Bangalore District Court
Sri. Ramachandrappa H.B vs Sri. Gopala Swamy S on 4 April, 2022
KABC020077052016
BEFORE THE COURT OF VIII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND THE MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL (SCCH5) AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
PRESENT: SRI. KUMARA.S. B.A., LLB.,
VIII ADDL. SCJ & ACMM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
M.V.C No.4294/2016
PETITIONER : Sri. Ramachandrappa H.B.
S/o. Byluhuchappa
Hindu, Aged about 58 years
R/of. Hurlichikkanahalli,
Chikkabanavara Post,
Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 090.
(By Sri.T.C.Sathishkumar, Adv..)
V/s
RESPONDENTS : 1. Sri. Gopala Swamy S.
S/o. Srinivasa Murthy V.
Hindu, Major
R/at. No.123,
Meenakshinagar,
2 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
Gopi School Road,
Electronic City,
Bengaluru - 560 100.
(Exparte)
2. The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regional Office,
Krishi Bhavana,
V & VI Floors,
Hudson Circle,
Nrupathunga Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
(By Sri.S.R.Srinatha, Adv.,)
****
::JUDGMENT::
This is a petition filed by the Petitioner against Respondents for seeking compensation on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident.
2. The brief facts of case of the Petitioner is that:
On 22.06.2015 at about 2.45 p.m. when the Petitioner was pedestrian near R.K.Dhaba in Old 3 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 Chandapura on the road side of NH7, at that time, Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA03N8902 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from Bengaluru side, dashed against the Petitioner, due to the accident, Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Venkateshwara Nursing Home, Bommasandra and further admitted to Ramani Orthopaedic Center, Vyalikaval and admitted as inpatient from 22.06.2015 to 23.06.2016 and on the same day, the Petitioner was shifted to Manipal North Side Hospital, Mallehwaram and treated as inpatient from 23.06.2015 to 27.06.2016 and underwent surgery and spent more than Rs.2,50,000/ towards medical expenses and due to the accidental injuries, he suffered from pain and sufferings, loss of income and became permanent disabled. Prior to the accident, he was aged about 4 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 58 years, was doing delivery of medicines of Lotus Medicare, Chamarajpet and also Agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/ p.m. The accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Car. The Hebbagodi Police have registered case against the driver of the offending Car. The 1st Respondent being the owner and 2nd Respondent being the insurer of the offending Car are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.22,50,000/ together with interest and costs.
3. In pursuance of service of notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement. But, inspite of service of notice, the Respondent No.1 remained absent, hence, placed exparte.
4. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied the entire case of the Petitioner and also 5 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 denied alleged accident, involvement of the vehicle, injuries sustained by the Petitioner, rash and negligent driving of offending Car and also denied age, occupation and income, injuries sustained by the Petitioner, treatment and expenses incurred by the Petitioner and admits issuance of policy to the offending Car, in policy bearing No.0704033114110815681 valid from 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016, which is liability only policy and subject to terms and conditions of the policy and it is further contended that, the Petitioner has not produced Wound Certificate insupport of his claim and sketch to substantiate his claim for the compensation and compensation claimed is highly exorbitant, inconsistent and unreasonable.
5. It is further contended that, the Petitioner should have taken care while walking on the road side on 6 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 NH7, because, the road happens to be heavy traffic highway road, he should have moved/crossed at zeebra crossing only by observing the traffic rules at the signal point only and it is due to carelessness, recklessness of the injured, the accident was occurred. Hence, pray for dismiss the petition against this Respondent.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following:
::ISSUES::
1. Whether Petitioner proves that, on 22.06.2015 at about 2.45 p.m. while he was pedestrian near R.K.Dhaba in Old Chandapura on NH7, Anekal Taluk, Begaluru, at that time, a driver of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No. KA03N8902 driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Petitioner, as a result of which, Petitioner fell down and he sustained grievous injuries, as mentioned in claim petition?7 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed in the petition? If so, from which Respondent?
3. What order or award?
7. The Petitioner in order to prove his case, he himself examined as PW1, two witnesses have been examined as PW2 and PW3 and got marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and closed his side evidence. On behalf of Respondent No.2 Insurance Company, 4 witnesses have been examined as RW1 to RW4 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.8 and closed its side evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Respondent No.2 and perused the records.
8 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
9. My findings on the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
following:
::REASONS::
10. Issue No.1: The Petitioner inorder to prove his case, he himself examined as PW1 and in his chief examination evidence, he has reiterated petition averments therein. Though he has been elaborately crossexamined by the Respondent No.2 counsel, but nothing is brought on record to to disbelieve the case of the Petitioner regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending Car and injuries sustained by the Petitioner. Further, in the crossexamination he admits that, he has not produced any documents regarding his avocation and income.
9 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
11. PW2 is a Doctor, who treated and assessed disability of the Petitioner has stated that, the Petitioner sustained right humerus shaft fracture with butterfly fragment with wrist drop, radial nerve injury and fracture of left clavicle and Petitioner has sustained whole body disability at 25.4%. Though he has been elaborately crossexamined by the Respondent No.2 counsel, nothing is brought on record to disprove his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the road traffic accident and denied to the suggestion that, injuries sustained by the Petitioner is simple in nature and denied to the suggestion that, they have treated conservatively. Witness volunteers that, it was treated surgically and denied to the suggestion that, clavicle fracture is united, but he volunteers that, the fractures is 10 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 united with mal position and admits humorous fracture is united.
12. PW3 is said to be eyewitness to the accident, he clearly deposed that, as on the date of accident, he was standing on the road side on the accident spot and Petitioner was crossing the road, at that time, offending Maruti Car driver came from Bengaluru side towards Hosur in rash and negligent manner and dashed to him, due to the said accident, Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he along with other persons shifted him to Venkaeshwara Nursing Home, Bommasandra. Though he has been elaborately cross examined by the Respondent No.2 counsel, nothing is brought on record to disbelieve the evidence of this witness regarding rash and negligent driving of the Car by its driver and injuries sustained by the Petitioner and 11 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 he also admits to the suggestion that, the accident was occurred when the passenger was crossing the road and he also stated that, there is no zebra crossing, since, there was a repair work was going on.
13. Apart from the oral evidence, the Petitioner has got marked 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Ex.P.1 is copy of FIR filed in Crime No.365/2015 of Hebbagodi Police, initially which was filed against the driver of the offending Maruti Car. The complaint annexed to the FIR discloses that, as on the date of accident itself, a complaint was lodged against the driver of the Maruthi Car with its Registration Number. Ex.P.2 is Discharge Summary issued by Manipal Hospitals, which shows that, Petitioner was admitted in the said hospital for treatment due to accidental injuries on 23.06.2015 and was discharged on 27.06.2015 and he underwent 12 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 surgery. Ex.P.3 is Medical Certificate issued by Ramani Orthoopaedic Centre, it shows that, on 23.06.2015 itself, the said hospital authorities have sent an intimation to Sadashivanagar Police Station regarding the road traffic accident and same was received by the Police. Ex.P.6 are Xray Films. Ex.P.7 is copy of complaint given by the Petitioner dated 17.07.2017 to SP, Bengaluru Rural District, against the Hebbagodi Police authorities, as they have not taken any action or have not proceeded further to investigate the accident case, wherein offending Maruthi Car was involved in the accident. This clearly goes to show that, even though the complaint was lodged on the date of the accident against the driver of the Maruthi Car with registration number, but Police have only filed FIR, but not further proceed in the case and they have not conducted further investigation, hence, 13 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 aggrieved by the said conduct of the Police, the complaint was lodged before higher authorities. Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 are Case Sheets. Ex.P.11 are Xray Films of the Petitioner.
14. On going through above oral and documentary evidence, as on the date of the accident itself, the Petitioner was lodged complaint before Police and Police have registered FIR in their crime number, but they are not proceeded further for investigation. In this regard, the Petitioner has lodged complaint before higher authorities to take action against the jurisdictional Police, who have not conducted investigation properly,
15. Further, to disprove the case of the Petitioner, Respondent No.2 Insurance Company examined 4 witnesses as RW1 to RW4. RW1 is Orthopaedic 14 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 Surgeon at Ramani & Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, who has produced 2 MLC Registers and Police Intimation.
16. RW2 is Investigation Officer, who has conducted part of investigation in the said case has deposed that, he had Investigation Officer of the Crime No.365/2015 and since vehicle was not traced out which was allegedly caused the accident, on 13.06.2016 he has filed final 'C' Report in the said case and said 'C' Report is marked as Ex.R.4. In the crossexamination by the Petitioner counsel, he has stated that, one Head Constable No.635 was searching the vehicle and the driver and he submitted 'C' Report that, the driver of the said offending vehicle was not traced out and he has submitted report in this regard. He also stated that, on 29.10.2015 they have called owner of the vehicle Gopalakrishna and on enquiry, he stated that, he has 15 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 sold the said vehicle to his family friend since 2 years back and P.C.No.1069 was received 'B' Register Extract of the vehicle and admits that, notice issued by the Police dated 19.05.2016 was received by the owner, as per Ex.R.5 and he also admits that, Suryanagar Police have not issued any notice under Sec.133 of the M.V.Act to the owner of the vehicle and also stated that, he has not find any records regarding action taken by the Police against the earlier owner of the vehicle, Gopalaswamy and they have not issued any notice to the owner of the vehicle to give details and to produce documents pertaining to driver of the vehicle and also to produce driving license and denied to the suggestion that, the Police have not conducted investigation properly.
16 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
17. RW3 is working as an Officer in the Insurance Company has reiterated written statement averments in her chiefexamination evidence. In the crossexamination by the Petitioner counsel she admits that, there is delay in investigating the case, as the criminal case was transferred from Hebbagodi Police Station to Suryanagar Police Station and also stated that, she has not conducted any investigation through Investigator regarding the accident and involvement of the vehicle as there is no criminal case was pending against the driver or owner of the vehicle and admits that, Respondent No.1 Gopalaswamy is the insured of the offending vehicle and also stated that, they have not issued notice to the said Gopalaswmy as the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and also stated that, since Police have not filed charge sheet against any vehicle, they have not 17 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 issued notice either to the owner or to the driver of the offending Car and also admits that, insured has paid Rs.1,269/ towards premium of Insurance Policy and Insurance Policy was valid from 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016 and said policy is liability only policy and also stated that, they have not produced any documents to show that, her Company has appointed Investigator for investigation and they have visited the house of Respondent No.1.
18. RW4 is Investigator of the Insurance Company and in his chiefevidence he has stated that, Police have not filed any charge sheet against any person for alleged accident and he tried to visit the R.C.Owner of the vehicle Gopalaswamy, who was the R.C.Owner of the offending Car and he visited twice to his residential house and he noticed that, house was locked and nobody 18 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 gave proper information about the owner of the vehicle, which is said to be involved in the accident. In the cross examination by the Petitioner counsel, he stated that, he has conducted investigation only in the year 2021 and also admits that, in the instant case, Insurance Company has appointed him for conducting investigation after 5 years of the accident and also admits that, incase if the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 and Police have colluded with each other, there is no question of Petitioner filing complaint before SP, Bengaluru Rural District. 19. On behalf of Respondent No.2, there are 8 documents have been marked. Ex.R.1 is copy of Accident Register of Ramani Orthopaedic Centre, wherein it is mentioned that, on 22.06.2015 the Petitioner was admitted in the said hospital due to accidental injuries. Ex.R.2 is copy of Police Intimation issued by Manipal 19 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 Northside Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein it shows that, on 23.06.2015 the Petitioner was admitted in the said hospital and in the history of the accident it is clearly mentioned that, alleged H/o. RTA hit by a 4 wheeler while crossing the road. Ex.R.3 is copy of Police Intimation given by Ramani Orthopaedic Centre to the concerned jurisdictional Police regarding the accident. Ex.R.4 is Requisition given by the Hebbagodi Police to this Court regarding submission of 'C' Report, as Police have not traced address of the owner of the vehicle. Ex.R.5 is copy of Police Notice issued to the owner of the offending Car. Ex.R.6 is 'B' Register Extract of the offending vehicle, wherein owner name is mentioned as Smt.Shubhashini.
20. Therefore, on going through above evidence of Respondents, it clearly goes to show that, as on the date 20 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 of accident itself, the complaint was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle. But, inspite of mentioning registration number of the vehicle in the complaint and FIR, Police have not conducted investigation properly and trace out the vehicle. In this regard, the Petitioner has filed complaint against jurisdictional Police before SP, Bengaluru Rural District to take action against Police authorities as they have not conducted investigation properly. On perusal of the MLC Extract of the hospital, there was clearly mentioning of history of road traffic accident hit by 4 wheeler while crossing the road. Though the Petitioner has clearly mentioned the vehicle number in complaint, but Police have not traced out the said vehicle or owner or driver for the reasons best known to them. Even though they have issued notice to the owner, who is said to be earlier owner of the offending vehicle, 21 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 but they have not properly collected evidence regarding, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle as on the date of accident and even they have not make any efforts to issue notice or to collect evidence regarding subsequent owner of the offending vehicle.
21. Further, Respondent No.2 in its written statement para No.4 admits issuance of policy in favour of offending Car. The Respondent No.2 counsel has filed memo with policy schedule of the offending Car, it discloses that, the policy is Private Car Liability Only Policy and insured by one Gopala Swamy, who is none other than Respondent No.1 and said policy was valid from 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016. The alleged accident was occurred on 22.06.2015. Hence, as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy of the offending Car was valid and is in force. Though there is clear mention of the 22 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 owner or insured of the vehicle as Gopala Swamy, the Respondent No.1 and though there was Insurance Policy was valid, but, Police have not made any efforts to trace out the vehicle or to trace out the driver, who caused accident and without proper investigation, they have filed 'C' Report before criminal court.
22. The Petitioner has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a decision reported in MFA No.6863/2014 C/w. MFA No.1541/2015 in a case of Ravi @ Ravindra V/s. Thammanna and others, in the said case, the Police have filed 'B' Report by holding that, there was no accident and false story has been concocted for the purpose of the claim.
In Para 46 of the judgment, it is held that, "It is thus clear that from the year 2013 atleast, the onus of establishing the accident is 23 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 completely on the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company is required to gather full information of the accident, ascertain and verify the fact of insurance of the vehicle involved in the accident and confirm the same to the Tribunal".
In para 47 it is held that, "This salutary and solemn duty cast on the Insurance Company cannot be wished by the Companies and it cannot shirk this responsibility cast on them statutorily by simply collecting the documents of the prosecution, such as the FIR, Statements and the Charge Sheet and contend that, they had proved or disproved the occurrence of the accident".
In para 49 it is held that, 24 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 "If an Accident Information Report or a report of the Registering Authority, is produced before the Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal can presume their contents to be correct, unless the contrary is proved. This, therefore, indicates that there is no burden cast upon the claimant at all to prove the occurrence of the accident and the entire onus on disproving the accident is on the insurer".
In para 51 it is held that, "In my view, if the Insurance Companies do not discharge the duties imposed upon them under Rule 232 of the KMV Rules, it will have to be held that the Insurance Companies have accepted the occurrence of the accident and would be liable to pay compensation if they have issued a Certificate of Insurance". In para 55 it is held that, 25 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 "Unfortunately, in all most all the cases, the claimants are called upon to prove and establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accident had occurred. The Insurance Companies, instead of following the procedure prescribed under the KMV Rules are merely in the habit of producing Police records and contending that the accident did not occur in the manner stated in the claim petition or that there were severe discrepancies in the pleadings and evidence".
In para 56 it is held that, "It is, therefore, necessary that all the Insurers and the Claims Tribunals take note of the amendments made to the KMV Rules in 2013 and ensure that their respective obligations in ensuring the victims of motor vehicle accidents secure their compensation". 26 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5 In para 57 it is held that, "Keeping this scheme of the Act and Rules in mind, if the facts of this case are to be analysed, it is clear that the claimant informed the Medical Officer within an hour of the occurrence of the accident that he had suffered a road traffic accident. This information was reiterated by the claimant when he was shifted to the Government Hospital. These two factors by themselves establish that a road traffic accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the claimant".
In para 58 it is held that, "The assertion that the Police had investigated the complaint and lodged a 'B' report and therefore, the version of the claimant is to be disregarded cannot be accepted".
27 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
23. In the present case on hand, it is clear that, the Petitioner has informed to the hospital authorities within hour of occurrence of the accident and he also intimated or lodged complaint before Police regarding accident caused by the vehicle by mentioning the registration number of the vehicle and MLC was registered in the hospital and on the very next day, hospital authorities have also intimated the factum of the accident and injuries sustained by the Petitioner to the Police. But, inspite of it, the Police have not properly investigated the case and trace out the vehicle, owner and driver, even though there was sufficient materials before them and only on the basis of the statement of the earlier owner, Respondent No.1, as two years back he has sold or transferred the vehicle to other person, they 28 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 have filed 'C' Report. Therefore, though the Police filed 'C' Report in this case, the Petitioner has proved the occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident by producing oral and documentary evidence, particularly, by examination of eyewitness, PW3 and Petitioner has also produced MLC Extract, Police Intimation and copy of Complaint lodged before higher authorities against the Police, who have not properly conducted investigation of the case and copy of complaint and FIR also substantiate the case of the Petitioner.
24. Further, the Petitioner has relied upon judgment reported in 2005 ACJ 624 in a case of Vishundeo Mahto and Others V/s. Kodai Sahni and Others, rendered by High Court of Judicature at Patna, wherein in para 7 it is held that, 29 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 "NegligenceIdentity of vehicleTractor hit a cycle and one of the two riders sustained fatal injuriesClaimants produced FIR, Statement of father of the deceased who was an eyewitness and postmortem report and examined another witness in support of their claimTractor number is mentioned in F.I.R. and a criminal case was instituted on the basis of statement of father of the deceasedPostmortem report shows that cause of death was fracture of skull bone caused by heavy vehicle which may be a tractorTribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that claimants failed to produce charge sheet in criminal case - Appellate Court reversed the finding and held that oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants is sufficient to establish that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor".
30 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
25. In the instant case also, the Petitioner has produced oral and documentary evidence for the satisfaction of the Tribunal that, the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending Car by its driver. Therefore, in view of the above reasoning and discussions, I am of the opinion that, though the Police have filed 'C' Report, but materials on records is sufficient to hold that, on 22.06.2015 at about 2.45 p.m. while Petitioner was pedestrian near R.K.Dhaba in Old Chandapura on NH7, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, at that time, the driver of the Maruthi Car bearing Reg.No.KA03N8902 driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Petitioner, as a result of which, Petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in claim petition. Hence, 31 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 the Petitioner has proved Issue No.1. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
26. Issue No.2: This issue is related to the entitlement of the compensation on account of the grievous injuries sustained by the Petitioner in Motor Vehicle Accident. The Petitioner in his pleadings and evidence has stated that, prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged about 58 years, was delivering medicines of Lotus Modicare, Chamarajapet and also Agriculturist and earning Rs.15,000/ p.m. and spent Rs.2,50,000/ towards medical expenses and became permanent disabled.
27. It is the duty of the Petitioner to prove his age, avocation and income. The Petitioner has not produced any school records or birth certificate for the proof of his age. However, he has stated in his evidence that, he was 32 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 aged about 58 years as on the date of accident. The medical records also discloses that, the Petitioner was aged about 58 years as on the date of accident. Hence, this Tribunal has assessed the age of the Petitioner at 58 years as on the date of accident.
28. With respect to avocation and income, the Petitioner has not produced any documents or materials before the Tribunal. Hence, in the absence of materials regarding avocation and income of the Petitioner, this Tribunal has placed reliance on Chart issued by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru i.e., notional income as per KSLSA Norms for the year 2015 is Rs.9,000/ p.m. Hence, this Tribunal has assessed the notional income of the Petitioner at Rs.9,000/ p.m.
29. The Petitioner has sustained grievous injuries i.e., right humerus shaft fracture with butterfly fragment 33 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 with wrist drop, radial nerve injury and fracture of left clavicle. The grievous injuries sustained by the Petitioner is evident from Ex.P.2 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.3 Medical Certificate, Ex.P.6 Xray Films, Ex.P.8 OPD Card, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10 Case Sheets and Ex.P.11 Xray Films. But, he has not produced any Wound Certificate. However, Petitioner has examined the Doctor as PW2, who stated that Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident and the said documents are supported by oral evidence of Petitioner and Doctor, who are examined as PW1 and PW2 respectively.
30. PW2, who is Doctor, who examined the Petitioner has stated that, he has assessed total loss of function in left upper limb is at 16.59% and whole body disability at 25.4%.
34 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
31. Considering the nature of the injuries, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/ towards pain and sufferings. The Petitioner was treated as inpatient for a period of 6 days at Manipal Hospitals and Ramani Orthopaedic Centre. Considering the duration of treatment, a sum of Rs.25,000/ is awarded towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. As per Ex.P.5 the Medical Bills are amounting to Rs.1,21,462/.
32. Considering the grievous injuries sustained by the Petitioner and disability as stated by the Doctor and on account of the discomfort and unhappiness the claimant has to undergo in his future life, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.25,000/ towards loss of amenities.
35 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5
33. The Petitioner has not placed any materials or evidence regarding his future medical expenses. Hence, Petitioner is not entitled for compensation in the head of future medical expenses.
34. The Petitioner was aged about 58 years as per the materials on record. As already discussed above, this Tribunal has assessed the age of the Petitioner at 58 years as on the date of accident and the multiplier applicable to the age group of 58 years is 9, as per the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in a decision reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 in between Sarla Verma and Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors. Case and this Tribunal has assessed notional income of the Petitioner at Rs.9,000/ p.m. and it is multiplied by 12. PW2, the Doctor who examined the Petitioner has stated 36 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 that, Petitioner has sustained whole body physical disability at 25.4%. But, the Petitioner has not produced any Wound Certificate. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, this Tribunal has assessed whole body physical disability of the Petitioner at 20%.
Therefore, the loss of future income works out as under;
9,000/x12x9x20% = Rs.1,94,400/.
35. Accordingly, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation as detailed below: Sl.No. Head of Compensation Amount in Rs.
1. Loss of future income 1,94,40000
2. Pain and Sufferings 25,00000
3. Conveyance, Nourishment and 25,00000 Attendant Charges
4. Medical Expenses 1,21,46200
5. Loss of amenities in life 25,00000 37 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5
6. Loss of income during laid up 1,80000 period Total 3,92,66200
36. Accordingly I hold that, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,92,662/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
37. The Respondent No.2 in its written statement admitted issuance of policy in favour of offending vehicle and as per the policy schedule produced by the Respondent No.2, the policy of the offending vehicle is liability only policy and was valid from 08.03.2015 to 07.03.2016. The alleged accident was occurred on 22.06.2015. Therefore, as on the date of accident, the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle was valid and is in force. The liability only policy covers third party risks. 38 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5 The Respondent No.1 being the owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. However, as already discussed above, the Insurance Policy of the offending Car was valid and is in force as on the date of accident, the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company shall deposit the above said compensation with interest within two months from the date of this order. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 partly in affirmative.
38. Issue No.3: For the reasons assigned to Issues No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
::ORDER::
The petition filed by the Petitioner under Sec.166 of the M.V. Act, 1989 is partly allowed with cost.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,92,662/ (Rupees Three Lakhs Ninety Two 39 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Two Only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit above said compensation amount with interest within two months from the date of this order.
The Petitioner is entitled to get release 70% of the award amount through epayment directly to the Petitioner account by obtaining the Bank A/c details and remaining 30% shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Scheduled Bank for a period of three years, in his name.
The Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw award accordingly. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof is corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4th day of April, 2022) (KUMARA.S.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.40 MVC No.4294/2016
SCCH 5 ::A N N E X U R E::
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: PW1 : Sri. H.B.Ramachandrappa PW2 : Dr. K. Sadananda Hegde PW3 : Sri. L. Basavaraj LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: Ex.P.1 : Copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P.2 : Discharge Summary of Manipal Hospitals Ex.P.3 : Medical Certificate (Sl.No.1 to 2) Ramani Orthopaedic Centre Ex.P.4 : Lab Reports (Sl.No.1 to 5) Ex.P.5 : Medical Bills (Sl.No.1 to 19) of Rs.1,21,462.85 Ex.P.6 : 5 Xray Films Ex.P.7 : Copy of Complaint given to SP Ex.P.8 : OPD Card Ex.P.9 & : Case Sheets (2 in Nos.) Ex.P.10 Ex.P.11 : Xray Films (5 in Nos.) along with reports 41 MVC No.4294/2016 SCCH 5 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: RW1 : Dr. Sadananda Hegde RW2 : Sri. M. Jagadish RW3 : Smt. M.S. Savitha RW4 : Sri. K. Hegde LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: Ex.R.1 & : 2 MLC Registers Ex.R.2 Ex.R.3 : Police Intimation Ex.R.4 : Copy of 'C' Report Ex.R.5 : Copy of Police Notice Ex.R.5(a) : Signature of R1 Ex.R.6 : Copy of 'B" Register Extract Ex.R.7 : Authorization Letter Ex.R.8 : Investigation Report (KUMARA. S.) VIII ADDL. JUDGE & ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU.