Bangalore District Court
Sri. Kalakappa Alias vs Icici Lombard Gen. Ins on 20 April, 2023
KABC020129142020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU.
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF APRIL 2023
(SCCH25)
Present: Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI
B.A., L.L.B., L.L.M.
XXIII Additional Small Causes Judge,
Bengaluru.
MVC No.2717/2020
PETITIONER: Sri. Kalakappa alias
Kalakappa Havaddar
S/o. Nagappa,
Aged about 24 years,
Thopalakatte Village,
Yaregeri Post,
Yarigera, Kustagi Taluk,
Koppala Dist. 583 281.
(By Sri.Bhootaiah R.,
Advocate/s.)
V/S
RESPONDENTS: 1. ICICI Lombard Gen. Ins.
Co. Ltd.,
No.89, 2nd Floor,
S.V.R.Complex,
Hosur Main road,
SCCH - 25 2 MVC 2717/2020
Madivala,
Bangalore - 560 068.
(Insurer of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA
51MC9208 vide policy
No.3001/MI07617218/00/000 valid
from 21.07.2019 to 20.07.2020)
(By Smt. Padma S. Uttur,
Advocate.)
2. Sri.Rajarama Manjukody
Bhat
S/o Subramanya Bhat M.
Bharavika Residency,
Flat No.B005, 19/1,
Basapura Village,
Near: Hosa Road Junction,
Bangalore - 560 100.
And also residing at:
No.77, Ground Floor,
Phase3, Green Vista Layout,
Chikkabellandur Land Mark,
Mullur Road,
Carmilaram Post,
Bangalore - 560 035.
(Owner of the Car bearing
Reg.No.KA51MC9208)
(By Sri.Mariappa M.S.,
Advocate.)
SCCH - 25 3 MVC 2717/2020
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident dated 02.07.2020.
2. The case of the Petitioner in brief is that, on 02.07.2020 at about 1.05 pm he was a pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA51ED6983 which was ridden by its rider Rahul from Mulluru towards Kudale Gate, while proceeding on Gunjuru Kudale Gate Main road at Majushree Juice chats and Condiments, while he was proceeded on the left side of the road in a opposite direction a Car bearing Reg.No.KA51MC9208 driven by its driver came from Kudale Gatetowards Mulluru with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, due to impact the rider and petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to KSHEMA HOSPITAL, after taking first aid treatment he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Trauma and SCCH - 25 4 MVC 2717/2020 Orthopedic Center, Byrasandra, Bangalore, wherein he was admitted as an inpatient from 02.07.2020 to 06.08.2020 and diagnosed and conducted surgery and discharged with follow up. So far he has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/ for surgery and towards medical expenses, nourishment, transportation charges, attendant charges and he has to undergo further treatment by spending huge amount. Due to accident he is unable to move his both legs and there is no any complete sensation under below waist and legs and his entire body was suffered and he has lost his source of income and livelihood and suffered 100% physical disability and now he has to depend upon somebody else for his survival. The Jurisdictional police have registered a case in Cr.No.82/2020 under Secs.279, 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and the 2nd respondent is the RC owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him.
SCCH - 25 5 MVC 2717/2020
3. In response to the notice issued by this Tribunal, the Respondents have appeared and filed separate written statements.
4. The respondent No.1/Insurance Company in the written statement have denied the averments made in columns 1 to 22 of the petition as false, and denied the very involvement of the insured vehicle in the alleged accident and submitted that there is six days delay in lodging the first information. Further submitted that, as per the medical records i.e., MLC extract and wound certificate which clearly discloses that the petitioner fell down from the bike and after lapse of six days has colluded with the police authorities and insured and filed false complaint before the police to get illegal claim and hence they are not liable to indemnify the insured. There is non compliance of Sec.134 of MV Act. The alleged accident took place due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA52ED6983 and he was not having valid and effective DL. The driver of the SCCH - 25 6 MVC 2717/2020 insured vehicle was also not having valid and effective DL to drive the said type of vehicle as on the date of accident but even then the insured entrusted his vehicle in contravention of the policy terms and conditions. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition against them.
5. The respondent No.2/RC owner of the offending vehicle in the written statement has denied the case of the petitioner as false and submitted that, the petitioner has made false claim that his vehicle caused accident to his bike only to get compensation. Further submitted that he is the owner of the vehicle Maruthi Swift Desizre VXI bearing No.KA51MC9208 and he got insurance coverage with the respondent No.1 and the vehicle had valid documents. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the petition against him.
6. On the above rival contentions of the parties, this court has framed the following issues: SCCH - 25 7 MVC 2717/2020
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act of the Driver of Car bearing Reg.No.KA51MC9208 and in the said accident petitioner sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?
3. What order or award?
7. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, he has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 14 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.14. Dr.Siddesh Patil G.S. - Spine surgeon at Sanjay Gandhi Institute of Trauma and Orthopedics is examined as PW.2 and produced 3 documents as per Exs.P.15 to P.17. Mr.Rahul - eye witness/rider of the motorcycle examined as PW.3 and produced 4 documents as per Exs.P.18 to P.21 and also examined Mr.Akbar - eye witness as PW.4 and produced 1 document as per Ex.P.22. On the other side, the respondent No.1 examined Dr.Rajendra - Medical Officer, Sanjay Gandhi Institute of SCCH - 25 8 MVC 2717/2020 Trauma and Orthopedic Center, Bangalore as RW.1 and produced 2 documents as per Exs.R.2 and R.3 and also examined Mr.Naveena S. Officer as RW.2 and produced 1 document as per Ex.R.4. The respondent No.2 examined himself as RW.3 and produced 3 documents as per Exs.R.5 to R.7. In the cross examination of PW.1 the Ex.R.1/true copy of MLC extract is marked confrontation.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision as follows: (i) 2020 ACJ 1042 (SC) : Kajal Vs. Jagdish Cand, (ii) 2021 ACJ 2310 : Sriram Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Deep Kumar and Another, (iii) 2020 ACJ 2534 :
Senthilkumar Vs. Sivaraj and Anr., (iv) 2020 ACJ 2695 :
Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors., (v) 2021 ACJ 727 : National Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Bhuwan Chandra Gunwanth and Anr. The counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied upon the decisions as follows; (i) MFA No.2802/2011 C/w 2744/2011: Nanjegowda Vs. Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., (ii) MFA SCCH - 25 9 MVC 2717/2020 No.25615/2012: The Manager, United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Vs. Nitin and Anr., (iii) MFA No.1390/2011: National Ins. Co.
Ltd., Vs. Laxmana and Anr., (iv) MFA No.7991/2008: Babu Vs. Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. ltd., (v) ILR 2009 KAR 2921:
Bajaj Allianz Gen. Ins. Co. Vs. B.C.Kumar and Anr., (vi) 2009 ACJ 293: Gurappa Vs. Gowdappa gowda and Anr., (vii) 2000 ACJ 1032: United India Ins. Co. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Ors., (viii) MFA No.4446/2010: Bajaj Alianz Gen. Ins. Co. Vs. Harish Kumar and Anr., (ix) MFA No.2953/2011: Rajegowda Vs. Praveen K.C. and Anr., (x) MFA No.1169/2012: New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs. M.Anandakumar and Anr., (xi) MFA No.10860/2007: The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davalsab and Anr., (xii) MFA No.2255/2014: The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. Shri Venkatesh and Ors., and (xiii) MFA 2006/2010 C/W 1763/2010, dated 20.07.2018: S.T.Deepu Vs. The New India Ass. Co. Ltd., and Anr..SCCH - 25 10 MVC 2717/2020
9. On hearing and appreciation of the evidence on record this court answers the above issues as follows: 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
10. Issue No.1: The Petitioner in order to prove that the accident was occurred due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Car bearing Reg.No.KA51MC9208 has examined himself as PW.1 and produced 9 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.9. He has specifically stated in his evidence that, on 02.07.2020 at about 1.05pm he was a pillion rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA51ED6983 which was ridden by its rider Rahul from Mulluru towards Kudale Gate, whole proceeding on Gunjuru Kudale Gate Main road at Manjushree Juice chats and Condiments, while he was proceeded on the left side of the road in a opposite direction SCCH - 25 11 MVC 2717/2020 a Car bearing Reg.No.KA51MC9208 driven by its driver came from Kudale Gatetowards Malluru with high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle and caused the accident. The Respondent No.1 insurer has denied that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and contended that there is false implication of the offending vehicle as it is a case of self fall. In the cross examination of PW.1 it is elicited that immediately after the accident the driver of the Car took him to the hospital, Rahul also came to the hospital, he was taken to the Kshema Hospital in an Auto by the driver of the Car, as he had conscious he knows that later he was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital by the owner of the Car, Rahul and the another person known to Rahul, he told the history of accident in the hospital, the contents of Ex.P.14 are true, he admitted Ex.R.1/true copy of MLC Extract, Rahul sustained only simple injuries but he did not lodge first information as he took him to hospital for treatment, the owner of the car SCCH - 25 12 MVC 2717/2020 did give his phone number and on that basis he came to know about the number of the Car.
11. In support of the case the petitioner got examined the PW.3/rider of the bike who deposed in support of the petitioner about the manner of accident and produced copies of Aadhar Card, RC, DL and policy. In the cross examination of PW.3 it is elicited that the petitioner known to him since 5 years, on the date of accident he was riding the bike, after the accident he was taken to Kshema Hospital, later he was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and hence he did not lodge any first information, himself and Akbar were present alongwith the petitioner and he does not know when the police seized the bike.
12. Mr.Akbar eye witness is examined as PW.4 who has deposed about witnessing the accident and supported the case of the petitioner. He further stated that when he told the history of accident in Ex.R1 it was written as SCCH - 25 13 MVC 2717/2020 'History of fall from two wheeler on 02.07.2020 at 01.30 pm on Hosur road, Kodathi gate, Bengaluru after being hit by four wheeler patient was a pillion rider' and there was any rectification and he has not given any application to strike out the history in Ex.R1. In the cross examination it is elicited that on the date of accident he did not go to college but went to house warming ceremony behind Manju Shree juice chats and condiments, after the accident he took the injured to Kshema Hospital nearby Kodathi gate and thereafter taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and he informed the doctor as to how the accident occurred, he does not know the petitioner, he has not lodged the first information but only shifted the injured to the hospital on humanitarian ground.
13. In support of the defence the respondent No.1 has got examined the RW.1/medical officer at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital who produced the true copies of MLC extract and police intimation. The RW.1 has deposed that he himself SCCH - 25 14 MVC 2717/2020 noted down the information in Ex.R2 and strike out the words in history 'after being hit by four wheeler' as the injured after regaining consciousness has told the correct history of accident. In the cross examination he admits that he has not mentioned in Ex.R2 as to on whose information he rectified the Ex.R2 history and also not put his signature on the words which strike off, in Ex.P16 there is any mention that the patient was unconscious at the time of admission, he admits that by taking information from the owner of the offending vehicle he rectified the history in Ex.R2, in Ex.P12 there is no any rectification like made in Ex.R2, the history is not rectified in casesheet as rectified in Ex.R2.
14. The respondent no.1 got examined its official as RW.2 who has deposed in support of their defence that it is a case of self fall. In the cross examination it is elicited that nowhere in the Ex.R2 it is mentioned that after patient regaining consciousness the history got rectified, as per SCCH - 25 15 MVC 2717/2020 Ex.P3 the car got damages and he admits Ex.P23/four photos of the car which got damages.
15. The 2nd respondent is examined as RW.3 who has deposed denying the case of the petitioner as false and admits that his vehicle duly insured with the 1st respondent. He has produced the Exs.R5 to R7 which are copies of policy, RC and DL of RW.3. In the cross examination it is elicited that he is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA 51MC9208, on 02.07.2020 himself was riding the said car near Kodathi gate towards Mulluru, he denied that due to his rash and negligence driving he dashed to the bike bearing No.KA51ED6983 but stated that due to negligence on the rider of the bike the alleged accident occurred. He admits that chargesheet is filed against him, his vehicle got seized by police, he got released his vehicle by executing Indemnity bond, police collected all his vehicular documents and chargesheet is filed against him upon which CC No.7844/2020 got registered and he pleaded guilty and paid SCCH - 25 16 MVC 2717/2020 fine as per Ex.P24. Further admitted that his car and injured bike both got damages, he got OD claim from his Insurance Company, he made claim before the Insurance Company after getting his car repaired, got around Rs.20,000/ to Rs.21,000/ under OD claim. Further he stated that on the alleged date of accident Rahul and Kalakappa were proceeding on the bike, after the accident he got admitted them to the hospital and he paid first bill charges.
16. The Ex.P2/First information clearly shows that the rider of the bike namely Mr.Rahul lodged it on 07.07.2020 and the delay is explained stating that as the injured was admitted to hospital and hence delay is caused. When there is a delay it is not a fatal to the claimant in view of decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Bhadrinarayana & Ors.. The Ex.P4/reply to notice u/sec.133 of IMV Act clearly shows that the owner has given reply stating that his vehicle was involved in the accident SCCH - 25 17 MVC 2717/2020 took place on Kodathi road infront of Manjushree bakery. The Ex.P5/spot mahazar also shows that in the spot of accident the bumper piece of the car and some parts of the motorcycle were also found and they were seized. The Ex.P6/seizure mahazar clearly shows that the right front side bumper of the car was broken. The Ex.P7/spot sketch shows that the accident took place in the left side of the road in which lane the petitioner coming. The Ex.P8/statement of eye witness clearly shows that he witnessed the accident and shifted being the injured to the Kshema Hospital. These all documents clearly proves the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and causing the accident. The respondent no.1 has not disproved the damages caused to the insured vehicle. The I.O. after detail investigation has filed chargesheet against offending vehicle.
17. In Ex.P12/discharge summary of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, the history of accident is clearly mentioned as 'alleged history of RTA patient was a pillion rider of two SCCH - 25 18 MVC 2717/2020 wheeler which was hit by four wheeler (car) and he fell down at around 1.30 pm on 02.07.2020'. In Ex.P15/ER record of Sanjay Gandhi Hospital also clearly shows the very same history as mentioned in Ex.P12. The Ex.P16/casesheet of the petitioner in which in details of accident it is clearly mentioned that the patient had RTA, was pillion rider in motorcycle, not wearing helmet and nowhere it is mentioned that it is a case of self fall. The counsel for the respondent No.1 relying on the entry made in the Ex.R.1/Ex.R.2 wherein the history is strike out and also relying on the evidence of RW.1 contends that it is a case of self fall and the insured car was not at all involved in the accident. Admittedly, the history in Ex.R.1 is altered means last line is strike out which is clearly deposed by the RW.1 but there is no any shara/noting as to on whose say the said rectification or alteration is made in the MLC extract, and admittedly the history in the discharge summary is not altered or strike off as that of in Ex.R.1 and hence the evidence of RW.1 that on the say of the petitioner he rectified/strike off the SCCH - 25 19 MVC 2717/2020 history/altered the history cannot be acceptable as the RW.3 himself clearly deposed before this court his vehicle was involved in the accident and charge sheet is filed against him in which criminal case he pleaded guilty and paid fine. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No.1 cannot be acceptable as there is ample evidence placed on record in support of the case of the petitioner that the offending vehicle caused the accident and more over the respondent No.1 has not disproved the said documents/police documents by placing any contrary evidence except the evidence of RW.1 who alleges that he rectified the MLC but admittedly has not followed any procedure to rectify the same like taking application from the concerned and noting the same on the altered history. Further, the respondent No.1 has also not lead any contrary evidence to disprove the damages caused to the insured vehicle. Further, the evidence of eyewitnesses i.e., Pws.3 and 4 is also not disproved by the respondent insurance company whose evidence is clearly supporting to the case of the petitioner. SCCH - 25 20 MVC 2717/2020 Therefore, this Tribunal by relying on the evidence lead by the petitioner and the documents produced by him and also relying on the evidence of RW.3 this Tribunal is of the view that the accident was caused by the insured vehicle only as claimed by the petitioner. Further on perusal of the entire evidence on record it is also clear that there is no any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. I have perused the decisions relied upon by the counsel by the respondent No.1 which are referred above and of the view that they are not applicable to the present case as the facts and circumstances of those cases and this case are different.
18. Further, the documents placed by the Petitioner such as FIR in Cr.No.82/2020, FIS, MVA report, spot mahazar, seizure mahazar, spot sketch and charge sheet as per Exs.P.1 to P.9 are all public documents which have got presumptive value under law. The I.O. after detail SCCH - 25 21 MVC 2717/2020 investigation has filed chargesheet against the Driver of the Car. No contrary evidence is lead to these documents from the side of respondents. As such, there are no reasons to discard or disbelieve the evidence lead by th Petitioner/PW.1 and accept the version of the Respondent No.1. The wound certificate produced by the Petitioner as per Ex.P.14 further shows that on account of the accident the Petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Under these circumstances, relying upon the oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents produced as per Exs.P.1 to P.9 and appreciating the evidence on record this court is of the opinion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car and same has resulted in grievous injuries to the Petitioner. Accordingly, issue No.1 is held in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.2: The Petitioner has further averred that, on account of accident, he has sustained grievous injuries and it has SCCH - 25 22 MVC 2717/2020 caused him permanent disability and hence he is unable to do his earlier work/occupation. The Petitioner in this regard has entered into witness box and deposed that due to the accidental injuries, he is suffering from permanent disability. Apart from that, he has produced the wound certificate as per Ex.P.14. As per Ex.P.14, the Petitioner has sustained fracture Bicolumnar acetabulum and Xray shows compression fracture L1 which are grievous in nature. This court while considering the Issue No.1 has already come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation from the Respondents.
Disability:
20. In the chiefexamination, the PW.2 has deposed that, a patient by name Kalakappa @ Kalakappa Havaldar, aged about 24 years, was admitted at their hospital on 02.07.2020 at 11.13pm, he had alleged history of RTA by SCCH - 25 23 MVC 2717/2020 Car sustained injury to back and unable to move his lower limb, Xrays were taken and MRI scan with routine investigations was done and the petitioner had following injuries: (a) AO type C1 fracture of L1/Vertebrae, (b) Grade 0/5 weakness in B/1 limb with b/b incontinence (c) Right bicolumnar acetabular fracture. PW.2 further deposed that the petitioner underwent surgery on 29.07.2020 in the form of Posterior stabilization and decompression and reduction with pedical screw for L1 fracture, conservative treatment for acetabular fractrue, he was put on anitbiotics and analgesics, physiotherapy started bladder training given, patient got discharged on 06.08.2020 and he was on regular followup in OPD later. He has further deposed that on 13.09.2021, patient came for disability assessment and following points were noted: (a) Healed surgical scar over mid back, (b) he has grade 4 pains according to VAS score, (c) he is having paraplegia below level of D11, (d) he is wheelchair bond, (e) Bowel and bladder incontinence, (f) Xray DL spine AP/lat shows healed L1 fracture with 10 degree of Kyphosis SCCH - 25 24 MVC 2717/2020 with implant insitu, (g) Xray right hip showing mal united acetabular fracture, on Evaluation of permanent physical impairment of Trunk (spine), Thoracic and thoracolumbar spine injuries, (a) Compresson of more than 50% involving single vertebra or more with involvement of posterior elements, healed persistent pain, fusion indicated 20%, (b) Paraplegia below D10 level 100%, (c) Bowel and bladder incontinence 100% and the total permanent physical impairment of Trunk - 100% and the petitioner has permanent physical disability for the whole body 100% and the above injuries are permanent in nature and the patient is unable to do his daily routine needs assistance for daily needs and neurological and bowel and bladder involvement are irreversible. In the crossexamination of PW.2 it is brought out that, he has treated the petitioner along with Dr.Mohan N.S., the petitioner underwent conservative treatment for acetabular fracture, the basic treatment for paraphysia or vertebra fractures or L series fractures will be physiotherapy, Dr.Palani did give physiotherapy treatment to SCCH - 25 25 MVC 2717/2020 the petitioner, he has not produced the physiotherapy records before this court, they have not maintained any records for noting down the improvement in the condition of the petitioner after giving physiotherapy timely, he has only assessed disability for trunk and there is no calculation needed to assess the disability of trunk. On perusal of Ex.P.12/discharge summary at the time of discharge the condition of the petitioner mentioned as improved and medicines were advice along with physiotherapy and for followup treatment. Except the evidence of PW.2 the petitioner has not produced any disability certificate to prove that he suffered 100% disability. The petitioner has given evidence by coming before this court. Therefore, having regard to the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner, the period of treatment that he has undergone, his age, as no calculation or proper explanation is deposed by the PW.2 in arriving to the percentage of the disability and also in absence of specific evidence about present condition of the SCCH - 25 26 MVC 2717/2020 petitioner his functional disability is considered at 50% to the whole body.
Monthly income:
21. The Petitioner has not pleaded or deposed anything about his avocation and earning. Therefore, in absence of any specific pleading and evidence the notional income needs to be considered. At the time of accident the Petitioner was aged about 25 years as could be make out from Ex.P.11/Copy of Aadhar card. The accident took place on 02.07.2020. As discussed above, in the absence of specific evidence for income by relying upon the decision of Hon'ble H.C. in the case of Sumangala & Others and Ramanagouda & Anr., in MFA No:202534/2019(MVC) wherein the notified notional income chart of the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is considered for fixing the notional income and accordingly the monthly notional income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.14,500/ per SCCH - 25 27 MVC 2717/2020 month. As such, the Petitioner is entitled for the following compensation:
i) PAIN AND SUFFERING: After the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to Kshema Hosptial and thereafter to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and underwent treatment as an inpatient and discharged.
Considering the nature of injuries and duration of treatment he has underwent, the Petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/ under this head.
ii) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Petitioner has pleaded that he has spent more than a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ towards treatment, medicines, conveyance etc.. In this regard, he has produced 57 medical bills as per Ex.P.13 for a sum of Rs.54,661/. There is no contrary evidence from the respondent No.1 and nothing contrary is also elicited in the crossexamination of PW.1. SCCH - 25 28 MVC 2717/2020 Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the above said amount under this head.
iii) LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAID UP PERIOD: As mentioned above the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and treated in the said above hospitals. In this regard he has produced discharge summary as per Ex.P.12. As per Ex.P.12 he was admitted on 02.07.2020 and discharged on 06.08.2020, treated for about 35 days. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries and the duration of treatment it can be said that the Petitioner has required at least three months time for recovering from the injuries sustained by him. Hence, he is only entitled for a sum of Rs.43,500/ under this head.
iv) LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME: In so far as age of the Petitioner is concerned, as per the discussion made above the Ex.P.11/copy of Aadhar card is considered and the petitioner's age is 25 years as on the SCCH - 25 29 MVC 2717/2020 date of accident. As per the dictum laid down in Sarala Verma's case the appropriate multiplier applicable to her age is 18. The counsel for the petitioner argued that as the petitioner is suffering 100% disability and hence future prospects needs to be awarded and in this regard relied upon the fourth decision which is referred above. I have perused the said decision and in that case the Tribunal held 89% of disability to the claimant therein but in this case this Tribunal held 50% of disability assigning the reasons. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,66,000/ (Rs.14,500/ x 12 x 18 x 50%= Rs.15,66,000/) under this head.
(v) LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND
HAPPINESS:
The Petitioner was aged about 25 years at the time of accident. He has sustained grievous injuries and as per consideration of this Tribunal, he is suffering from 50% permanent disability. The Petitioner has to suffer this SCCH - 25 30 MVC 2717/2020 disability throughout his life. Because of this he will have to loose some amenities and comforts. Therefore, considering the age and nature of injuries that the Petitioner has suffered a sum of Rs.35,000/ is awarded under this head.
(vi) ATTENDANT, CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT CHARGES:
After the accident, the Petitioner was treated in the above said hospital for about 35 days, admitted as an inpatient and discharged with advise. However, during this period he must have spent considerable amount on his conveyance expenses. The counsel for the petitioner by relying on the first three decisions which are referred above submitted that future attendance expenses be awarded to the petitioner. I have perused the said decisions and in that 100% disability was considered, in one case it was a case of head injury and in another case 90% disability was taken and hence they are not considered to the present petition as after taking physiotherapy the petitioner may get SCCH - 25 31 MVC 2717/2020 improvement in his condition in near future. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head.
(vii) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES AND FUTURE ATTENDANCE EXPENSES: Though the PW.2 has deposed that in view of permanent disability the petitioner is unable do his daily routine and needs assistance for daily needs and neurological, bowel and bladder involvement are irreversible.
But the petitioner has not lead any specific evidence in this regard and the PW.2 has also not deposed specifically anything in this regard. Therefore, no compensation is awarded under this head.
(viii) MARRIAGE PROSPECTS: As the petitioner suffered 50% disability and moreover he is an unmarried and hence he is entitled for compensation under this head. Therefore, in the interest of justice a sum of Rs.1,00,000/ is awarded under this head. SCCH - 25 32 MVC 2717/2020 Though the PW.2 has deposed that in view of permanent disability the petitioner is unable do his daily routine and needs assistance for daily needs and neurological, bowel and bladder involvement are irreversible. But the petitioner has not lead any specific evidence in this regard and the PW.2 has also not deposed specifically anything in this regard. Therefore, no compensation is awarded under this head.
22. The Petitioner is entitled compensation under the following heads:
1. Pain & suffering Rs.80,000/
2. Medical expenses Rs.54,661/
3. Loss of income during laid up period Rs.43,500/
4. Loss of future income Rs.15,66,800/
5. Loss of future amenities and Rs.35,000/ happiness
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and Rs.20,000/ nourishment charges
7. Future medical expenses and future NIL attendance expenses
8. Marriage Prospects Rs.1,00,000/ TOTAL Rs.18,99,161/ If it is rounded off it comes around Rs.18,99,200/ and SCCH - 25 33 MVC 2717/2020 same is awarded under different heads to the Petitioner.
23. As per the discussion made above the respondent No.1 has failed to prove their defence as contended and hence, the Respondents are being the insurer and RC owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. However, as the policy is existed as on the date of accident, hence the respondent No.1/insurer is to indemnify the respondent No.2/insured and to pay compensation awarded to the petitioner. The Petitioner has claimed for a sum of Rs.40,00,000/ but he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.18,99,200/ with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed in part. Accordingly Issue No.2 is held partly in the affirmative.
24. Issue No.3: For the reasons and discussions made above and SCCH - 25 34 MVC 2717/2020 findings to the above issues, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed in part with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,99,200/ (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand and Two Hundred only) from the Respondents along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of depositing the amount. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation to the petitioner.
However, the Respondent No.1/Insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest before this Tribunal within sixty days from the date of this award.
On deposit of compensation and interest, 25% compensation shall be kept in FD in any N/S for a period of 3 years and the remaining compensation shall be released in favour of the SCCH - 25 35 MVC 2717/2020 Petitioner on proper identification and due acknowledgment as per rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 20th day of April 2023) (Miss. B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) Addl.C.M.M.& Member MACT, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for Petitioner:
PW.1 Sri.Kalakappa @ Kalakappa Havaldar PW.2 Dr.Siddesh Patil G.S. PW.3 Sri.Rahul PW.4 Sri.Akbar List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of FIS
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of MVA report
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of reply notice
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of spot mahazar
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of seizure mahazar
SCCH - 25 36 MVC 2717/2020
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of spot sketch
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of statement of witness
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.10 Notarized copy of PAN card of petitioner
(Compared with original and original is
returned)
Ex.P.11 Notarized copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner
(compared with original and original is
returned)
Ex.P.12 Discharge summary (5 pages)
Ex.P.13 57 medical bills amounting to Rs.54,661/
Ex.P.14 Wound Certificate
Ex.P.15 Original clinical notes
Ex.P.16 Original gase sheet of petitioner
Ex.P.17 Two Xrays
Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of Aadhar crad of PW.3
(compared with original and original is
returned)
Ex.P.19 Notarized copy of RC of PW.3 (compared
with original and original is returned)
Ex.P.20 Notarized copy of DL of PW.3 (compared
with original and original is returned)
Ex.P.21 Notarized copy of policy of vehicle bearing
No.KA51ED6983 of PW.3 (compared with original and original is returned) SCCH - 25 37 MVC 2717/2020 List of Witnesses examined for Respondent/s:
RW.1 Dr.Rajendra RW.2 Sri.Naveena S RW.3 Sri.Rajarama M. Bhat
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Ex.R.1 Copy of MLC
Ex.R.2 True copy of MLC extract (compared with
original register and same is returned)
Ex.R.3 True copy of police intimation
Ex.R.4 Authorization letter
Ex.R.5 Notarized copy of Certificate cum policy
schedule (Compared with original and same is returned) Ex.R.6 Notarized copy of RC of vehicle bearing No.KA51MC9208 of R2 (Compared with original and same is returned) Ex.R.7 Notarized copy of DL of R2 (Compared with original and same is returned) (Miss.B.T.ANNAPOORNESHWARI) XXI A. C.M.M.,& XXIII ASCJ Bengaluru.