Bangalore District Court
Sri M.H. Chandrappa vs The Managing Director on 25 November, 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 25th day of November 2015
M.V.C. No.269/2015
Petitioner Sri M.H. Chandrappa,
S/o Hanumappa,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.1153,
Bharath Bhushan Bhavana,
C/o Shivanna, 14th Cross,
West of Chord road,
Shankarmutt Circle,
Opposite to Ramakrishna Nursing
College, Mahalakshmipuram,
Bangalore - 86.
(Sri H.N. Ramesh, Advocate)
V/s
Respondent The Managing Director,
BMTC, Shanthinagar,
K.H. Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Sri Jagadeesh G.S., Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 166 of Motor 2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- 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 19-11-2014 he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-EB-9843 towards his working place slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, when he was reached near Shanthisagar Hotel, Siddaiah Puranik road, Basaveswara Nagar at about 9.00 a.m., the driver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-504 has came from north to south direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations suddenly took the bus from right side to left side and dashed against the motor cycle, due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Mathru Nursing Home, Basaveshwara Nagar,
3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a Manager at Manapuram Finance Limited by getting monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus driver. Thereby, Vijayanagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver in their police station Crime No.133/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent being the owner is solely liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondent has appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement in which has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and there was no negligence on the part of the 4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 driver of the BMTC bus for the cause of accident, since the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the petitioner and the petitioner himself was responsible for the alleged accident, since he was not diligence in riding the motor cycle and he has denied that the petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle, the offending vehicle driver has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the motor cycle, as a result the petitioner was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount and he has alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the true facts, as the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle and the claim petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties, since the petitioner has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle and he was not holding valid and effective driving licence to ride the motor cycle. So, 5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 on his own negligence, the accident was occurred and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and also the averments made in column No.1 to 14, 18, 21 and 22 of the claim petition and he has also denied that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount, even after the discharge he took the treatment as an outpatient and took the bed rest for a period of 6 months and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. 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 wound certificate, in a road traffic accident on 19-11-2014 at about 9.00 a.m., near Shanthi Sagar Hotel, Siddaiah Puranik road, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus bearing registration No.KA-57-F-504?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation?
6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015
3. What Order or Award?
6. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P27 and he has examined two more witnesses on his behalf as PW2 and PW3 and got marked the documents as Ex.P28 to Ex.P32. The respondent has examined the driver of the bus as RW1 and not marked any documents on his behalf.
7. Heard arguments on both side.
8. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order
for the following.
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached the court on the ground that on 19-11-2014 he was proceeding on his motor cycle slowly and 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, the driver of the offending vehicle has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the motor cycle, 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.
10. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief examination as PW1, in which has stated that on 19-11-2014 he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-EB-9843 towards his working place slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, when he was reached near Shanthisagar Hotel, Siddaiah Puranik road, Basaveswara Nagar at about 9.00 a.m., the driver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-504 has came from north to south direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 regulations suddenly took the bus from right side to left side and dashed against the motor cycle, due to the said impact, he was fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Matru Nursing Home, Basaveshwara Nagar, Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus driver. Thereby, Vijayanagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver in their police station Crime No.133/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident, he was working as a Junior Officer Manager and his office timings morning 9.30 to evening 6.30 and he has denied that as on the date of the alleged accident, he rode the motor cycle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and trying to overtake the bus and lost the control and fallen from the vehicle and sustained the 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 injuries and the accident was not occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the BMTC bus driver.
11. The RW1 being the driver of the BMTC bus in his evidence has stated that on 19-11-2014 when he was on duty as a driver in a BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F- 504, route from Shivajinagar to Ullal Upanagar bus stop, when he was reached near Havanur circle, Basaveshwara nagar, petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-EB-9843 with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed back side of the bus. So, the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of the petitioner. The RW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the petitioner was on the left side of the bus, when the bus was reached near Havanur circle, Shanthi Sagar Hotel, but he has denied that he took the vehicle from left side to right side and touched the motor cycle and he has admitted that the back body of the bus has touched the motor cycle and 10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 the police have filed the case against him and he has not challenged the charge sheet filed against him before any higher court.
12. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. Ex.P1 is the information filed by the petitioner in which has stated that on 19-11-2014 in the morning hours, he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA-41-EB-9843 towards his work place, when he was reached near Shanthi Sagar Hotel at about 9.00 a.m., the driver of the BMTC bus bearing No.KA-57-F-504 has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations took the bus from right side to left side and back rear side of the body touched the motor cycle handle, as a result he was fell down and sustained the grievous injuries. So, immediately the public who are gathered on the spot were shifted him to Matru Nursing Home. The accident was occurred on account of rash 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 and negligent driving of the bus driver. So based on the information Vijayanagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver in their police station Crime No.133/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Though, he has suggested the PW1 that he was trying to overtake the bus and lost the control and fallen from the motor cycle and sustained the injuries for which he has denied the same and he has also suggested that he himself rode the motor cycle with high speed and dashed behind the bus for which he has denied the same. The RW1 being the driver of the bus in his evidence has categorically admitted that the rear side of the bus has touched the motor cycle at the time of accident, that itself is clear that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, as the petitioner has approached the court on the ground that 12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 the bus driver has took the bus suddenly from right side to left side and dashed against the two wheeler, that is the reason why, the accident was occurred. So, the admission of the RW1 during his cross examination corroborate the evidence of the PW1 and the contents as appeared in the claim petition. So, the admission of the RW1 in the cross examination and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver and the RW1 has categorically admitted that he has not challenged the final report filed against him. So, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are remained unchallenged. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the panchanama and sketch drawn by the I.O., clearly reflects that there is a sufficient space to avoid the accident, but the reasons best known to the offending vehicle driver has not taken minimum care to avoid the accident. So, on his own negligence, the accident was occurred and the petitioner has sustained the injuries. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. Ex.P7 is the final report filed by the I.O., in which it is clear that the I.O., after conducting the investigation has found that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver, that is the reason why, he has charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver. Ex.P8 is the discharge summary issued by the Matru Nursing Home in which it is clear that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment till 21- 11-2014. Ex.P9 to Ex.P32 are clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery by spending huge amount. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P32 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1. Though, the respondent has examined the driver of the bus, but his evidence will not help the respondent to disprove the oral and 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 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 account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that on 19-11-2014 he was proceeding on his motor cycle slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, the driver of the offending vehicle has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the motor cycle, as a result he was fell down and sustained the following injuries;
1) Crush injury right hand with comminuted fracture proximal phalanx of ring finger.
2) Little finger with flexor tendon complete loss.
15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015
14. So, immediately he was shifted to Matru Nursing Home, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 19-11-2014 to 21-11-2014 for a period of 3 days and he was discharged from the hospital with an advise for follow up treatment. So, he took the bed rest for a period of 3 months, but inspite of best treatment, he could not come to the normal position.
15. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a Manager at Manappuram Finance Limited by getting monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he is not attending his job and suffered loss of earnings, due to the accidental injuries, himself and his family members were put into deep mental shock and agony. So, he has spent huge amount for his treatment. The PW1 in his cross examination has denied that he has sustained only simple injuries and the medical bills placed before the court are created in order to get the more compensation and he has admitted that he has no impediment to produce the documents to show 16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 that he has not attending his duties after the accident and he has denied that has already reimbursed the entire amount which was spent for his treatment under the ESI.
16. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon at Matru Nursing Home, in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 19-11-2014, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Crush injury right hand with comminuted fracture proximal phalanx of ring finger.
2) Little finger with flexor tendon complete loss.
17. So, he was underwent surgery tender repair, fracture fixation and flap coverage done on 19-11-2014, after the discharge he was on regular follow up for K-wire removal and dressing. So, the petitioner has sustained the disability to an extent of 30% to his right hand and 10% to his whole body. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that himself and another doctor were 17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 conducted the surgery and the injuries sustained by the petitioner are not heal up and he has denied that the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries in a road traffic accident, but he has admitted that the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 21-1-2014. On 12- 08-2015 he has examined the petitioner for assessment of disability and he has stated the disability based on the Alimco guidelines and the circular which was issued by the Central Government and he has denied that he has stated more disability with an intention to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
18. The PW3 being the Branch Manager of Manappuram Finance Limited in his evidence has stated that the petitioner was working as a Branch Manager in their company i.e., Manappuram Finance Limited and he has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 19-11-2014. So, he has resigned the post. Prior to the accident he was drawing monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. The PW3 in his cross examination has admitted, since 18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 four and half years is working in the Manappuram Finance Limited along with the injured and they were working in the said finance in the same cadre and he has denied that the petitioner is already reimbursed the amount which was spent for his treatment from the finance, still the petitioner is working in the same finance and he has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that prior to the accident, the petitioner was drawing monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-.
19. The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and also stated about the difficulties facing by him after the accident. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident and he has also stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So, the evidence of the PW2 corroborate the evidence of the PW1. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by the 19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 Matru Nursing Home, Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
1) Crush injury right hand with comminuted fracture proximal phalanx of ring finger.
2) Little finger with flexor tendon complete loss.
20. So, the above said injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.P8 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the Mathru Nursing Home, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 19-11-2014 to 21-11- 2014 for a period of 3 days, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Crush injury right hand with comminuted fracture proximal phalanx of ring finger.
2) Little finger with flexor tender complete loss.
21. So, he was underwent wound debridement, tendon repair, fracture fixation of K-wires, primary closure with flap coverage on 19-11-2014. Ex.P9 are the 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 medical bills clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident by spending an amount of Rs.72,624/-. Ex.P26 reflects about the fracture sustained by the petitioner. Ex.P27 reflects that the petitioner has underwent surgery. Ex.P28 MLC record reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. So considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 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 crush injury right hand with comminuted fracture proximal phalynx of ring finger and little finger with flexor tender complete loss in 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 19-11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days and he has underwent operation. PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident and he has also stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 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.
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 Manager at Manappuram Finance Limited by getting monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-, due to the
22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 accidental injuries, he lost the job and suffered loss of earnings. The PW3 being said to be the Branch Manager at Manappuram Finance Limited in his evidence has stated that prior to the accident, the petitioner was working as a Manager at Manappuram Finance Limited by getting monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-, after the accident he is not attending the job. The PW3 in his cross examination has admitted that he has not produced any document to show that the petitioner has not attending the job nor receiving monthly salary of Rs.18,000/- prior to the accident. Ex.P13 is the salary slip reflects that the petitioner has received the salary of Rs.16,310/- in the month of June 2014, Rs.16,063.42 Paisa in the month of July 2014, Rs.25,344.96 Paisa in the month of August 2014, Rs.13,834.96 Paisa in the month of September 2014 and Rs.15,074/- in the month of October 2014. Ex.P17 reflects that the petitioner has received the salary of Rs.13,054.42 Paisa on 01-11-2014. So, there is a fluctuation of the salary as shown in the salary slip and 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 the bank account. Though, the PW3 being the Manager of the Manappuram Finance Limited has stated that the petitioner prior to the accident was drawing monthly salary of Rs.18,000/-. So, considering the fluctuation of the monthly salary of the petitioner as shown in the documents placed before the court, it is just and necessary to consider the monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- instead of Rs.18,000/-, it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Ex.P8 is the discharge card clearly reflects that he has sustained the grievous injuries 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.30,000/-. So Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained the fracture in a road traffic 24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 accident and took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent the surgery by spending huge amount, but on record the petitioner has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.72,624/-. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has created the medical bills in order to get the more compensation, 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.72,624/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained the fracture in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 19- 11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 period of 3 days and he was underwent surgery, but inspite of best treatment, he could not come to the normal position. The PW2 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 whole body disability to an extent of 10%. The PW2 in his cross examination has denied that the petitioner has sustained only simple injuries and the injuries sustained by him are already heal up. So, considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the medical records and the injuries 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 justice.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the court attention on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir reported in 2012 ACJ 941 in between National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. 26 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 Pawan Kumar and another. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision the injured has sustained the crush injury on the right hand thumb with amputation of 2nd, 3rd and 4th finger and candy fracture of 1st and 5th metacarpal. The Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.9,76,000/-. Thereby, the insurance company has challenged the award before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court reduced the award passed by the Tribunal of Rs.8,18,000/-.
In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that he has sustained any crush injury on his right hand thumb nor amputation. Thereby, I do respect to the decision relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but the facts and circumstances of the present case and the above said decision are different.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the court attention on the judgments reported in 2014 ACJ 1774, 2012 ACJ 1800 and 2010 ACJ 1554. On careful perusal of the above said decisions relied by the learned 27 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 counsel for the petitioner, I do respect to the said decisions, but the facts and circumstances of the present case and the above said decisions are different.
Ex.P5, Ex.P8, Ex.P9, Ex.P11 and Ex.P18 are clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident, the petitioner was aged about 26 years. The petitioner in his claim petition has clearly stated that as on the date of the alleged accident, he was aged about 26 years. Therefore, his age is taken into consideration as 26 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
17. So the loss of future earning is works out as under;
Rs.15,000X12X17X8/100=2,44,800/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,44,800/- 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 fracture in a 28 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 19-
11-2014 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 PW2 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 PW2 and duration of treatment as well as the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.20,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.20,000/- is granted for the above head.
22. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 30,000-00 up period
3.Medical bills Rs. 72,624-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs. 2,44,800-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 20,000-00 conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc. Total Rs. 3,97,424-00 29 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015
23. The respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle has taken up the contention that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent riding of the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show that the accident in question was taken place on the negligence of the petitioner, but whereas RW1 being the driver of the offending vehicle in his cross examination has categorically admitted that the bus has touched the motor cycle, as a result the accident was occurred. So, one thing is clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. So, the driver of the offending vehicle being the servant of the respondent. So, the vicarious liability is on the respondent to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. inview of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 KLJ 30 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 292 from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
24. 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.3,97,424/-
together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondent being the owner is directed to deposit the entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation 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 31 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015 the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of his choice for a 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.
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 25th day of November 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Sri M.H. Chandrappa PW2 Dr. Mahendra S.K. PW3 Sri Manjunatha V.C. 32 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015
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 Spot sketch
Ex.P5 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P6 True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P8 Discharge summary
Ex.P9 7 Medical bills amounting to Rs.72,624/-
Ex.P10 10 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P11 2 Lab reports
Ex.P12 X-ray report
Ex.P13 5 Pay slips
Ex.P14 Gas bill
Ex.P15 Phone bill
Ex.P16 Notarised attested true copy of Election ID
card
Ex.P17 Statement of bank account
Ex.P18 Notarised attested true copy of SSLC Marks
card
Ex.P19 Notarised attested true copy of PUC Marks
card
Ex.P20 Notarised attested true copy of 3 year
Degree Marks cards
Ex.P21 Notarised attested true copy of Degree
certificate
Ex.P22 Notarised attested true copy of BED Marks
card
33 (SCCH-8) M.V.C. No.269/2015
Ex.P23 Notarised attested true copy of Bachelor of
Education certificate
Ex.P24 Notarised attested true copy of 2 MA Marks
cards
Ex.P25 Notarised attested true copy of Certificate
Ex.P26 11 Photos with CD
Ex.P27 One X-ray film
Ex.P28 Inpatient case file
Ex.P29 One X-ray film with report
Ex.P30 Authorization letter
Ex.P31 Notarised attested true copy of ID Card
Ex.P32 Notarised attested true copy of Aadhaar
card
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Sri Mahesh H.C. List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.