Bangalore District Court
Anand. D.V vs R. Hanumantharaju on 20 April, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.7310/2019
KABC020305632019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
Dated : This the 20th day of April 2024
Present : SRI. YATHISHA.R.
B.A.L.,L.L.B.,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.7310/2019
Petitioner: Sri.Anand.D.V
S/o Late Venkataravanappa,
Aged about 29 years.
Residing at:
Doddanahalli Village,
Shapur Post,
Kolar Taluk & District.
(By Sri.N.Manjunath,Adv)
Vs
Respondents : 1.Sri.R.Hanumantharaju,
S/o Ramanna,
Major by age,
Residing at:
SCCH-14 2 MVC.7310/2019
Sri Lakshmi Medicals,
No.498/1, near Post Office,
Sunkadakatte,
Bengaluru - 560 091
(By Sri.Gangaiah, adv)
2.The ICICI Lombard
General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
9th Floor,
The Estate No.121,
Dickenson Road,
M.G.Road,
Shivan Chetty Layout,
Bengaluru - 560042.
(By Sri.Raghavendra Bhat,Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.50,00,000/ for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 31032019 at about 8.45 a.m., the Petitioner was riding motor cycle bearing No.KA53S6350 near Agnihalli gate on KolarMulabagal NH75 road, Kolar Taluk and District. At SCCH-14 3 MVC.7310/2019 that time, a Maruthi swift Dzire car bearing No.KA02MF6565 driven by its driver came from same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against motor cycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to R.L.Jalappa hospital, Kolar wherein he was treated as an inpatient. He was unconscious through his stay in R.L.Jalappa hospital and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient.
Prior to the accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and he was working as Lecturer in Mathematics at Swamy Vivekananda Rural PreUniversity college and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/ p.m. Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries causing permanent disablement.
The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the car and therefore, both Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.
3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, SCCH-14 4 MVC.7310/2019 Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed objections to the main petition.
In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.1, he denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of car. Further denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident and the expenses incurred for the medical treatment. Further contended that the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of maruthi car by its driver. He has further contended that the car is duly insured with the second respondent. Hence, among these and other grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.2, it denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of car. Further it has denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident and the expenses incurred for the medical treatment. Further it admitted the issuance of policy in SCCH-14 5 MVC.7310/2019 respect of car in favour of 1 st respondent. It is further contended that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver. The alleged accident was caused by some other vehicle but these facts are suppressed by the petitioner in collision with the police authorities and has managed to get the documents to suit to claim the compensation. It is further contended that as per MLC issued by R.L.Jalappa hospital at the time of alleged accident the petitioner was crossing the road. Hence, among these and other grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 31.03.2019 at about 8.45 p.m. near Agnihalli gate, on KolarMulabagal, NH75 road, Kolar taluk and district, Bengaluru, in an accident SCCH-14 6 MVC.7310/2019 arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing No.KA02MF6565?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so. How much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. In order to substantiate the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.17. He also got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and PW.3 and got marked documents as per Ex.P18 to 20 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 examined its Legal Manager as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and closed it's side evidence.
6. The advocate for the petitioner has relied on the decision reported in 2023 ACJ 490 in the case of Manjunath Vs. Sunil and another.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited, citation SCCH-14 7 MVC.7310/2019 relied by the learned advocate for petitioner and materials available on record, my answer 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 the Final Order for the following :
REASONS
8. Issue No. 1 : It is the case of the Petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic accident that occurred on 31032019 at about 8.45 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.KA02MF6565 by its driver.
9. On the other hand, the Respondents have denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending car bearing No.KA02MF6565 by its driver.
10. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P17. P.W.1 has reiterated the Petition SCCH-14 8 MVC.7310/2019 averments in his chiefaffidavit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are the True copies of FIR along with complaint, spot panchanama, IMV report, MLC register and charge sheet. Ex.P.6 and 7 are the Discharge summaries, Ex.P.8 is the notarised copy of M.Sc.marks cards, Ex.P.9 is the notarised copy of certificate issued by Tumkur University. Ex.P.10 is letter of appointment, Ex.P.l1 is pay slip, Ex.P.12 is copy of resignation letter, Ex.P.13 is Relieving order, Ex.P.14 is Bank statement, Ex.P.15 is notarised copy of Aadhar card and Ex.P.16 is the Medical bills. Ex. P.17 is the notarized copy of PAN card.
11. Upon going through Ex.P1 and 2 i.e., FIR and Complaint, same is evident that on the complaint lodged before Kolar Rural Police station, the SHO of the concerned Police Station has registered the case against the driver of car bearing No.KA02MF6565 for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC. The document Ex.P.2 i.e., the true copy of Spot panchanama justifies that same is drawn in the presence of pancha witnesses. The document Ex.P.3 i.e., the true copy of IMV report supports the case of petitioner regarding SCCH-14 9 MVC.7310/2019 involvement of two vehicles in the accident. Ex. P.3 would also justifies the fact that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles in question. The document Ex. P.4 i.e., the true copy of MLC extract justify that immediately after the accident the petitioner got treated at R.L.Jalappa hospital of Kolar. The document Ex.P.5 i.e., charge sheet discloses the fact that after thorough investigation IO has charge sheeted the driver of car bearing No.KA02MF6565 for the offences punishable under Secs.279,337, 338 of IPC. It is not in dispute that till date Ex. P.5 has remained unquestioned and unchallenged.
12. Further, P.W.1 examined medical record officer of R.L.Jalappa hospital as P.W.2 and got marked case sheet, MLC and police intimation letter at Ex.P.18 to 20. The evidence deposed by PW.2 supports the case of petitioner and also the documents Ex.P18 to 20.
13. Further, P.W.1 examined Dr.Veeresha U Mathad as P.W.3 and got marked clinical notes, CT scan report, film and neuro surgical report with work sheet at Ex.P.21 to 24. He also SCCH-14 10 MVC.7310/2019 reiterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA.
14. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 cross examined the P.W.1. In the cross examination P.W.1 has denied the suggestions of the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the contentions of the Petitioner.
15. Further, the Respondent No.2 has got examined its Legal Manager as RW.1. However, the evidence given by RW.1 will not disprove the case of petitioner. In addition to this, the IO after thorough investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of car bearing No.KA02MF6565. The said charge sheet admittedly remained unchallenged till date. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition and documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.KA02MF6565 and in the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answer SCCH-14 11 MVC.7310/2019 Issue No. 1 in the 'Affirmative'.
16. Issue No. 2 : As the petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.KA02MF6565, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
17. In the petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 29 years. He has produced his Aadhar card at Ex.P.15 to prove his age. As per the aadhar card, the date of birth of the petitioner was shown as 11.07.1990. The accident has taken place on 31.03.2019. Hence, the age of the Petitioner, as on the date of accident was taken as 29 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.
18. Further, the petitioner has averred that he has done Master Degree (M.Sc.,) in mathematics and B.Ed., (Bachelor of education) and working as a Lecturer in mathematics and was earning a sum of Rs.25,000/p.m. In this regard, he has produced M.Sc., marks cards at Ex. P.8, B.Ed., certificate at Ex. P.9, letter of appointment at Ex. P.10, pay slip at Ex. P.11, SCCH-14 12 MVC.7310/2019 copy of resignation letter at Ex. P.12, Relieving order at Ex.P.13 and Bank statement at Ex. P.14. These documents support the case of petitioner regarding his educational qualification, the averment that he was working as a Lecturer of Mathematics and based on his request/resignation, accepting the same the institution concerned has relieved him from his job. The document Ex. P.14 reflects that, at the time of accident the petitioner was drawing a salary of sum of Rs.22,740/ p.m. Accordingly, said sum is considered for assessment of compensation.
19. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
20. The petitioner has deposed that he had sustained severe head injuries along with multiple fracture of skull and SCCH-14 13 MVC.7310/2019 facial. He underwent tracheostomy on 02.04.2019 at R.L.Jalappa hospital and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital and underwent surgery of right frazier point MPVP shunt on 07.06.2019.
21. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :
22. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
23. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 31.03.2019 to 29.05.2019 at R.L.Jalappa hospital and on 07.06.2019 at NIMHANS hospital. Therefore, the total period SCCH-14 14 MVC.7310/2019 which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 60 days.
24. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the laid up period may be considered as three months. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.68,220/ under this head (@ Rs.22,740/ per month).
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
25. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/ towards attendants charges, Rs.6,000/ towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.6,000/ towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,000/ under this head. SCCH-14 15 MVC.7310/2019 V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENCES :
26. The Petitioner has deposed that he spent Rs.10,00,000/ towards medical expenses. The petitioner has produced 121 medical bills at Ex.P.16 amounting to Rs.4,69,509/. I have perused the same carefully. Careful perusal of Ex.P.16 justifies the fact that petitioner has spent Rs.4,69,509/. Moreover, the medical bills are not disputed by the respondent No.2. They appears to be acceptable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.4,69,509/ as a compensation under this head.
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :
27. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and due to the head injury, still he is suffering from severe headache and giddiness. He cannot go into sun light. All his sense organs have become weak. As a result his SCCH-14 16 MVC.7310/2019 speech, vision and hearing capacity has been greatly affected. He has lost his partial memory power and there is a severe pain at injury site. Even in his evidence, P.W.1 has deposed to that effect.
28. Further, the Petitioner got examined medical record officer of R.L.Jalappa hospital as P.W.2 and got marked case sheet, MLC and police intimation letter at Ex.P.18 to 20.
29. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Veeresha U Mathad as P.W.3 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and examination he made. Further, he got marked clinical notes, CT scan report, film and neuro psychological report with work sheet at Ex.P.21 to 24. He assessed permanent neurological disability of 50%.
30. In the crossexamination PW.3 has stated that he has not personally treated the petitioner earlier, but he has treated the petitioner recently during assessment of disability. He has denied the suggestion that he has given higher rate of disability SCCH-14 17 MVC.7310/2019 to the Petitioner.
31. Hence, having regard to the medical records placed on hand and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and by considering the nature of his work, upon consideration of the fact that the petitioner got examined himself before this court as PW.1 and also tendered for cross examination done at length by the learned advocate for respondent No.2 during which he could be able to give rational answers to the questions and regarding the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that in respect of the neurological disability assessed by PW.3 it would be just and proper to consider such disability at the rate of 20% and so also the physical disability assessed by the PW.3. There are admissions to the effect that petitioner has not taken any further treatment after his discharge from the hospital in respect of injuries sustained by him. Considering all these aspects, this Tribunal is of the opinion that it would be just and reasonable if the disability of the Petitioner is considered at 20%.
32. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the SCCH-14 18 MVC.7310/2019 multiplier applicable to the age of Petitioner is 17. With multiplier of 17, income of Rs.22,740/ per month and disability of the Petitioner with respect to his whole body at 20%, the loss of future income comes to Rs.9,27,792/ (Rs.22,740/ x 12 = 2,72,880/, Rs.2,72,880/x 17 x 20/100 = 9,27,792/). Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.9,27,792/ which is rounded off to Rs.9,27,800/ under this head.
33. TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE PROSPECTS: The document resignation letter and relieving letter as per Ex.P.12 and 13 supports the case of petitioner that he is not continuing his job as a lecturer at Swami Vivekananda Rural PU College, Chandapura after occurrence of the accident. Upon consideration of this fact, it appears just and reasonable to this Tribunal to award compensation of sum of Rs.50,000/ under this head. Hence, same is awarded.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
SCCH-14 19 MVC.7310/2019
34. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 40,000/
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 18,000/ diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs. 4,69,509/
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 68,220/ laid up period
6. Loss of Future income Rs. 9,27,800/
7. Loss of future prospects Rs. 50,000/ Total Rs.16,23,529/ Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.16,23,529/ which is rounded off to Rs.16,23,600/ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
35. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of car bearing No.KA 02MF6565. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of car. The Policy is valid and in force at the time of accident. There is no dispute about the validity of the SCCH-14 20 MVC.7310/2019 policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
36. ISSUE No. 3 : In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 and 2 U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of Rs.16,23,600/ along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to SCCH-14 21 MVC.7310/2019 deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E payment after proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3 years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 20th day of April 2024) [[ (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Anand.D.V SCCH-14 22 MVC.7310/2019 P.W.2 : T.S.Bharathi P.W.3 : Dr.Veeresha U Mathad Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR along with
complaint
Ex.P.2 : True Copy of Spot panchanama
Ex.P.3 True Copy of IMV report
Ex.P.4 : True Copy of MLC register
Ex.P.5 : True Copy of charge sheet
Ex.P.6 : Discharge summary of Jalappa
hospital
Ex.P.7 : Discharge summary of NIMHANS
Ex. P.8 : Notarized copy of M.Sc.marks
cards (6 in nos.)
Ex. P.9 : B.Ed Convercation certificate
Ex. P.10 : Letter of appointment
Ex. P.11 : Pay slip for the month of March
2019
Ex. P.12 : Copy of resignation letter
Ex. P.13 : Relieving order
Ex. P.14 : Bank statement
Ex. P.15 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card
Ex. P.16 : Medical bills (121 in nos.)
including final bill
Ex. P.17 : Notarized copy of PAN card
Ex. P.18 : Case sheet
SCCH-14 23 MVC.7310/2019
Ex. P.19 : MLC
Ex. P.20 : Police intimation letter
Ex. P.21 : Clinical notes
Ex. P.22 : CT scan report
Ex. P.23 : Film
Ex. P.24 : Neuropsychological assessment
report
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents :
RW.1 : Mr.Naveena.S Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents :
Ex.R.1 : True copy of MLC extract
(YATHISHA.R)
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
Digitally
signed by
YATHISHA R
YATHISHA
Date:
R 2024.04.25
13:05:38
+0530