Bangalore District Court
Sri Venkatesh S vs Sri Ravi B.R on 15 June, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 15th day of June 2015
M.V.C.No.2691/2014
Petitioner Sri Venkatesh S.,
S/o Changam Raju,
Aged about 45 years,
Presently R/at No.1,
Srinivasa Nilaya,
4th Cross, 1st Main Road,
Srikanteswara Nagara,
Nandini Layout Post,
Bangalore - 560 096.
Presently R/at No.11,
4th Main road, 1st Cross,
Shankar Nagar,
Nandini Layout,
Bangalore - 560 096.
(Sri S.P. Sathisha, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri Ravi B.R.,
S/o Ramakrishne Gowda,
Aged about 32 years,
No.69, Bhuhalli Village,
Kadahalli Anche,
Sathanur Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(Owner of Indica car
bearing No.KA-42-9798)
(Sri K.S. Narayanaswamy, Advocate)
2. The Branch Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
Bangalore division - I, 3rd Floor,
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
Unity Building Annexe, No.72,
Mission Road, P.B. No.2701,
Bangalore - 560 027.
Insurer of Indica car bearing No.KA-42-
9798, Engine No.4751D103 FXYP
39061, Chassi
No.MAT600194CTG09538 in Policy
No.55270031136300049776 valid from
30-08-2013 to 29-08-2014.
(Sri K.S. Rajan, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner in his claim petition has alleged that, on 04- 04-2014 at about 3.00 p.m., he was crossing the road towards 16th cross, J.C. Nagar at Kurubarahalli Pipeline road, the driver of the Indica car bearing No.KA-42-9798 was came from pipe line road towards Kurubarahalli bus stand with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against him, as a result he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Chord Road Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount.
3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a welder in Sree Dhanalakshmi Fabrication and Battery Works, Bangalore and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Thereby, Vijayanagara Traffic Police have registered the case against the car driver in their police station Crime No.46/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents were appeared through their respective counsel and filed their independent written statement. The respondent No.1 in his written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts and he has denied the averments made in column No.1 to 6 and 8 to 13 and 21 of the claim petition, but he has admitted that he is the absolute owner of the Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-42-9798 and as on the date of the alleged accident, the driver of the car in question was driving the same in a moderate speed by observing traffic rules, but the petitioner has filed the instant claim petition only with an intention to get the compensation and he has insured the offending vehicle 4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 with the second respondent and as on the date of the alleged accident, the policy was in existence, as the policy was valid from 30-08-2013 to 29-08-2014. So, he is not liable to pay any compensation and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. The respondent No.2 being the insurer in his written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts, but he has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of the first respondent and he has alleged that he has no knowledge about the averments made in column No.1 to 5 of the claim petition and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and he has alleged that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner, who was crossing the road negligently where there was no zebra cross for pedestrian crossing and he has dashed to some unknown vehicle and he has given the false complaint against the driver of the car belongs to the first respondent and there is a one day delay in lodging the complaint, that itself is clear that the petitioner has filed the false complaint with an intention to get the wrongful gain and as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle had no valid permit and fitness certificate. So, he is not liable to pay any compensation, since the owner of the vehicle has entrusted the 5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 vehicle knowing fully well that the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence. So, he has contravened the terms and conditions of the policy and prays for reject the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in column No.11, in a road traffic accident on 04-04-2014 at about 3.00 p.m., near Kurubarahalli pipeline road, near 16th Cross, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Indica car bearing registration No.KA-42-9798?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 and he has examined three more witnesses on his behalf as PW2 to PW4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P15 to Ex.P18. The respondents have not examined themselves nor examined any witness or marked any documents in their favour. 6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed the written arguments. Heard arguments on both side.
9. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Partly affirmative Issue No.2: Partly affirmative Issue No.3: As per the final order for the following.
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached the court on the ground that on 04-04-2014 at about 3.00 p.m., he was crossing the road towards 16th Cross, J.C. Nagar at Kurubarahalli Pipeline road, the driver of the car has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount. Thereby, he has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
11. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief examination as PW1, in which he has stated that on 04-04-2014 at about 3.00 p.m., he was crossing the road towards 16th cross, J.C. Nagar at Kurubarahalli Pipeline road, the driver of the Indica car bearing No.KA-42-9798 was came from pipe line road towards Kurubarahalli bus stand with high speed in a 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against him, as a result he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Chord Road Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Thereby, Vijayanagara Traffic Police have registered the case against the car driver in their police station Crime No.46/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The PW1 in his cross examination has denied that without seeing the signal, he was crossing the road, so on his own negligence the accident was occurred and the accident was taken place in the junction signal, no vehicle was proceeding with speed in the alleged spot and he has filed the false case against the driver of the car in order to get the compensation, but he has admitted that at the time of accident, he was already crossed 75% of the road and the car was came on front side and dashed against him, but there was no zebra cross on the alleged spot, where he was crossing the road and after the accident he was unconscious and the car driver has took him to the hospital.
12. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. Ex.P1 is the information filed by the petitioner in which has stated that on 04- 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 04-2014 at about 3.00 p.m., he was crossing the road, the driver of the car has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against him, as a result he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, the car driver and the public who are gathered on the spot took him to the hospital. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. So based on the information Vijayanagara Traffic Police have registered the case against the car driver in their police station Crime No.46/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondents while cross examination of the PW1 have suggested that some one vehicle has caused the accident for which he has denied the same, but he has admitted that he was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross, but he has denied that the accident in question was taken place on his own negligence. Though, the petitioner has not produced the sketch nor marked on behalf of the petitioner, but the respondent No.2 has filed the sketch, though it was not marked, but it is clear that the petitioner was crossing the road where there was no zebra cross and the alleged road is measuring 30 feet and the accident was taken place from southern side to northern side, within 12 feet that itself is clear that there is a contributory negligence to an extent of 20% on the part of the petitioner and remaining 80% is 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 on the part of the driver of the car, as the PW1 in his cross examination has categorically admitted that there was no zebra cross where he was crossed the road, that is the reason why, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 while canvassing his arguments has submitted that the petitioner being said to be the injured in his cross examination has categorically admitted that he was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross. Therefore, the contributory negligence is on the part of the petitioner while crossing the road and the said counsel has drawn the court attention on the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR 1104 in between Koosappa Poojari vs. K. Sadabba and others reads like thus;
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT 1988 (59/88) -
SECTION 173 (1) - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE -
Claimant had crossed the road where he was not supposed to cross - HELD - Certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him - If a pedestrian is crossing over a roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he can not claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident - Pedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver.
13. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision his lordship held that if a pedestrian is crossing over a 10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 roadway at any place other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he cannot claim any specific precedence and the responsibility for causing the accident and the pedestrian has to share the negligence along with the driver. So it cannot be said that it was only the driver of the vehicle in question was solely responsible for the accident and there is no evidence forthcoming to show that it was the pedestrian was crossing the road whether there were any zebra crossing. So, the claimant had crossed the road where he was not supposed to cross certain degree of contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him.
14. In the instant case, the PW1 being the injured in his cross examination has categorically admitted that he was crossed the road where there was no zebra cross. So, considering the sketch filed by the respondent No.2 and the admission of the PW1, it is clear that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner to an extent of 20% and rest of the 80% is on the part of the car driver. So, the decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is directly applicable to the case on hand. Ex.P3 is the panchanama drawn by the I.O., is clear and supports the sketch filed by the respondent No.2. There is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner to an extent of 20% and rest of the 80% is on the part of the driver of the car driver. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. Ex.P7 to Ex.P18 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment as an inpatient in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 04-04-2014. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has disputed about the involvement of the vehicle, according to him some unknown vehicle has caused the accident, but the police records and the evidence of the PW1 are clearly reflects that the alleged vehicle has caused the accident. Even the respondents have not lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Hence, the issue No.1 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that on 04-04-2014 at about 3.00 p.m., he was crossing the road, the driver of the car has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against him, as a result he was fell down and sustained the following injuries;
12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
1) Abrasion present over left occipital region measuring 4 x 2 cm.
2) Right bimalleolar fracture (medial malleolus fracture displaced).
3) Tenderness present over right ankle.
4) Abrasion all over the body.
16. So, immediately he was shifted to Chord Road Hospital, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 04-04-2014 to 06-04-2014. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a welder in Sree Dhanalakshmi Fabrication and Battery Works, Bangalore and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before and he is suffering from unbearable pain due to the accidental injuries and the injuries developed weakness in his body and he could not lift objects and could not do the welder work due to the accidental injuries. The PW1 in his cross examination has denied that the medical bills placed before the court are created in order to get the compensation and he has stated that he took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery and he has denied that he took the medi claim policy under which reimbursed the amount which was spent for his treatment.
17. The PW3 being the Senior Medical Record Technician at Chord Road Hospital Pvt. Ltd., in his evidence has stated that the 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 petitioner has got admitted to their hospital and took the treatment and he has produced the case sheet marked as Ex.P16. The PW3 in his cross examination has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the Ex.P16 and he has denied that he has deposing false facts in order to help the petitioner.
18. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon at Victoria Hospital, in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 04-04-2014, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Right bimalleolar fracture underwent OR and IF with malleolar screw.
19. On 18-03-2015 has examined the petitioner for assessment of disability and found the following difficulties.
Difficulty to squatting, climbing upstairs and difficulty to do routine activities. Tenderness over right ankle restriction of joint movements.
20. On radiological examination shows the fracture is united with implants in situ. So, the petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability of 20% of right lower limb which is 10% of whole body. The PW4 in his cross examination has admitted that he has not personally treated the petitioner, but he has assessed the disability and the fracture is united and he has no personal knowledge about his avocation and he has not produced any 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 documents about the approximate value for removal of implants and the petitioner is not facing any problems for his day to day works, but he can do the work with difficulty and there is a improvement in the health condition of the petitioner and he has denied that the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability, but he has stated permanent disability with an intention to help the petitioner to get compensation.
21. The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by him in the accident and also stated about the difficulties facing by him after the accident. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So, the evidence of the PW4 corroborate the evidence of the PW1. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate issued by the Chord Road Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
1) Abrasion over left occipital region measuring 4 cm x 2 cm and bright red in colour.
2) Swelling and tenderness over the right ankle. X-ray of right bimalleolar fracture (displaced fracture of medical malleolus).
22. So, the above said injury No.1 is simple in nature and injury No.2 is grievous in nature. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got 15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 admitted to the Chord Road Hospital Pvt. Ltd., on 04-04-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient till 06-04-2014 and he was underwent ORIF of medical malleolus fracture right done under SA on 05-04-2014. Ex.P7 to Ex.P9 and Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury and took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery and implants in situ. So considering the injury sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 as well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following heads;
a)Pain and suffering.
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 04-04-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days and he has underwent surgery. PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW4 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the duration of treatment he would have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.30,000/- is awarded for the above head.
16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a welder in Sree Dhanalakshmi Fabrication and Battery Works, Bangalore and getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before. The PW1 has examined said to be the proprietor of Sree Dhanalakshmi Fabrication and Battery Works as PW2. The PW2 in his evidence has stated that the petitioner was working as a welding by getting monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, after the accident he did not come to the work. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that he was the proprietor of Sree Dhanalakshmi Fabrication and Battery Works and he has not produced any document to show that the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, but they have not maintained the register. If at all the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-, the PW2 being said to be the proprietor would have placed before the court to show that the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. In the absence of the materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the income based on the Ex.P10 that the petitioner has drawing monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. So considering the age and skill of the petitioner and the present life condition, it is just and
17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 necessary to consider the monthly notional income of Rs.8,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury. Ex.P9 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that he has sustained the grievous injury and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days. So, the petitioner might have lost income for a period of two months. So two months income comes to Rs.16,000/-. So Rs.16,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained the injury in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount of Rs.65,000/-, but on record the petitioner has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.42,472/-. Though the learned counsel for the respondents have disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation. So, in the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.42,472/- is granted for the above head.
18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injury in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 04-04-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days and he was underwent surgery. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to him the petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability to an extent of 20% of right lower limb which is 10% of whole body. The PW4 in his cross examination has admitted that the fracture is united. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner while canvassing his arguments has requested the court to consider whatever the disability as stated by the PW2 as the functional disability of the petitioner and drawn the court attention on the decision reported in 2005 ACJ 644 in between M.V. Chowdappa vs. Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd., and another. On careful perusal of the above said decision, the facts and circumstances of the present case and the above said decision are different. So, considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW4 and the medical records and the injury sustained by the petitioner and duration of treatment as well as his avocation, it is just and necessary to consider the disability of 8% of the whole body instead of 10%, it will meet the ends of
19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 justice. So, his income is already considered as Rs.8,000/- per month. Ex.P4, Ex.P7, Ex.P9 and Ex.P16 are clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 45 years. The petitioner in his claim petition itself has clearly stated that as on the date of the alleged accident he was aged about 45 years. Therefore, his age is taken into consideration as 45 years as on the date of the alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 14. So the loss of future earning is works out as under;
Rs.8,000X12X14X8/100=1,07,520/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,07,520/- for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained the injury in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 04-04-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days and he has also took the treatment as an outpatient and underwent surgery. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence of PW1 and PW4 and duration of 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 treatment as well as the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injury and underwent surgery and implants are in situ. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that implants are in situ, so one more surgery is required for removal of implants. So considering the injury sustained by him in a road traffic accident and the evidence of the PW1 and PW4, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.
23. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid up Rs. 16,000-00 period
3.Medical bills Rs. 42,472-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs. 1,07,520-00
5.Loss of amenities, conveyance, Rs. 15,000-00 food and nourishment, attendant charges etc.
6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs. 2,25,992-00
24. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement has stated that he has insured the 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 offending vehicle with the second respondent and he has stated about the policy number and its validity from 30-08-2013 to 29-
08-2014 and as on the date of the alleged accident, the driver of the car in question was driving the same in a moderate speed by observing traffic rules, but the reasons best known to him has not examined the car driver to show that the accident was not taken place on the negligence of the car driver.
25. The respondent No.2 being the insurer in his written statement has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle, but he took up the contention that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner, who was crossing the road negligently where there was no zebra cross for pedestrian crossing for which it is already discussed in the body of the judgment that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner also to an extent of 20% and remaining 80% on the part of the driver of the car. The petitioner has shown the validity of the policy from 30-08-2013 to 29-08-2014. The accident was occurred on 04-04-2014. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence.
26. The respondent No.2 has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was 22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. But the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not placed any materials on record nor examined any authority i.e., RTO or ARTO to show that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and Ex.P6 is the charge sheet filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to an extent of 80%. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner to an extent of 80% with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. inview of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 2012 KLJ 292 from the date of petition till its realisation. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
27. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,25,992/- together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The petitioner has contributed the negligence to an extent of 20% for the cause of accident and the offending vehicle driver has contributed the negligence to an extent of 80% for the cause of accident. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner to an extent of 80%. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner to an extent of 80% with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of claim petition till its realization within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of his choice for a 24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014 period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
The expenses to be incurred for future medication shall not carry any interest.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Sri Venkatesh S. PW2 Sri S. Venkataraju PW3 Sri Manjunath R., PW4 Dr. Ramesh B.
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of FIR
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of Wound Certificate
25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.2691/2014
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P6 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P7 25 Medical bills amounting to Rs.42,472/-
Ex.P8 17 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P9 Discharge summary
Ex.P10 Document relating to Sri Dhanalakshmi
Fabrication Works & Battery Works
Ex.P11 Record sheet in Tamil language
Ex.P12 English translation of Ex.P11
Ex.P13 3 X-ray films
Ex.P14 Notarised attested true copy of Election ID Card
Ex.P15 Authorization letter
Ex.P16 Case sheet
Ex.P17 OPD
Ex.P18 One X-ray film
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.