.R.2 - driving licence, the validity of the licence runs from 19.02.1999 to 18.02.2019. He had also admitted that the unladden weight of Bolero vehicle is less than 7,500 kgs. Further he had admitted that the offending vehicle is a light goods vehicle. So, as per the contention of the petitioner, the unladden weight of offended vehicle is less than 7,500 kgs. It is a light motor vehicle and the driving licence possessed by the driver as per Ex.P.2 is a valid driving licence.
13. The respondent No.2 had opted to examine RTO of Anna Nagar, Chennai who had issued the driving licence to the driver of offending vehicle. He had SCCH.13 12 MVC.985/2015 produced the driving licence extract of driver Venugopal and it is marked as Ex.R.8. As per the said driving licence extract, Mr. Venugopal is authorized to drive motor cycle with gear and to drive LMV (NT). Further by seeing RC of Bolero goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51- C-0268, RW-2 has stated that it is light goods vehicle. Further, he had stated that the person who holding non transport driving licence is not authorized to drive light goods vehicle. RW-2 had admitted that a person holding light motor vehicle can also drive transport vehicle, if the unladden weight of the vehicle is below 7,500 kgs. So even as per the evidence of RW-2 Mr. Venugopal cannot drive the transport vehicle on the basis of Ex.R.2. In view of said evidence, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner as well as the counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 had relied on the below referred decisions in support of their arguments.
14. The counsel on behalf of petitioner had relied on below referred decisions:-
1. The Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Page No.19 and 20
2. 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) - National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others SCCH.13 13 MVC.985/2015
3. 2016 ACJ 371 (New Delhi) - Naresh Kumar Gaur vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. 2016 ACJ 1719 (Karnataka High Court) -
Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard general insurance co. Ltd. vs. Gangamma and others
5. 2016 ACJ 102 (Chandigarh) Sandeep Sharma vs. Baljeet Kaur and others
6. 2016 ACJ 221 (New Delhi) - ICICI Lombard General Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Sajjan Lal and others
7. 2016 ACJ 230 (Hyderabad) - Bajaj Alliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs. Gujjala Ramulamma and others.
8. 2016 ACJ 257 (Hyderabad) Karri Krishna Mohan vs. Kuppili Gaddemma and another
9. 2016 ACJ 291 (Hyderabad) Bajaj Allianz General insurance co. Ltd. vs. Katragadda Vijayalakshmi and others
10. 2016 ACJ 669 (Chandigarh) Hanuman Singh vs. Sona Devi and others
11. 2016 ACJ 2030 (Shimla) New India Ass. Co. Ltd., vs. Gayathri Devi and others
12. 2016 ACJ 1042 (Hyderabad) New India Ass. Co. Ltd. vs. Darji Laxmi and others SCCH.13 14 MVC.985/2015
13. 2016 ACJ 1081 (Shimla) United India insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Lalli and another.
15. The counsel on behalf of respondent No.2 had relied on below referred decisions:-
1. 2014 AIR SCW 5065 - Narinder Singh vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and others
2. MFA 30903/2009 - National Insurance co. Ltd., vs. Nagamma and others
3. MFA No.7949/2011 - M. Mahadevappa and another vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and another
4. MFA No.8960/2009 (MV) - IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Omprakash and another
5. 2008 ACJ 1307 - Sardari and others vs. Sushil Kumar and others
6. MFA No.4716/2011 (MV) - United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Umamaheshwari @ Umadevi and others
7. MANU/KA/0718/2009 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt. Padmavathamma
8. 2008 ACJ 1188 - Renukadevi H. vs. BMTC and another SCCH.13 15 MVC.985/2015
9. MFA No.21079/09 C/w MFA Crob. No.745/09 (MV) - Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Smt.Ruksana Begum @ Aashabee and others.
The fact that has to be assessed is whether the driver of the Bolero goods vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-51- C-0268 was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Here, in the present case, the driver of Bolero vehicle is having the licence which was issued on 19.02.1999 and it is valid till 18.02.2019. In view of the above referred decisions relied on behalf of both the counsels, it is very much relevant to discuss the latest decision relied on behalf of petitioner reported in 2016 ACJ 1719 wherein it is held as follows:-
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149 (2) (a) (ii) - Motor insurance - Driving licence - Liability of insurance company - Insurance company disputes its liability on the ground that driver was hodling licence to drive light motor vehicle but he was driving a light goods vehicle/transport vehicle at the time of accident - Vehicle involved in the accident was a light motor vehicle and its loading capacity was less than 7,500 kg- Driver was having licence to drive light motor vehicle from 29.03.1991 which was valid SCCH.13 16 MVC.985/2015 up to 24.5.2008 - Light motor vehicle prior to the amendment w.e.f. 28.3.2001 continued to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle and a driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorized to drive light goods vehicle also - Whether driver was holding a valid licence and insurance company is liable - Held: yes; amendment carried out was prospective in operation and the licence held by the driver was valid."
16. In this decision, a clear discussion is made with regard to the licence issued prior to the amendment brought to the motor vehicles rules as per section 3 of the MV Act. An obligation is cast on the driver to hold an effective driving licence for a type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the act prefers forms and contents of licence to drive in the said decisions. It is clearly held that prior to the amendment w.e.f. 28.3.2001, the medium goods vehicle was in existence. It was replaced by transport vehicle, but however the light motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time to cover both light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive SCCH.13 17 MVC.985/2015 light motor vehicle is authorized to drive a light goods vehicle also. Clause (e) provides for transport vehicle which was substituted by GSR 221 (e) w.e.f. 28.03.2001. In this decision, case law of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annappa Irappa Nesaria and other vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd,. 2008 ACJ 721 (SC) wherein it was held that, a driver who had a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle was authorized to drive light goods vehicle as well. The above referred case law is much applicable to the case on hand, Mr. Venugopal was having driving licence issued prior to 2001. So, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad bench had held, since there is no change with regard to light motor vehicle, he is entitled to drive light goods vehicle. The amendment is only a prospective operation which came into force w.e.f. 28.03.2001. Even in the present case, the driver of the Bolero vehicle is holding a driving licence which is issued prior to 28.03.2001 i.e., his driving licence is issued on 19.02.1999.
17. The decision relied on behalf of respondent No.2 reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5065 is in connection to the fact that the driver not possessing valid driving licence. SCCH.13 18 MVC.985/2015 The respondent No.2 had also produced the judgment in MFA No.30903/09 where also the reference is made with regard to driving licence i.e., licence to drive light motor vehicle and transport vehicle, reference is made to the decision reported in 2008 ACC 169 (SC) National Insurance Co. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and also judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum Rai (2006) 4 SCC 250. In the said MFA, it is held that the driver holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle is not entitled to drive a transport vehicle without specific endorsement in the form of licence. So in the said case as there was no such endorsement, the insured is absolved of any liability to specify the award in favour of claim.
18. The counsel on behalf of respondent no.2 having relied on the decision reported in 2008 ACJ 1307, it is held that there is statutory obligation on the owner of the vehicle to see that the driver of the vehicle whom he authorizes to drive holds a valid licence. SCCH.13 19 MVC.985/2015
19. As such the decision relied on behalf of the petitioner reported in 2016 ACJ 1719 is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
In the decision reported in 2016 ACJ 371, it is held as follows:-
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149 (2) (a) (ii) read with section 2 (21) and Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, rule 14
- Motor Insurance - Driving licence -
Validity of - Before the amendment of Central Motor Vehicles Rules w.e.f.
28.3.2001, 'light motor vehicle' covered both 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle' and a driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle - Amendment carried out in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules has a prospective operation and driving licence for a light motor vehicle was valid in law for light transport vehicle."
Even as per the said decision, it is held before the amendment of Central Motor Vehicles Rules w.e.f. 28.03.2001 "light motor vehicle" covered both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle" and driver who holds a valid licence to drive a SCCH.13 20 MVC.985/2015 light motor vehicle was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle - Amendment carried out in the Central Motor Vehicles Rules as a prospective operation and driving licence for a light motor vehicle was valid in law for light transport vehicle.
20. In view of licence in the above referred decision as the driver of Bolero vehicle was holding the licence issued prior to amendment to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, it makes out he was holding a valid driving licence as on the date of accident. In the circumstance as there being valid policy with respondent No.2, it is the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner to the quantum arrived as below:-
: QUANTUM :
21. (i) Pain and Sufferings: Petitioner having sustained injury, Ex.P.5 - Wound certificate makes out that the petitioner had sustained fracture distal end of R+D IV with multiple fracture segment, fracture superior end of tibia with Articular surface and head injury with fracture of the foot or left orbit flow out which are grievous in nature. Ex.P.6 is the discharge summary which clearly makes out there are two fractures and also head injury. SCCH.13 21 MVC.985/2015 The petitioner is a female aged 26 years, she had undergone surgery for tibia condyle stabilization multiple cannulated screws (L) Knee and CRIF K - Wiring to left wrist and POP application to right wist done as the petitioner had also sustained head injury. It is noted in Ex.P.6 "uncompleted edema and echymosis left eye. Sub conjunction hemorrhage left eye." She was treated as an inpatient for two days. Hence, taking into consideration the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken as an inpatient, there being fracture of distal end of radius with dorsal replacement of left wrist and fracture of right radius and tibula condyle of left knee and also head injury, it is reasonable to held that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
22. (ii) Medical Expenses: The petitioner, after the accident had taken treatment at Green view Medical Center as an inpatient from 12.02.2015 to 14.02.2015 and thereafter she was admitted on 10.08.2015 and got discharged on 11.08.2015 for removal of implants. The medical bills with the inpatient bills having produced 30 in number are together marked as Ex.P.8. The total bill SCCH.13 22 MVC.985/2015 amount comes to Rs.1,23,405.93, the expenses incurred for the treatment are supported with the bills and also the prescriptions, x-rays and other medical reports. Hence, as the petitioner had produced supporting documents, she is entitled for the said amount. Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,23,406/- towards medical expenses.
23. (iii) Loss of earnings during laid down period:- The petitioner had stated that she was working as an Assistant Professor at Oxford college and getting salary for more than Rs.20,000/- p.m. But with regard to her income, she had not produced any documents. PW-1 in her cross examination had stated that she was terminated from service after the accident and just few days prior to her accident. She was appointed as a professor in the Oxford college so her employer had not given any document with regard to her appointment and also with regard to her salary to make out her earning capacity. She had produced her marks cards whereby Ex.P.14 is her SSLC marks card whereby she had scored 80.16% and Ex.P.15 is her 2nd PUC marks card whereby she had scored 455 marks out of 600 and Ex.P.16 is her SCCH.13 23 MVC.985/2015 provisional certificate for having completed the degree of Bachelor of Science by securing First Class and Ex.P.17 is her Convocation certificate, Ex.P.18 is the Convocation certificate of Master degree and Ex.P.19 is certificate for participation in a National conference on Science, Technology and Productization in the year 2015 conducted by Oxford College of Science, HSR Layout, Bangalore. Ex.P.20 is a certificate issued by Department of Mathematics, Maharani Lakshmi Ammanni College for Women, wherein it is shown "Prof.Supriya S. of Oxford College of Science, Bangalore College has attended two days workshop i.e., on 9th and 10th of January 2015 conducted at Maharani Lakshmi Ammani College for Women, Bangalore. So, Ex.P.19 and 20 makes out that prior to the accident i.e., in the month of January and February 2015, the petitioner had worked in Oxford College of Science, Bangalore as professor so that, there is no salary certificate or the salary slip to make out the salary or income of the petitioner by taking into consideration, the education qualification of petitioner and also her participation in the conference and the work shop as the Professor of Science, it is reasonable to hold SCCH.13 24 MVC.985/2015 that the notional income of the petitioner can be considered as Rs.10,000/- p.m. As the petitioner had sustained fracture distal end of R+D IV with multiple fracture segment, fracture superior end of tibia with Articular surface and head injury with fracture of the foot or left orbit flow out, she needs complete rest for a period of three months. So, during these three months, petitioner will be without any earnings, so the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (10,000 x 3) towards loss of income during laid down period.
24. (iv) Loss of future earnings due to disability :-
The petitioner having sustained a grievous injury had opted to examine the doctor who has assessed disability as PW-2. As per the evidence of PW-2, the petitioner is having disability and discomfort as stated in his evidence affidavit. The petitioner had undergone operation of tibial condyle of left knee stabilization done with multiple connulated screws. CRIF (Closed Reduction Internal Fixation) with 'K' wire for fracture of left radius was also done. But she had been treated conservative for fracture of right radius implants of tibia are now removed, SCCH.13 25 MVC.985/2015 taking into consideration, the mobility and stability, the doctor has assessed disability to right upper limb and left upper limb as 26.6% which is 8.83% to the whole body.
The petitioner as on the date of accident was working as a professor and she has done Masters of Science. So her profession will be naturally the teaching profession as the petitioner had undergone surgery of tibial condyle of left knee, it will reduce the strength of the left leg so when taking into consideration, the nature of work which the petitioner performance in consideration to her profession and even otherwise as a house wife naturally the injury of the petitioner will substantially reduce her body strength in performing her day to day activities independently. Taking into consideration, this fact 9% disability to the whole body as assessed by the doctor can be reasonably considered as loss to the earning capacity of the petitioner. Hence, by making applicable the appropriate multiplier as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation- 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) the age group of the petitioner, she was 26 years old at the time of accident, her age is made out from Ex.P.14 i.e., SSLC marks card which makes out her date of birth SCCH.13 26 MVC.985/2015 is 12.04.1988. Hence, by applying the principles of Sarala Verma case by considering the notional income of the petitioner of Rs.10,000/- p.m., the amount is arrived as follows:
Rs.10,000 x 12 x 17 x 9% = Rs.1,83,600/-
25. (v) Conveyance, Nourishment, food and attending charges:- Petitioner being a lady had sustained fracture of left radius right radius and also displacements of left wrist and injury to the left knee and also head injury so as the petitioner had sustained major injuries. She needs assistance of attender while under treatment. Further she needs a private vehicle to travel during the time of her treatment. On the other hand, while under treatment, the patient will also be prescribed with diet food and she is supposed to incur miscellaneous expenses while under treatment. So, taking into consideration this fact the accident has taken place in the year 2015 by considering the day to day expenses required in the year 2015. It is reasonable to hold the petitioner is entitled at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per day towards her expenses of conveyance, attendant charges, died food and miscellaneous expenses. At the initial stage, petitioner was hospitalized for two days and at the SCCH.13 27 MVC.985/2015 time of removal of implants, she was treated as an inpatient for one day so at the rate of Rs.1,000/- for three days. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards Conveyance, Nourishment, food and attending charges.
Hence, the following calculation:-
1. Pain & sufferings: Rs. 75,000/-
2. Medical expenses: Rs. 1,23,406/-
3. Loss of earning during laid down Rs. 30,000/-
period:
4. Loss of future income due to Rs. 1,83,600/-
disability:
5. Conveyance, nourishment food & Rs. 3,000/-
attendant charges:
Total Rs. 4,15,006/-
Hence, this Tribunal feels that it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.4,15,006/- to the petitioner.
26. As per Sec.171 of the Motor Vehicle's Act, where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, it can direct that in addition to the amount of compensation, simple interest shall be paid at such rate and from such date nor earlier than the date of making the claim. As per ruling reported in ILR 2000 Karnataka 1098, the case of Puttanna and another - SCCH.13 28 MVC.985/2015 vs- Lakshmana and others, it is held that unless there are special circumstances, interest that has to be awarded on the compensation amount is 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a.
27. So stated supra respondent No.1 & 2 being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, in view of subsistence of insurance policy, 2nd respondent-insurance company shall deposit compensation amount in the court with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 accordingly.
28. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent SCCH.13 29 MVC.985/2015 No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,15,006/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court. The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 50% of the amount be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed & pronounced in open court on 10th November 2016.) (PANCHAKSHARI M.) SCCH.13 30 MVC.985/2015 II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : S.Supriya PW.2 : Dr. S.Ramachandra
List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P.1 : FIR with complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Charge sheet
Ex.P.4 : IMV report
Ex.P.5 : Wound certificate.
Ex.P.6 : 2 Discharge Summaries
Ex.P.7 : NC of DL (compared with original and
returned)
Ex.P.8 : 30 Medical Bills for Rs. 123405/-
Ex.P.9 : 18 prescriptions
Ex.P.10 : 5 Advance receipt
Ex.P.11 : X-rays
Ex.P.12 : OP book
Ex.P.13 : 2 X-rays
Ex.P.14 : NC of SSLC mark card (original perused
and returned)
Ex.P.15 : NC of PU marks card (original perused
and returned)
Ex.P.16 : Provisional certificate (original perused
and returned)
Ex.P.17 : Bachelor Degree certificate (original
perused and returned)
Ex.P.18 : Master Degree certificate (original perused
and returned)
Ex.P.19 : Certificate issued by Science technology
and productization (original perused and returned) Ex.P.20 : Work shop participation certificate (original perused and returned) SCCH.13 31 MVC.985/2015 List of witnesses & documents for respondents:
RW.1 : Raghu Margoor
RW.2 : J.Arunkumar
Ex.R-1 : True copy of Policy
Ex.R-2 : Driving License Extract
Ex.R-3 : Charge sheet
Ex.R-4 : Office copy of the Letter addressed to
owner of the vehicle
Ex.R-5 : Returned RPAD cover opened in the
open court hall and the letter along
with claim form within the cover
marked
Ex.R-5(a) : RPAD cover
Ex.R.6 : RPAD postal receipts
Ex.R.7 : Authorization letter
Ex.R.8 : DL extract of Venugopal.C.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.)
II Addl.Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
SCCH.13 32 MVC.985/2015
AWARD
SCCH.NO:13
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.985 of 2015.
PETITIONER: S.Supriya, 26 years, D/o Srinivasa Reddy, R/at No.473, Yamare Extension, Dommasandra, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban. (By Sri.A.Sreenivasaiah, Adv.) vs. RESPONDENTS: 1. C.Venugopal, S/o N.S.Cholaraju, No.324, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main, Ramapura village, Jigani, Anekal, Bengaluru Urban.
(Exparte)
2. The Manager, Tata AIG Gen.Ins Co.Ltd., 2nd Floor, JP & Devi Jambukeswar Arcade, No.69, Millers Road, Bengaluru -560 052.
(Policy No.015320108000 Validity 16.9.2014 to 15.9.2015) (By Sri.K.Prakash, Advocate)
-o0o-
WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. SCCH.13 33 MVC.985/2015 Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Panchakshari M, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows: In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,15,006/- to the petitioner with interest at SCCH.13 34 MVC.985/2015 the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court. The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 50% of the amount be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this the .......... day of ................2016.) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 35 MVC.985/2015 COST OF PETITION By the Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU. SCCH.13 36 MVC.985/2015 ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 as follows:
In view of the valid contract of Insurance between respondents No.1 and 2, the respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,15,006/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court. The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the entire compensation amount within two months from today.
On deposit of the entire compensation amount, 50% of the amount be deposited as FD for a period of 3 years in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank of her choice with liberty to draw the accrued interest on the said FD once in three months and the remaining amount shall be paid to the petitioner through the cheque under proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000/-. SCCH.13 37 MVC.985/2015 Draw up award accordingly.
(PANCHAKSHARI M.) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH.13 38 MVC.985/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016 MVC NO.985/2015 PETITIONER/S : S.Supriya .
V/s RESPONDENT/S : C.Venugopal and another.
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 12.2.2015 at about 9.05 a.m., when she was riding Honda Activa bearing Regn.No.KA 01 HG 3360 near Ring Road on Agara flyover, HSR Layout, Bengaluru at that time, Bolero bearing Regn.No.KA 51 C 268 suddenly stopped the vehicle without giving any indication and signal due to which the petitioner's vehicle dashed against the Bolero and she had sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent?
3. What Order or Award?
II ADDL.JUDGE & MACT.
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 39 MVC.985/2015