Bangalore District Court
B.M.Lalitha vs Smt. Uma Maheshwari on 11 November, 2016
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.4616/2015
Dated this the 11th day of November 2016
Petitioner/s : B.M.LALITHA
W/o Murthy B.M.T
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.227/3, 'Samruddhi'
7th cross, Anubhava nagara,
Nagarabhavi road,
Bangalore-560 072.
(By pleader Sri AD)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. SMT. UMA MAHESHWARI
W/o Ramesh.M
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.11, 7th cross,
C/o Laxmamma's House,
Ashoka clinic road,
Meenakshi nagara,
Kamakshipalya,
Magadi main road,
Bangalroe-560 079.
2. SRI CHALUVARAJ
S/o Thimmarayappa
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.265, 7th cross,
R.P.C Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-560 040.
(R1-By pleader Sri SGL
R2-Dismissed)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.4616/2015
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 07.10.2014 at about 04.45 p.m., the petitioner was traveling in Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 from Papireddy palya to Anubhavanagar, Bangalore along with other passengers. When they reached near Terige Bhavan under pass, Nagarabhavi ring road, at that time, the driver of the said autorickshaw drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, without observing traffic rules and regulations, in a high speed and turned his vehicle to left side and jumped the road humps. As a result, the autorickshaw turned turtle autorickshaw. Due to impact, the petitioner sustained C-5 to C7 fracture dislocation with traumatic disc prolapse and injury to other parts of the body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Fortis Hospital, Nagarabhavi and thereafter to Private clinics and nursing homes. The petitioner spent Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,50,000/- towards conveyance and Rs.75,000/- towards nourishment. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged 64 years, was a housewife. Due to accidental injuries, she is not able to do house hold work and not able to stand log time, walk long distance, not able to bend her back portion, not able to cook and she is facing difficulty to sleep. The SCCH-14 3 MVC No.4616/2015 petitioner engaged maid servant to look after her house hold work and paying Rs.5,000/- per month. Kamakshipalya Traffic police have registered Cr.No.132/2014 against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent is the owner of said autorickshaw and he is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for a compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- with Court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent no.1 has appeared before the Court through his counsel, but he has not filed his written statement. During the proceedings, the counsel for petitioner filed memo for deletion of name of the respondent no.2. Since, the respondent no.2 is the driver of autorickshaw involved in the accident, memo came to be accepted and petition as against the respondent no.2 came to be dismissed.
4. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 11. Then, heard arguments and perused the records.
5. The points arise my consideration are:
1. Whether the petitioner has proved that she has sustained grievous injuries leading to permanent disability in a road traffic accident on 07.10.2014 at about 04.45 p.m., near Terige Bhavan under pass Nagarabhavi ring road, Bangalore in an accident arising due to rash and SCCH-14 4 MVC No.4616/2015 negligent driving of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-
4822?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much?
3. What Order?
6. My findings :
Point No.1: In Affirmative.
Point No.2: In Affirmative, For Rs.5,85,000/-. Point No.3: As per final order:
for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT NO.1: The petitioner is the victim. The respondent no.1 is the owner of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02- AA-4822. The petition as against the respondent no.2 i.e., driver of autorickshaw is already dismissed as not pressed. The petitioner has pleaded that she sustained grievous injury in the nature of permanent disablement in the accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02- AA-4822. The respondent no.1 has not filed her objection statement. Hence, the averments of the petition remained unchallenged.
8. PW1:Lalitha is the petitioner and she has reiterated entire averments of the petition and stated that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Autorickshaw SCCH-14 5 MVC No.4616/2015 bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 in which she was traveling as passenger, that due to impact, she sustained fracture of C5 to C7 dislocation with traumatic disc prolapse and injuries to other parts of the body, that the police have registered Cr.No.132/214 against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822, that after investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the said driver for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC and U/Sec. 146, 196, 180 of MV Act. Her evidence remained un- controverted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve her evidence.
9. The petitioner has produced police records namely FIR with complaint, sketch, panchanama, IMV report, charge sheet, copy of 133 notice and copy of reply to 133 notice to corroborate her oral evidence which are marked as Ex.P1 to 7. She has produced copy of wound certificate, discharge summary (2 in nos.) and medical bills for Rs.6,29,916/- which are marked as Ex.P8 to
11. These documents support the oral evidence of PW.1 regarding manner of accident and nature of injury caused to her in the accident.
10. On perusal of wound certificate and discharge summaries, it reveals that the petitioner has sustained C5 to C7 fracture dislocation with traumatic Disc prolapse, that the petitioner was admitted in Fortis Hospital on 07.10.2014 with history of RTA. The said injury is described as grievous in nature and it is in the nature of permanent disablement. There is noting on record to disbelieve the contents of wound certificate and SCCH-14 6 MVC No.4616/2015 discharge summaries. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in nature of permanent disablement.
11. On perusal of police records at Ex.P1 to 7, it reveals that Kamakshipalya Traffic police have registered Cr.No.132/2014 on 08.10.2014 at 07.30 p.m., on the basis of information given by the petitioner, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 279, 337, 338 of IPC and against the respondent no.1 for the offences punishable U/Sec.146, 196, 180 of MV Act. There was a delay of a day in lodging complaint, but wound certificate at Ex.P8 reveals that the petitioner was taken to Fortis Hospital at 05.10 p.m., on 07.10.2014 with the history of RTA. Thus, there was no delay in admitting the petitioner to the hospital. She was in the hospital during period of delay. Hence, delay of a day in lodging complaint is reasonable and acceptable. Registration number of the autorickshaw is clearly mentioned in the complaint. The police have drawn mahazar and prepared sketch in the place of accident. The said documents reveal that the autorickshaw was driven from west to east and was taken towards left suddenly which resulted in turtling of autorickshaw. The police have detained Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 and subjected it to IMV inspection. IMV report at Ex.P4 discloses that the said autorickshaw was damaged. Its brake system was in order and it is opined that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle. Registration of FIR and detention of autorickshaw were not challenged by the SCCH-14 7 MVC No.4616/2015 respondent no.1. On the other hand, she has submitted her reply to Sec.133 notice as per Ex.P7. These aspects confirm that Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 was involved in the accident. The damages caused to the autorickshaw go to show that the said vehicle was driven in rash and negligent manner and it was made to turtle in the place of the accident. Thus, the police records at Ex.P1 to 7 corroborate the oral evidence of PW.1 which clearly establish the averments of the petition regarding manner of accident and negligence of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 for the occurrence of the accident. The respondent no.1 has no defence and she has not adduced any evidence on her behalf to prove that there is no nexus between the injury of the petitioner and alleged accident. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has succeeded to prove this issue and I answer the same in affirmative.
12. ISSUE NO.2: The petitioner has claimed compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- from the respondent no.1 for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. It is held above that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822 of which the respondent no.1 is the owner. It is further held that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the nature of permanent disablement. Evidence of PW.1, copy of wound certificate and discharge summaries at Ex.P8 and 9 disclose that the petitioner has sustained C5 to C7 fracture dislocation with traumatic Disc prolapse in the accident. She was SCCH-14 8 MVC No.4616/2015 admitted in Fortis hospital on 07.10.2014 and underwent following procedure in the hospital:
"C5-6. C6-7 MICRODISCECTOMY, C5-7 FUSION WITH ILIAC CREST BONE GRAFT USING JAYON TITANIUM PLATE AND SCREWS DONE UNDER GA ON 10.10.14".
The petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 18.10.2014 with an advice to take follow up treatment and rest. She was again admitted to Fortis hospital on 24.10.2014 and underwent conservative treatment. She was discharged on 30.10.2014 with an advice to take follow up treatment and rest. Thus, the petitioner was an inpatient in the hospital for about 19 days. She might have taken follow up treatment and rest for a period of 2 to 2½ months. Total laid period of the petitioner comes to 3 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart from incurring medical expenses. The petitioner is a house wife and there cannot be any loss of income during laid period. There is no evidence regarding quantum of amount spent for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. PW.1 has deposed that she spent Rs.5,00,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.1,50,000/- for conveyance and Rs.75,000/- for nourishment, but there is no corroboration to her evidence except medical bills at Ex.P10 and 11. Total amount of medical bills is Rs.6,29,906/-. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said medical bills, but bill at Sl.No.2 amounting to Rs.42,341-/ at Ex.P10 is an Intermediate bill. Bill at Sl.No.8 amounting to Rs.53,122/- at SCCH-14 9 MVC No.4616/2015 Ex.P10 is settlement receipt. Bill at Sl.No.23 amounting to Rs.2,120/- of Ex.P11 is part of bill at Sl.No.22. Bill at Sl.No.55 amounting to Rs.10,000/- and bill at Sl.No.59 amounting to Rs.5,000/- of Ex.P11 are receipts pertaining to final bill of NIMHANS at Sl.No.6 in Ex.P10. Bills at Sl.No.64 to 66 of Ex.P11 totally amounting to Rs.1,33,200/- are pertaining to physiotherapy treatment. The physiotherapy charges under those bills are unreasonable. The petitioner has not examined author of said bills. Hence, bills pertaining to physiotherapy treatment are liable to be rejected. However, the petitioner is entitled for reasonable amount towards physiotherapy charges. Total amount of inadmissible bills at Sl.No.2, 8 of Ex.P10 and bills at Sl.No.23, 55, 59 and 64 to 66 of Ex.P11 comes to Rs.2,45,783/-. The said amount shall have to be deducted from total amount of medical bills. After deduction of said amount, net amount spent by the petitioner comes to Rs.3,84,123/-. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.3,85,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.25,000/- towards nourishment and conveyance and Rs.25,000/- towards attendant charges. She has taken physiotherapy treatment. Hence, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards said treatment.
13. The petitioner is having several difficulties. Evidence of PW.1 in that regard remained unchallenged, but there is no medical evidence regarding extent of disability suffered by the petitioner. In the absence of evidence of doctor, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not suffering from any disability of permanent SCCH-14 10 MVC No.4616/2015 in nature. However, her difficulties may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities and happiness of life. There is no evidence regarding requirement of treatment to the petitioner in future. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards disability and future medical expenses. However, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs.3,85,000/- 3 Nourishment and Rs. 25,000/-
conveyance 4 Attendant charges Rs. 25,000/- 5 physiotherapy treatment Rs. 50,000/- 6 Loss of amenities Rs. 50,000/-
Total Rs.5,85,000/-
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3238/2015 (arising out of SLP (C) 1865/2014 (Chanderi Devi and Anr., Vs. Jaspalsingh & Ors.,) and Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.2326/2016 (Annapurna & Ors., G.Ashawathraya & Anr.,) have held that rate of interest shall be @9% p.a., Hence, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
14. The respondent no.1 is the owner of Autorickshaw bearing No.KA-02-AA-4822. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said vehicle. Hence, the respondent no.1 is liable to pay compensation and interest as SCCH-14 11 MVC No.4616/2015 stated above. He shall deposit the amount within stipulated time. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
15. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- with interest and he is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.75,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled and co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the SCCH-14 12 MVC No.4616/2015 petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 11th day of November 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 13 MVC No.4616/2015
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 B.M.Lalitha
Respondent' s NIL
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
Ex.P2 - Copy of Sketch
Ex.P3 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P4 - Copy of IMV Report
Ex.P5 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P6 - Copy of 133 notice
Ex.P7 - Copy of Reply to 133 notice
Ex.P8 - Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P9 - Discharge Summary (2 in nos.)
Ex.P10 -Medical bills (12 in nos.,)
Ex.P11 -Medical bills (66 in nos.,)
Respondent's NIL
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.4616/2015
Dt.10.11.2016
P-AD
R1-SGL
R2 -Dismissed
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- with interest and he is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.75,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled and co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, SCCH-14 15 MVC No.4616/2015 Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 16 MVC No.4616/2015
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.4616/2015 Petitioner/s : B.M.LALITHA W/o Murthy B.M.T Aged about 64 years, R/at No.227/3, 'Samruddhi' 7th cross, Anubhava nagara, Nagarabhavi road, Bangalore-560 072.
(By pleader Sri AD) V/s Respondent/s 1. SMT. UMA MAHESHWARI W/o Ramesh.M Aged about 38 years, R/at No.11, 7th cross, C/o Laxmamma's House, Ashoka clinic road, Meenakshi nagara, Kamakshipalya, Magadi main road, Bangalroe-560 079.
2. SRI CHALUVARAJ S/o Thimmarayappa Aged about 41 years, R/at No.265, 7th cross, R.P.C Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore-560 040.
(R1-By pleader Sri SGL R2-Dismissed) SCCH-14 17 MVC No.4616/2015 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for
the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a
motor Accident by vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent no.1 is liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.5,85,000/-
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.4616/2015with interest and he is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.75,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled and co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 19 MVC No.4616/2015By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 _________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. -----------------------------------
Decree Drafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR