Bangalore District Court
In Mvc Sri U. Rangabaslm @ vs In 1. Sri Santhosh N on 3 December, 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 03rd day of December 2015
M.V.C. Nos.4600/2014 & 4601/2014
Petitioner in MVC Sri U. Rangabaslm @
4600/2014 Rangabashan,
S/o Uday Kumar,
Aged 21 years,
Residing at Marisiddaiahna
Palya, Kodgi, Thirumalapura,
T.B. Post, Bangalore North,
Bangalore - 560 089.
(Sri B.H. Chikkanna, Advocate)
Petitioner in MVC Sri Ramesh J.,
4601/2014 S/o Jayapraksh @ Jayavel,
Aged 20 years,
Residing at near Ayappa Temple,
Hessraghatta,
Bangalore - 560 088.
And also No.21/16, Ward No.18,
Koel Street, Penagaran (TP),
Dharmapuri - 638 810.
(Sri B.H. Chikkanna, Advocate)
V/s.
Respondents in 1. Sri Santhosh N.,
both the cases S/o Nijiyappa,
Major in age,
Resident at Nijiyappanadoddi,
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
Ganganavadi Post, Kootagal
Hobble, Ramanagara District.
(RC owner of Maruthi car
bearing Reg. No.KA-02-MA-
8823)
(Sri Naveen G.R., Advocate)
2. The Regional Manager,
The New India Assurance Co.
Ltd., Regional Office, No.2/B,
Unity Building, Annexe,
Mission Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.
(Insurer of maruthi car bearing
Reg. No.KA-02-MA-8823 vide I/P
No.67230031130200007465
Valid from 11-12-2013 to
10-12-2014)
(Sri N. Shiva Murthy, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These claim petitions filed by the petitioners against
the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and
Rs.10,00,000/- respectively for the injuries sustained by
them in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petitions in MVC
Nos.4600/2014 and 4601/2014 are as under:
3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
The petitioner in MVC 4600/2014 is the rider and
the petitioner in MVC 4601/2014 is the pillion rider, in
their claim petitions were alleged that on 15-03-2014 at
about 10.40 a.m., they were proceeding in a motor cycle
bearing No.KA-04-EH-7768 slowly and cautiously by
observing all traffic rules and regulations on
Hessaragatta main road, when they were reached near
Subashnagara Tarabanahalli, the driver of the Maruthi
car bearing No.KA-02-MA-8823 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 they were fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately they were
shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, wherein they took
the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident, they were hale and healthy
working as a Scrap Merchant by getting monthly income
of Rs.10,000/- each, due to the accidental injuries, they
could not do the work as before. The accident in question
was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving
4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
of the car driver. Thereby, Jalahalli Traffic Police have
registered the case against the car driver in their police
station crime No.21/2014 for the offences punishable u/s
279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the
owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer are jointly
and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays
for allow the claim petitions.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents were
appeared through their respective counsel and filed their
independent written statement. The respondent No.1 in
his written statement has alleged that the claim petitions
filed by the petitioners are not maintainable in law or on
facts and he has denied that the petitioners were
proceeding in a 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 they were fell down and sustained
grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient
5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
by spending huge amount and he has admitted that he is
the owner of the Maruthi car bearing No.KA-02-MA-8823
and as on the date of the alleged accident, the policy was
valid from 11-12-2013 to 10-12-2014. So, he is not liable
to pay any compensation to the petitioners and as on the
date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver
was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
same and he has denied the age, avocation and income
of the petitioners and the averments made in column
No.1 to 6 of the claim petitions and he has alleged that
as on the date of the alleged accident, the driver of the
car has drove the same very slowly and cautiously by
observing all traffic rules and regulations, the accident
was occurred on account of rash and negligent riding of
the rider of the motor cycle and prays for reject the claim
petitions.
5. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the
offending vehicle in his written statement has alleged
that the claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not
maintainable in law or on facts and either the owner of
6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not
complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C)
and 158(6) of MV Act in furnishing better particulars and
as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending
vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving
licence and the owner of the offending vehicle has
entrusted the same to the person who was not holding
valid and effective driving licence. So, he has contravened
the terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, he is not
liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners and the
vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate and
permit and he has denied the averments made in column
No.1 to 14A of the claim petitions and he has also denied
that the petitioners were proceeding in a 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
they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries and
7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge
amount and he has alleged that the accident is a self
accident, which was taken place on account of rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle, but they
have converted into RTA colluding with the first
respondent and the police have falsely implicated the
vehicle in order to get the compenstion and prays for
reject the claim petitions.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
following issues are framed in both the claim petitions:
MVC No.4600/2014
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in wound certificate, in a road
traffic accident on 15-03-2014 at about
10.40 a.m., near Subashnagara, on
Hessraghattga main road, Tarabanahalli,
Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Maruthi car
bearing registration No.KA-02-MA-8823?
8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
any compensation? If so, to what extent
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
MVC No. 4601/2014
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in wound certificate, in a road
traffic accident on 15-03-2014 at about
10.40 a.m., near Subashnagara, on
Hessraghattga main road, Tarabanahalli,
Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Maruthi car
bearing registration No.KA-02-MA-8823?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
any compensation? If so, to what extent
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed
memo on 13-08-2015 and sought for club the MVC
No.4601/2014 with MVC No.4600/2014 on the ground
these claim petitions are arising out of the same accident.
9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
So, the said memo was came to be accepted and MVC
No.4601/2014 has been clubbed in MVC No.4600/2014
for recording of common evidence and for disposal.
8. The petitioners in order to prove their claim
petitions, were examined themselves as PW1 and PW2
and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and
they have examined two more witnesses on their behalf
as PW3 and PW4 and got marked the documents as
Ex.P17 to Ex.P24 and two documents are marked with
the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent as
Ex.P25 and Ex.P26. The respondents have not lead any
evidence nor examined any witness on their behalf, but
with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner
two documents are marked as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
9. Heard arguments on both side.
10. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Case No. Issue No.1 Issue No.2 Issue No.3
MVC
4600/2014
In the Partly in the As per the
MVC affirmative affirmative final order
4601/2014
10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 in both the claim petitions.
The petitioners being said to be injured were
approached the court on the ground that on 15-03-2014
at about 10.40 a.m., they were proceeding in a motor
cycle as rider and pillion rider, slowly and cautiously by
observing all traffic rules and regulations, the driver of
the car 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
they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries and
took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge
amount. Thereby, they were filed the instant claim
petitions against the respondents.
12. The petitioner in MVC 4600/2014 in order to
prove his claim petition has filed his affidavit as his chief
examination as PW1 in which has stated that on 15-03-
2014 at about 10.40 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor
11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
cycle bearing No.KA-04-EH-7768 along with his friend
Ramesh as rider and pillion rider slowly and cautiously
by observing all traffic rules and regulations on
Hessaragatta main road, when they were reached near
Subashnagara Tarabanahalli, the driver of the Maruthi
car bearing No.KA-02-MA-8823 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 they were fell down and
sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was
shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, 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 car driver. Thereby,
Jalahalli Traffic Police have registered the case against
the car driver in their police station crime No.21/2014 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 the rider of the
motor cycle and he was holding the driving licence to ride
12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
the motor cycle and he has denied that without giving
any indication nor signal has took the motor cycle
towards right side suddenly, thereby the accident was
occurred on his own negligence and the accident was not
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the
car driver and they have filed the false case against the
car driver.
13. The petitioner in MVC 4601/2014 in order to
prove his claim petition has filed his affidavit as his chief
examination as PW2 in which has stated that on 15-03-
2014 at about 10.40 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor
cycle bearing No.KA-04-EH-7768 along with his friend
Rangabaslm as pillion rider and rider slowly and
cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations
on Hessaragatta main road, when they were reached near
Subashnagara Tarabanahalli, the driver of the Maruthi
car bearing No.KA-02-MA-8823 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 they were fell down and
13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was
shifted to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, 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 car driver. Thereby,
Jalahalli Traffic Police have registered the case against
the car driver. The PW2 in his cross examination has
admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident, he
was proceeding as a pillion rider and his friend was the
rider of the motor cycle, but he has denied that his friend
without giving any signal nor indication has took the
motor cycle towards right side suddenly. So, on his own
negligence, the accident was occurred and the accident
was not occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of the car driver.
14. The petitioners in support of their oral
evidence have produced the documents marked as Ex.P1
to Ex.P26. Ex.P1 is the information filed by the
Rangabaslm in which has stated that on 15-03-2014 at
14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
about 10.40 a.m., himself and his friend Ramesh were
proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-EH-7768
towards his native place slowly and cautiously by
observing all traffic rules and regulations on
Hessaragatta main road, when they were reached near
Subashnagara Tarabanahalli, the driver of the Maruthi
car bearing No.KA-02-MA-8823 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, due to the said impact, they were fell
down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately
the public is who were gathered on the spot were took
them to Premier Sanjeevini Hospital through 108
ambulance. The accident in question was taken place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver. So
based on the information Jalahalli Traffic Police have
registered the case against the car driver in their police
station crime No.21/2014 for the offences punishable
u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 has cross examined the PW1 and PW2,
15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
but nothing is elicited to disbelieve their evidence.
Though, he has suggested the PW1 who is the rider of the
motor cycle that the accident was occurred on his own
negligence, since he has not given the signal nor
indication has suddenly took the motor cycle towards
right side for which he has denied the same. Even the
PW2 has denied that the accident in question was taken
place on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider
of the motor cycle. If at all, the accident was occurred on
account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the
motor cycle nothing is prevented to the respondent to
examine the driver of the offending vehicle nor the
persons who are the eye witness to the accident to show
that the accident in question was taken place on account
of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor
cycle, if that is so, the matter would have different. But
the reasons best known to the respondent have not lead
any rebuttal evidence to show that the accident in
question was taken place on account of rash and
negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. In the
16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
absence of the materials from the respondents side, it is
clear that the accident in question was taken place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle driver and moreover 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 though the offenidng vehicle driver was
proceeding towards Hessaragatta on the left side of the
road i.e., towards western side and the petitioners were
proceeding in a motor cycle towards Tarabanahalli side
on the eastern side of the road, but the reasons best
known to the offending vehicle driver though he was
proceeding on the left side of the road has took the car
towards eastern side where the petitioners were
proceeding in a motor cycle dashed against the motor
cycle, that is the reason why, the petitioners were fell
down and sustained the injuries. So, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4
are corroborate the evidence of the PW1 and PW2. Ex.P6
is the IMV report clearly reflects that the accident in
question was taken place on account of rash and
17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Ex.P5
and Ex.P11 are the wound certificates clearly reflects
that the petitioners were sustained the injuries in a road
traffic accident said to have been taken place on 15-03-
2014. Ex.P8 and Ex.P12 are the discharge summary
reflects that the petitioners soon after the accident got
admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and took the
treatment as an inpatient from 15-03-2014 to 16-03-
2014 and from 15-03-2014 to 19-03-2014 respectively
for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic
accident. Ex.P9 and Ex.P14 are clearly reflects that the
petitioners were took the treatment in connection of the
injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident by
spending an amount of Rs.8,533/- and Rs.61,532/-
respectively. Ex.P18, Ex.P19 and Ex.P21 to Ex.P23 are
clearly reflects that the petitioners were took the
treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. So,
the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26 are coupled
with the oral evidence of the PW1 and PW2. The
respondents have not lead any rebuttal evidence to
18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
disbelieve the oral and documentary evidence of the
petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners have
proved their 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 am of the opinion that the issue No.1 in
both the claim petitions is answered as affirmative.
15. Issue No.2 in MVC 4600/2014:
The PW1 being the injured in MVC 4600/2014 in
his evidence has clearly stated that on 15-03-2014 at
about 10.40 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor cycle as
a rider along with pillion rider, slowly and cautiously by
observing all traffic rules and regulations, the driver of
the car 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) Contusion over the chest and back with
pain.
19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
16. So, immediately he was shifted to Premier
Sanjeevini Hospital, wherein he took the conservative
treatment as an inpatient till 16-03-2014, even after the
discharge he took the treatment as an outpatient.
17. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working as a Scrap Merchant by getting monthly income
of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could
not do the work as before, as he has underwent deep
mental shock and agony due to the accidental injuries.
So, he cannot run, walk as actively as earlier and unable
to do the normal activities as earlier. The PW1 in his
cross examination has admitted that soon after the
accident has got admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient
and he was not underwent any surgery and he took the
treatment in respect of back pain and chest pain and he
has not produced any documents to show that prior to
the accident he was working as a Scrap Merchant by
getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and he has also
20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
admitted that the injuries sustained by him are heal up,
but he has denied that has not facing any difficulties due
to the accidental injuries.
18. The PW3 being the Medical Record Keeper at
Premier Sanjeevini Hospital has produced the documents
marked as Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 in which it is clear that
the petitioner has got admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital on 15-03-2014 and took the treatment till 16-
03-2014. So, one thing is clear that he has took the
treatment as an inpatient for a period of 2 days. Ex.P9 is
the medical bills of Rs.8,533/- reflects that the petitioner
has took the treatment in connection of the injury
sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Though, the
petitioner in his evidence has stated that has sustained
grievous injuries and took the conservative treatment and
inspite of best treatment, he could not come to the
normal position. But the reasons best known to him has
not examined the treated doctor to show that he has
sustained any grievous injury due to the accident.
21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
However, he has produced the wound certificate marked
as Ex.P5 issued by the Premier Sanjeevini Hospital in
which it is clear that the petitioner has sustained the
following injury;
1) Contusion over the chest and back with
pain.
19. So, the above said injury is simple in nature.
Ex.P8 is the discharge summary in which it is clear that
the petitioner has sustained the RTA with blunt injury to
back. So, he took the conservative treatment from 15-03-
2014 to 16-03-2014 for a period of 2 days. Ex.P9 is
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.8,533/-.
Though, the learned counsel for the respondent has
disputed the medical bills placed before the court, but
the reasons best known to the respondent has not
produced any document to show that the medical bills
produced by the petitioner are created nor fabricated in
22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
order to get the compensation. So, in the absence of the
materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner has
spent an amount of Rs.8,533/- towards his treatment in
connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road
traffic accident. So, one thing is clear from the oral and
documentary evidence that the petitioner has sustained
only simple injury and took the conservative treatment as
an inpatient for a period of 2 days by spending an
amount of Rs.8,533/-. So, if the global compensation of
Rs.16,000/- is awarded it will meet the ends of justice.
So, global compensation of Rs.16,000/- is granted to the
petitioner.
20. Issue No.2 in MVC 4601/2014:
The PW2 being the injured in MVC 4601/2014 in
his evidence has clearly stated that on 15-03-2014 at
about 10.40 a.m., he was proceeding in a motor cycle as
a pillion rider ridden by his friend Rangabaslm slowly
and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and
regulations, the driver of the car has drove the same with
high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without
23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against
the motor cycle, as a result he was fell down and
sustained the following injuries;
1) Facial injury with degloving injury over
the right mandible area extending to the
neck exposing the neck muscle and flow
of the mouth and mandible 12x3 cm with
fracture of right mandible.
2) Fracture 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bone
right foot.
21. So, immediately he was shifted to Premier
Sanjeevini Hospital, wherein x-rays were taken and found
that he has sustained the fracture. So, he was underwent
operation for fracture of right mandible by fixing closed
reduction and internal fixation with ILIM nailing on 16-
03-2014 and other injuries were treated conservatively
and discharged from the hospital with an advice for
follow up treatment.
22. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working as a Scrap Merchant by getting monthly income
24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could
not do the work as before, as he has underwent deep
mental shock and agony due to the accidental injuries
and he is getting severe headache, giddiness, slurring
speech and he could not do the day to day normal
activities and his face has been disfigured due to the
accidental injuries and there are ugly scar on is face. The
PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that as on
the date of the alleged accident, he was proceeding as a
pillion rider and he has denied that has created the
medical bills placed before the court in order to get the
compensation and his face is not disfigured, due to the
accidental injuries and he has not took the treatment as
an inpatient, due to the accidental injuries, but he has
admitted that has not produced any documents to show
that prior to the accident he was working as a Scrap
Merchant by getting monthly income of Rs.10,000/-.
23. The PW3 being the Medical Record Keeper at
Premier Sanjeevini Hospital in his evidence has stated
25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
that the petitioner has met with an accident and took the
treatment in their hospital as an inpatient. The PW3 in
his cross examination has denied that in order to help
the petitioner has created the documents and placed
before the court.
24. The PW4 being the Maxillofacial Surgeon at
Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, in his evidence has stated
that the petitioner has met with an accident and
sustained the following injuries;
1) Multiple lacerations on face on right side
with cut lacerated wound measuring 12x3
cm.
2) Multiple abrasions over the face and body.
3) Fracture of right side of the mandible from
body and region till the midline.
25. So, he was underwent open reduction and
fixations of the fracture and for suturing of the cut
lacerated wound on 16-03-2014 and he was in the
hospital for few days and discharged on 19-03-2014 with
an advice for follow up treatment and recently has
26 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
examined the petitioner and found the following
difficulties facing by the petitioner;
a) Inability to open mouth.
b) Difficulty in chewing and constant.
c) Suffering from headache in right side and
disfiguration of the face.
26. So, the petitioner has sustained disability to an
extent of 20-25%. The PW4 in his cross examination has
admitted that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are
already heal up, but there are scar marks and he has
denied that the petitioner after the discharge has not
taken the follow up treatment and he has not produced
any report to show that the petitioner is facing difficulties
as stated in his affidavit and he has not stated in the
affidavit about the degree of the difficulty for chewing
and the petitioner is not facing any difficulties due to the
accidental injuries and the petitioner has not sustained
any disability, but he has admitted that has not stated in
the affidavit which disability the petitioner is facing, due
27 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
to the accidental injury and he has denied that he has
stated more disability in order to help the petitioner.
27. The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained the fracture of right
side of the mandible from body and region till the midline
and fracture 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bone right foot in a
road traffic accident and took the treatment as an
inpatient by spending huge amount, but inspite of best
treatment he could not come to the normal position, still
he is facing difficulties, due to the accidental injuries.
The PW4 being the Maxillofacial 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 PW4
corroborate the evidence of the PW2. Ex.P11 is the
wound certificate issued by the Premier Sanjeevini
Hospital, Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has
sustained the following injuries;
28 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
1) Facial injury with degloving injury over
the right mandible area extending to the
neck exposing the neck muscle and flow
of the mouth and mandible 12x3 cm with
fracture of right mandible.
2) Fracture 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bone
right foot.
28. So, the above said injuries are grievous in
nature. Ex.P12 is the discharge summary clearly reflects
that the petitioner soon after the accident has got
admitted to the Premier Sanjeevini Hospital, wherein he
took the treatment as an inpatient from 15-03-2014 to
19-03-2014 for a period of 5 days, as he has sustained
the mandible fracture right side. So, he was underwent
open reduction and internal fixation under GA on 16-03-
2014. Ex.P14 is the medical bills clearly reflects that the
petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the
injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
Ex.P21 to Ex.P23 are clearly reflects that the petitioner
29 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital
and took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent
surgery. So considering the injuries sustained by the
petitioner in a road traffic accident and the evidence of
PW2 and PW4 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 PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries in a
road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 15-
03-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 5 days and he has underwent surgery. PW4
being the Maxillofacial 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 PW2 and
PW4 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well
as the duration of treatment he would have sustained
30 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
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 PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working as a Scrap Merchant by getting monthly income
of Rs.10,000/- due to the accidental injuries, he could
not do the work as before. But the reasons best known to
him has not examined any independent witness nor
placed any materials on record to show that prior to the
accident he was working as a Scrap Merchant by getting
monthly income of Rs.10,000/-. In the absence of the
materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the
income of the petitioner as alleged in the claim petition.
So considering the age and skill of the petitioner and the
present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider
the monthly notional income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet
the ends of justice. Ex.P11 is the wound certificate
31 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous
injuries. Ex.P12 is the discharge summary clearly reflects
that he has sustained the grievous injuries and took the
treatment as an inpatient for a period of 5 days. So, the
petitioner might have lost income for a period of two
months. So two months income comes to Rs.12,000/-. So
Rs.12,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
stated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic
accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by
spending huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but on record
the petitioner has produced the medical bills worth of
Rs.61,532/-. Though the learned counsel for the
respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by
the petitioner, 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
32 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
Therefore, Rs.61,532/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained the fracture of right
side of the mandible from body and region till the midline
and fracture 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bone right foot in a
road traffic accident and took the treatment as an
inpatient by spending huge amount, but inspite of best
treatment he could not come to the normal position, still
he is facing difficulties, due to the accidental injuries.
The PW4 being the Maxillofacial 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 communited fracture of right
side of the mandible from body and region till the
midline. Thereby, he was underwent surgery, still he is
facing difficulties, as he is unable to chewing and
constant and he has unable to open the mouth. The PW4
in his cross examination has categorically admitted that
33 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
he has not stated about the actual disability facing by the
petitioner due to the accidental injuries. Even he has
admitted that he has not stated in the affidavit about the
degree of difficulty for chewing the food by the petitioner.
So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, though the PW4 has stated the disability of the
petitioner to an extent of 20-25%, but considering the
injuries sustained by the petitioner and the admission of
the PW4, it is just and necessary to consider the
disability to an extent of 8% instead of 20-25% it will
meet the ends of justice. So, his income is already
considered as Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.P11 is the
wound certificate and Ex.P12 is the discharge summary
and Ex.P21 is the case sheet clearly reflects that as on
the date of the alleged accident, the petitioner was aged
about 20 years. The petitioner in his claim petition has
clearly stated that as on the date of the alleged accident,
he was aged about 20 years. Therefore, his age is taken
into consideration as 20 years as on the date of the
alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi
34 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
the multiplier applicable is 18. So the loss of future
earning is works out as under;
Rs.6,000X12X18X8/100=1,03,680/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,03,680/-
for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries in a
road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 15-
03-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 5 days and he has also took the treatment as an
outpatient and underwent surgery, but inspite of best
treatment, he could not come to the normal position, still
he is under treatment. The PW4 being the Maxillofacial
Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the
complaints and disability of the petitioner after the
accident as well as treatment taken by the petitioner as
35 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
an inpatient and outpatient. So considering the evidence
of PW2 and PW4 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.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and
underwent surgery and implants are in situ. So, one
more surgery is required for removal of implants. The
PW4 being the Maxillofacial Surgeon in his evidence has
stated that one more surgery is required for removal of
implants and it may cost of Rs.50,000/-. So considering
the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident
and the evidence of the PW2 and PW4, it is just and
necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will
meet the ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for
the above head.
29. Thus the total award stands as follows:
36 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 30,000-00
2. Loss of income during Rs. 12,000-00
laid up period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 61,532-00
4. Loss of future earning Rs. 1,03,680-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 20,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00
Total Rs. 2,42,212-00
30. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the
offending vehicle has denied about the involvement of the
vehicle, but he has admitted that as on the date of the
alleged accident, he was the owner of the Maruthi car
and the policy was valid from 11-12-2013 to 10-12-2014
and the driver was holding valid and effective driving
license. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the
offending vehicle has taken up the contention that the
claim petitions filed by the petitioners are not
maintainable in law or on facts and the petitioners have
not approached the court with clean hands and he has
denied the involvement of the offending vehicle, but he
37 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect
of the offending vehicle in favour of the first respondent.
Ex.P6 is the IMV report clearly reflects about the
involvement of the vehicle. If at all the offending vehicle
was not involved in the accident question of damages as
appeared in the Ex.P6 does not arise. Even the
respondents have not placed any materials to show how
the damage was caused to the offending vehicle as shown
in the Ex.P6. On the other hand the petitioners have
proved their case through oral and documentary evidence
that the offending vehicle has caused the accident and
they were sustained the injuries. So, one thing is clear
from the oral and documentary evidence that the
offending vehicle has caused the accident and the
petitioners were sustained the injuries and moreover
Ex.P7 is the final report filed by the I.O., clearly reflects
that the I.O., after conducting the investigation has
charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver on the
ground that the accident in question was taken place on
account of his rash and negligent driving of the offending
38 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
vehicle driver. So, the contention raised by the
respondents on this aspect holds no water.
31. The respondent No.1 being the owner in his
written statement has admitted about the existence of
the policy from 11-12-2013 to 10-12-2014. The
respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending
vehicle in his written statement has admitted about the
issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle,
but he has not stated either the policy number nor its
validity. The petitioners in the cause title and column
No.16 of the claim petitions have shown the policy
number and its validity, but the reasons best known to
the respondent No.2 has not denied the policy number
and its validity as shown in the cause title and column
No.16 of the claim petitions, as the petitioners have
shown the validity of the policy from 11-12-2013 to 10-
12-2014. The accident was occurred on 15-03-2014. So
as on the date of the alleged accident, the policy was in
existence.
39 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
32. The respondent No.2 has taken up the
contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the
offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and
effective driving licence to drive the same. But the
reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not
placed any materials on record nor examined any
authority i.e., RTO or ARTO to show that as on the date
of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was
not holding valid and effective driving licence and Ex.P7
is the charge sheet filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses
that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid
and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged
accident. If at all the driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O.,
would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle
driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of
MV Act. So on record there is no material to show that
the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged
accident. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of the
40 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
alleged accident, the policy was in existence and the
offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective
driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But
in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2
is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners with
interest at the rate of 8% p.a. inview of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 KLJ 292
from the date of petitions till its realization. Hence, I am
of the opinion that the issue No.2 in both the claim
petitions is answered as partly in the affirmative.
33. Issue No.3 in both the claim petitions.
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 in both
claim petitions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The claim petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC Nos.4600/2014 and 4601/2014 u/s 166 of the M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part with costs.
The compensation in both the cases has been awarded as mentioned here under:
41 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014 & 4601/2014 Compensation Sl. MVC Awarded No. Number (in Rupees) 1 4600/2014 Rs. 16,000-00 2 4601/2014 Rs. 2,42,212-00 Interest is granted at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petitions till the date of payment/bank deposit, in both the claim petitions.
In both the claim petitions, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy, the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petitions till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest in MVC 4600/2014, the entire amount shall be released to him by means of a/c payee cheque on proper identification.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest in MVC 4601/2014, 40% of the amount 42 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014 & 4601/2014 shall be deposited in 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. However, he is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
The expenses to be incurred for future medication in MVC 4601/2014 shall not carry any interest.
Advocate fee is fixed in each of the petition at Rs.1,000/-.
The original judgment copy shall be kept in MVC No.4600/2014 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC 4601/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 03rd day of December 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Member-M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
43 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014 & 4601/2014 ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 Sri Rangabashan @ Ranga Basalm PW2 Sri Ramesh J.
PW3 Sri Yogesh H. PW4 Dr. Shivashankar
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of FIR Ex.P3 True copy of Panchanama 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 5 Medical bills amounting to Rs.8,533/-
Ex.P10 5 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P11 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P12 Discharge summary
Ex.P13 True copy of Statement of the injured
Ex.P14 26 Medical bills amounting to Rs.61,532/-
Ex.P15 21 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P16 One photo with CD
44 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.4600/2014
& 4601/2014
Ex.P17 Authorization letter Ex.P18 Case sheet Ex.P19 3 X-ray films Ex.P20 Authorization letter Ex.P21 Case sheet Ex.P22 4 CT Scan films Ex.P23 3 X-ray films Ex.P24 X-ray film Ex.P25 True copy of Notice under Section 133 of MV Act Ex.P26 True copy of Reply to the notice under Section 133 of MV Act List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 True copy of B Register extract Ex.R2 Receipt (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.