Bangalore District Court
Kalpana @ Kalpana Bandaru vs Sbi General Ins on 18 January, 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.3336/2014
Dated this the 18th day of January 2016
Petitioner/s : Kalpana @ Kalpana Bandaru
W/o P.Vishwanth
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.1663/15,
Sri Maruthi Farm,
Near Impact College,
AMCO Layout,
Kodigehalli, Sahakaranagar,
Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri HVK)
V/s
Respondent/s 1. SBI General Ins., Co.Ltd.,
Rukmini Towers, No.3/1,
Platform road,
Seshadripuram,
Bangalore-20.
(Insurer of the lorry)
(By pleader Sri RSS)
2. Mr.Chandrashekar.G
S/o Govinda Raju
Major, R/at No.332,
Thanisandra,
Ashwathnagar,
Devesandra,
Bangalore-36.
(Owner of the lorry)
(By pleader Sri GNV)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.3336/2014
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
On 09.07.2014 at about 03.30 P.M., the petitioner was riding her Scooter bearing No.KA-41-R-1588 slowly and cautiously, observing all traffic rules on Kodigehalli main road. When she reached near Coco Cola Factory, at that time, lorry bearing No.KA- 19-C-1725 driven by its driver at very high speed, in rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed against the scooter of the petitioner. Due to impact, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries on her body. Immediately, the petitioner was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she was treated as inpatient. The petitioner sustained crush lacerated wound over the right leg below knee with multiple communited displaced fractures involving tibia and fibula bones with extensive emphysema noted in respect of entire leg with neurovascular injury. She has also sustained contusion injury to left thigh posterior aspect. She was bed ridden and was under treatment. She has spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards medical and nourishment expenses. She has to undertake further treatment and incur future medical expenses. She suffered permanent disability. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged 36 years, was working as Senior Manager, Finance & Accounts at Pristine Organics, Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore and was drawing salary of Rs.80,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries, she is not able to lead a normal life as a result loss of SCCH-14 3 MVC No.3336/2014 earning and earning capacity. Hebbala Traffic police have registered Cr.No.77/2014 against the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725. The respondents are the insurer and owner of the said lorry and are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Hence, the petitioner has sought for awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,00,000/- with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have appeared before the Court through their respective counsel and filed their objection statement separately. The respondent no.1 has admitted the issuance of policy in favour of respondent no.2 in respect of lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725, but he has denied the other averments of the petition as false. He has contended that the insured and concerned police have not complied with their mandatory duties, that the driver of the insured lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, that insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that there was no rash and negligent driving of the driver of the insured vehicle, that the alleged accident has occurred due to negligence on the part of the petitioner herself, that the accident has not occurred in the manner as stated in the petition, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and speculative when compared to comparable cases, which have been disposed off. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him with cost.
The respondent no.2 has contended that he is the R.C owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725, that the said vehicle was SCCH-14 4 MVC No.3336/2014 insured with the respondent no.1 vide policy no.0000000001455730, valid from 26.12.2013 to 25.12.2014, that the policy was in force as on the date of alleged accident, that the driver of the lorry was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, that the driver of the lorry was driving slowly and cautiously on the extreme left side of the road, that the petitioner who herself suddenly applied brakes and even after controlling the lorry, the accident has occurred, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry, that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive, exorbitant, unreasonable and speculative in nature. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition as against him.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she sustained grievious injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 09.07.2014 at about 03.30 p.m., Near Coco Cola Factory, Kodigehalli Main Road, Kodigehalli, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 and examined three witnesses as PW.2 to 4. She has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 38. The respondents have not adduced oral or documentary on their behalf.
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.3336/20146. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following rulings:
1. 2014 AIR SCW 856: Sanjay Verma Vs., Haryana Roadways.
2. 2001(a) KAR L.J.411 (DB): R.Venkatesh Vs., P.Saravanan & Ors., I have gone through the said rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In affirmative. For Rs.57,10,000/-
the respondent no.1.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The admitted fact of the case are that the respondents are the insurer and owner of lorry bearing No.KA-19-C- 1725, that on 09.07.2014 at 03.30 P.M., at near Coco Cola Factory, Kodigehalli main road, Kodigehalli, Bangalore, an accident has occurred in which the petitioner has sustained grievous injury, that Scooter bearing No.KA-41-R-1558 and lorry bearing No.KA-19-C- 1725 were involved in the accident, that Hebbala traffic police have registered Cr.No.77/14, investigated the matter and filed chargesheet against the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279,337 and 338 of IPC, that right leg of the petitioner is amputated through knee.
9. Both the respondents have contested the matter on the ground of negligence and cause for the amputation of leg. They have SCCH-14 6 MVC No.3336/2014 denied the occurrence of accident in the manner as stated by the petitioner and existence of negligence on the part of the driver of lorry. They have contended that the accident was due to negligence of the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has examined herself as PW.1 to prove the manner of accident and causing of grievous injury in the nature of permanent disablement. She has examined PW.2 Basavaraj to prove her occupation and income which is not helpful to decide this issue. PW.3 Yadunandan has only produced case sheet and X-rays of Columbia Asia Hospital pertaining to the petitioner and deposed in that regard. His evidence is not of any importance. The petitioner has examined PW.4 Dr.Ramachandar to prove the nature of injuries caused to her in the accident. His evidence is relevant. The respondents have not adduced any evidence on their behalf. However, the petitioner has got marked copies of police records as Ex.P1 to 7 and medical records as Ex.P7, 8, 25, 35 to 38 to corroborate oral evidence of PW.1 and 4.
11. Evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the oral evidence of PW.4 and documentary evidence at Ex.P7, 8, 25, 35 to 38 as to injuries. The said evidence collectively reveal that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury resulting in amputation of right leg through knee. PW.4 has stated that the injury has caused permanent disability to the petitioner to the extent of 75%. History of injury of the petitioner is shown as RTA in medical records. There is no delay in admitting the petitioner to the hospital. Injuries caused to the petitioner are described in wound certificate and discharge summary. The respondent no.1 has taken up SCCH-14 7 MVC No.3336/2014 a contention during the cross examination of PW.4 that amputation was done for some other reason. But, he has not produced any evidence to substantiate his contention. Evidence of PW.4 and contents of medical records at Ex.P7, 8, 25, 35 to 38 clearly reveal that the petitioner has sustained crush injury to right leg which resulted in amputation of said leg through knee. The said injury was caused due to RTA and it resulted in permanent disability.
12. The police have registered Cr.No.77/2014 on 10.07.2014, investigated the matter and filed chargesheet against driver of lorry. There was a delay of a day in lodging complaint. The petitioner was in the hospital during the period of delay. Husband of the petitioner filed complaint explaining the delay. The said explanation is believable. Thus, the delay in lodging compliant is not fatal to the case of the petitioner. The chargesheet is not challenged. There is nothing on record to believe that the chargesheet is defective or collusive. Copy of statement of the petitioner is at Ex.P2. Evidence of PW.1 is as per the contents of Ex.P2. The sketch and panchanama reveal that the petitioner was riding her scooter towards west in straight direction and the lorry was taking a left turn towards south. Impact of accident can be seen from the damages caused to the scooter and injury caused to the petitioner. There were no damages on the lorry as per IMV report at Ex.P5. Since, it is a bigger and heavier vehicle, non causing of damages to lorry is probable and it does not create any doubt. On the contrary, the scooter has sustained following damages:
"Tail lamp assly, Rear both indicates assly, Both side body, left rear foot rest, doom, front wheel mud SCCH-14 8 MVC No.3336/2014 guard, left rear view mirror, rear reg no board, rear wheel brake lever damaged".
The damages reveal that the lorry has dashed the scooter from behind on its right rear portion. The petitioner has sustained crush injury to her right leg. Such an injury can be caused only when wheel of lorry runs over the leg. The brake system of both the vehicles was in order. The driver of lorry could have avoided the accident by applying brakes and by driving the lorry slowly and cautiously while taking a left turn. Evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the contents of Ex.P1 to 6 which collectively substantiate the averments of the petition as to manner of accident and negligence of the driver of lorry for the occurrence of the accident. There is nothing on record to believe the defence of the respondents. The driver of the lorry was the best witness to speak about accident. The respondents have not examined him as witness. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from PW.1 as to negligence and from PW.4 as to nature of injury. Evidence of PW.1 and 4 and contents of Ex.P1 to 8, 25, 35 to 38 prove the averments of the petition as to occurrence of accident due to negligence of the driver of lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725 and as to causing of grievous injury in the nature of permanent disablement to the petitioner. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the respondents. Hence, I answer the issue in affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.2 : PW.1 Kalpana @ Kalpana Bandaru has stated that she was aged 36 years, was a Sr. Manager at Pristine Organics Pvt., Lvt., Bangalore and was drawing a salary of Rs.80,600/- p.m., Her evidence is as per the averments of the SCCH-14 9 MVC No.3336/2014 petition. Age of the petitioner is shown as 36 years in police records and medical records. Her date of birth is mentioned as 10.06.1978 in copy of PAN card at Ex.P13 and in lab reports at Ex.P24. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the date of birth mentioned in Ex.P13 and 24. If we consider the date of birth of the petitioner as 10.06.1978, it can be said that the petitioner was aged 36 years as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier is 15.
14. PW.2 Basavaraj has supported the version of PW.1 as to occupation and income. Copy of company ID of PW.2 is at Ex.P26 which reveals that PW.2 is General Manager (HR and Adm) of Pristine Organics Pvt., Ltd., Bangalore. There is nothing on record to disbelieve his status in respect said company and to disbelieve his evidence as to occupation and income of the petitioner. Copy of ID, of Appointment letter, salary certificate, pay slips, Form-16 are at Ex.P9 to 12 and 14. PW.2 has produced salary certificate, pay slips, copy of Form-16 and of attendance register which are marked as Ex.P27, 28, 33 and 34. The said documents are consistent with each other and support the version of PW.1 and 2. Bank statement of petitioner is at Ex.P21 which confirms the payment of salary to the petitioner as mentioned in salary slips and Form-16. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence produced by the petitioner regarding her occupation and income. It is evident that the petitioner was working as a Sr.Manager (Finance and Accounts) in Pristine Organics Pvt., Ltd., since 20.08.2011. She has drawn gross salary of Rs.78,800/- for the month of June-2014. The accident has occurred on 09.07.2014. Hence, salary for month of June-2014 shall have to be considered as income of the SCCH-14 10 MVC No.3336/2014 petitioner. She was getting a salary of Rs.78,800/- as on the date of accident. Professional tax and income tax shall be deducted from the said amount. The amount of said tax comes to Rs.8,800/- p.m., on prevailing rates. After deduction of same, the salary of the petitioner comes to Rs.70,000/- p.m., Her annual income comes to Rs.8,40,000/- after deduction of Income Tax and Professional Tax.
15. PW.1 Kalpanna has stated about the injuries caused to her, about the treated given to her in Columbia Asia Hospital in two admissions, about amputation of right leg, about quantum of amount spent by her for treatment, about quantum of amount paid by her insurer i.e., MD India Health Care Services (P) Ltd., about her difficulties. She has stated that the accidental injuries have caused permanent disability resulting in loss of earning and earning capacity, that she lost her job due to disability. Evidence of PW.4 and contents of Ex.P7, 8, 25, 35 to 38 corroborate the evidence of PW.1 as to injuries and effect of injuries. Evidence of PW.2:Basavaraj and contents of Ex.P15 to 18, 29 to 32 support the version of PW.1 as loss of earning and earning capacity.
16. Wound certificate and Discharge summary disclose that the petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1. Crush lacerated wound over the right leg below knee with multiple Communited displaced fracture involving tibia and fibula bones with extensive emphysema in respect noted over entire leg with neurovascular injury,
2. Left thigh posterior aspect small contusion present.SCCH-14 11 MVC No.3336/2014
17. The petitioner has undergone following courses of treatment in Columbia Hospital in two admissions i.e., from 09.07.2014 to 25.07.2014 and 13.08.2014 to 23.08.2014:
Ist Admission:
"Amputation, Disarticulation above knee, orthopedic Debridement, curettage, drainage, washout, supramajor, related to joint replacement".
IInd Admission:
" Debridement and skin grafting of right thigh Stump".
The petitioner has lost her right leg due to accidental injuries. She is using prosthesis. Ex.P22 consists Tax invoices with reports pertaining to prosthesis which costs Rs.3,09,800/-. There is no dispute as to amputation of right leg of the petitioner through knee. Photographs at Ex.P20 confirm the amputation. She was brought to court on wheel chair.
18. Medical bills amounting to Rs.4,91,227/- are at Ex.P23 which are consistent with lab reports and case sheet at Ex.P24 and 35, X-rays at Ex.P25 and 36 confirm the causing of injuries and amputation of right leg through knee. PW.1 has admitted as to payment of medical expenses by the MD India Health Care Services (P) Ltd., Ex.P19 are the copies of letter of said company which confirm the payment of Rs.3,85,401/- out of above said amount of medical bills. It means, the petitioner has incurred Rs.1,05,826/- towards medical bills. There is no evidence to disbelieve the same. PW.1 has further admitted that her employer has paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. So, net amount SCCH-14 12 MVC No.3336/2014 paid by the petitioner towards medical expenses comes to Rs.5,826/-.
19. The petitioner was admitted to hospital twice. She was there for a total period of 28 days. PW.2 Basavaraj has stated that the petitioner has resumed her duties in October-2014. It means, she was on follow up treatment and bed rest for about 2 months. Evidence of PW.1 establish the same, but there is no corroboration to her evidence as to expenses made for physiotherapy, conveyance, attendant charges and training for use of prosthesis. In the absence of corroboration, evidence of PW.1 cannot be accepted. However, the petitioner is entitled for reasonable amount towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. The petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards physiotherapy and training charges for using prosthesis for lack documentary evidence. Ex.P14 and 33 reveal that the company has paid salary to the petitioner during the period of treatment and bed rest. But, she might have lost her leave. There is no evidence regarding loss of leave and facility of encashment of leave. However, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for one month salary towards loss of leave.
20. The petitioner has sustained crush injury to right leg and contusion injury of other leg. She underwent amputation of right leg through knee. She was in the hospital for 28 days and was on follow up treatment and bed rest for 2 months. Her medical expenses are paid by Health Ins., Co., in part. Her employer has paid Rs.1,00,000/-. She resumed her duties in October-2014 and worked in the same capacity till 24.03.2015. Hence, I am of the SCCH-14 13 MVC No.3336/2014 opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards nourishment and conveyance, Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.70,000/- towards loss of leave.
21. It is evident that the petitioner is terminated from service. PW.1 and 2 have deposed in that regard. Ex.P16 to 18 and 29 to 32 corroborate the said oral evidence. PW.4 has deposed that the petitioner is suffering from permanent physical disability of 75%. The counsel for respondent no.1 has tried to establish that the amputation of leg was not necessary and treated doctor alone is competent to give evidence as to reason for amputation. But, it is to be noted that the petitioner has undergone amputation of right leg through knee. No person would go for amputation for getting compensation. As PW.4 has said, the doctors will try to save leg first. When it is not possible, they go for amputation. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner has undergone amputation for some reason other than accidental injury. Hence, I believe that amputation was the result of accidental injury.
22. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is wearing an artificial leg. Tax invoices and receipts at Ex.P22 disclose that the petitioner has spent Rs.3,09,800/- towards prosthesis. PW.4 has admitted the use of prosthesis by the petitioner. He has stated that use of prosthesis will improve the mobility of the limb and that disability of 75% is the disability of particular limb. The counsel for the respondent no.1 has argued that when the disability of limb is SCCH-14 14 MVC No.3336/2014 converted to disability of whole body, it comes to 25%, that the petitioner can continue her job as she was doing white collar job, that she was not terminated on medical ground as such she may get suitable job in future, that use of prosthesis will make her to work as efficiently as before the accident. On the contrary, the counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was unable to do her job efficiently and accordingly, she was terminated from service, that she is 100% disabled and lost income, that prosthesis may increase the mobility, but it will not put the petitioner in the same position as she was prior to accident. He has relied upon ruling reported in 2001(1) KLJ 411 wherein our Hon'ble High Court has held as under:
"(A) MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, Sec 168-Personal injury-Assessment of compensation of case of - Assessment must be made on basis of effect of injury and of resultant disablement on person's capacity to earn-Where claimant has suffered amputation of left leg below knee level and has become totally incapacitated to continue manual work of loader, which he was doing, disablement is to be taken as total, even though physical disablement is not 100%".
He has further relied upon ruling reported in 2014 AIR SCW 856 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S 168- Accident - Compensation- Claimant 25 years of age at time of accident- Suffered paralysis, 80% disability- was earning steady income - Addition of 50% to his income could be made-Correct multiplier to be applied would be 15- Compensation of Rs.19,91,702/- granted to claimant under SCCH-14 15 MVC No.3336/2014 the heads loss of income, medical expenses further treatment, pain and sufferings, mental agony and cost of attendant till he remains alive".
23. Evidence of PW.1 and 2 as to termination of petitioner from service is believable. This petition is filed on 08.08.2014. The petitioner was terminated from service w.e.f. 24.03.2015. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards loss of past income. Contents of Ex.P22 are believable. The petitioner has got several difficulties which may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner needs further treatment. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- towards cost of prosthesis and Rs.40,000/- towards future maintenance of prosthesis.
24. PW.4 Dr.Ramachandra has stated that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability of 75%. As per Schedule II of Employees Compensation Act, loss of income of a person whose lower limb is amputated below mid of thigh shall be 60%. The injury caused to the petitioner is Scheduled injury. If she was a workman, her disability should have been considered as 60%. But, the petitioner was working as Sr.Manager (Finance and Accounts). She was substantially doing table work. She is using prosthesis of high quality which has increased the mobility and improved the stability. We have instances of Sudha Chandran, Arunima Sinha, Malathi Holla and many more who achieved excellence in their fields inspite of physical weakness. Portion of evidence of PW.2 reads as under:
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.3336/2014"It is true to suggest that we have no documents to show about the performance of the petitioner. The petitioner resumed her duties after accident somewhere around October-2014. I can produce document regarding date of her joining duties after bed rest. It is true to suggest that we follow rules and regulations before terminating an employee. I can produce guidelines of termination. It is true to suggest that accounts department has to maintain day to day accounts of the company. It is true to suggest that there will be no target for the accounts department, but the department has to complete the work in timeline. There were 6 persons working under the petitioner in accounts department".
"It is true to suggest that we have not terminated the petitioner on medical ground. Witness volunteers that they have terminated her due to lack of efficiency and performance. It is true to suggest that there is no record to show that her efficiency and performance were lacking. Witness volunteers that they can not be any record".
The above evidence of PW.2 clearly indicates that the petitioner is capable of doing the job even after the accident, but she is unable to achieve her targets. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner is able to take up lesser responsibilities. She is stated to be suffering from Scheduled injury which resulted in permanent physical disability to the extent of 75% to particular limb. As per Schedule II of Employees Compensation Act, loss of earning capacity would be 60%. In the second ruling the claimant was a loader and amputation of leg below knee was considered as 100%, but in this case, the petitioner was a Senior Manager (Finance and Accounts). Hence, said ruling cannot be applied to this case.
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.3336/2014Looking to the qualification of the petitioner and her nature of job, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has lost earning capacity to the extent of 40%. If she achieves target in her new job, she will get promotion and increment. In the Ist ruling, future prospects are added by considering the loss of earning capacity to the extent of 100%. In this case, it is opined above that the petitioner has lost earning capacity to the extent of 40%. Hence, said ruling is not applicable to the facts of this case and future prospects cannot be taken into consideration. Loss of future income of the petitioner would be Rs.8,40,000X15X40%=Rs.50,40,000/-, she has lost amenities of life. Hence, she is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 10,000/-
3 Nourishment and Rs. 25,000/-
conveyance 4 Attendant charges Rs. 15,000/-
5 Loss of leave Rs. 70,000/-
6 Cost of Prosthesis Rs. 3,10,000/- 7 Future maintenance Rs. 40,000/-
of prosthesis 8 Loss of Future income (Rs.8,40,000X15X40%) Rs.50,40,000/- 9 Loss of amenities Rs. 1,00,000/-
Total Rs. 57,10,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
25. The respondents are the owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.KA-19-C-1725. The accident has occurred due to rash SCCH-14 18 MVC No.3336/2014 and negligent driving of the driver of said lorry. Hence, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount and interest to the petitioner as stated above. The policy was in force on the date of accident. There is no evidence to believe that the respondent no.2 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent no.1 is liable to indemnify the respondent no.2 and he is liable to deposit amount before the court. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
26. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.57,10,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.57,10,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.20,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be SCCH-14 19 MVC No.3336/2014 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.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 18th day of January 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.3336/2014ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Kalpana @ Kalpana Bandaru PW.2 Basavaraj.P PW.3 Yadunandan PW.4 Dr.Ramachandra Respondent' s Nil Ex.P1 Copy of FIR with complaint E.xP2 Copy of Copy of Statement Ex.P3 Copy of Sketch Ex.P4 Copy of Spot Panchanama Ex.P5 Copy of IMV report Ex.P6 Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P7 Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P8 Copy of Discharge Summaries (2 in nos) Ex.P9 Copy of Company ID Ex.P10 Copy of Appointment Letter Ex.P11 Salary Certificate Ex.P12 Pay Slips (4 in nos) Ex.P13 Copy of PAN card Ex.P14 Form-16 (for three years with enclosures) Ex.P15 Notice issued by Pristine (2 in nos) Ex.P16 Copy of Reply given to notice (2 in nos) Ex.P17 Termination Notice Ex.P18 Reliving Letter Ex.P19 Copy of authorisation letters (2 in nos) Ex.P20 Photographs (2 in nos) CD Ex.P21 Bank Statement Ex.P22 Tax invoices (2 in nos) with 3 receipts Ex.P23 Medical bills (16 in nos amounting to Rs.4,91,227/-) Ex.P24 Lab reports Ex.P25 X-ray(4 in nos) Ex.P26 Copy of ID card of PW.2 E.xP27 Salary Certificate Ex.P28 Pay Slips (4 in nos) Ex.P29 Copy of Notices (2 in nos) Ex.P30 Copy of reply (2 in nos) SCCH-14 21 MVC No.3336/2014 Ex.P31 Copy of Termination Notice Ex.P32 Copy of Reliving Letter Ex.P33 Copy of Form no.16 (3 in nos) Ex.P34 Copy of Attendant register Ex.P35 Case Sheet E.xP36 X-ray reports (7 in nos) Ex.P37 OPD card E.xP38 X-rays Respondent's Nil XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore. SCCH-14 22 MVC No.3336/2014 Dt.18.01.2016 P-HVK R1- RSS R2-GNV 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 allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.57,10,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.57,10,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.20,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or 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, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.3336/2014AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.3336/2014 Petitioner/s : Kalpana @ Kalpana Bandaru W/o P.Vishwanth Aged about 36 years, R/at No.1663/15, Sri Maruthi Farm, Near Impact College, AMCO Layout, Kodigehalli, Sahakaranagar, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri HVK) V/s Respondent/s 1. SBI General Ins., Co.Ltd., Rukmini Towers, No.3/1, Platform road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-20.
(Insurer of the lorry) (By pleader Sri RSS)
2. Mr.Chandrashekar.G S/o Govinda Raju Major, R/at No.332, Thanisandra, Ashwathnagar, Devesandra, Bangalore-36.
(Owner of the lorry)
(By pleader Sri GNV)
WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the
petitioner/s above named U/Sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH-14 24 MVC No.3336/2014 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 allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.57,10,000/-with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.57,10,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent no.1 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.20,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized, scheduled or 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.
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.3336/2014Advocate'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.
By 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. ----------------------------------
DecreeDrafted Scrutinised by
MEMBER, M.A.C.T.
METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR