Bangalore District Court
Prakash.G.S vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd on 17 February, 2023
KABC020320792018
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt. Poornima N.Pai.
B.Com.L.L.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2023
MVC.No.7483/2018
Petitioner : Prakash.G.S
S/o. Guruvaiah,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at No.E-342, North 3rd Lane,
I.T.I. Colony, Dooravaninagar,
Bangalore-560 016.
(By Sri.G.M.N, Advocate)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1. Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regiona Office, No.4/5, 3rd Floor,
S.V.Arcade, Bilakahalli Main Road,
Opp.B.G.Road, Bangalore-560 076.
By its Regional Manager.
2. Sri.Rajesh,
(SCCH-12) 2 MVC 7483/2018
S/o.Devaputhra,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.124, Kempanna Building,
Byrasandra, C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
(Owner-cum-driver Tata ACE
Reg.No.KA-53-A-7284)
(R-1 By Sri.D.M.N,Advocate)
(R-2 - Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- in respect of accidental injuries sustained by him in the Road Traffic Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follows:
On 25.04.2017 at about 2.00 p.m, Petitioner was proceeding on his two wheeler Suzuki Access Reg. No.KA-53- EL-6869 from his residence towards Shivajinagar at Old Madras Road, near Pai Layout Junction to pick-up his sister to the house, at that time, the driver of Mini Tata Ace bearing Regn.No.KA-53-A-7284 drove the same in rash and negligent manner came from opposite side (one way) and dashed to the petitioner's vehicle and caused accident due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru wherein, he has taken treatment as (SCCH-12) 3 MVC 7483/2018 inpatient for four days and spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment and connected expenses.
3. The petitioner was aged about 26 years and he was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. He was working as Customer Service Associate (H-1) under Multi National Company and he was earning Rs.19,930/- per month. Due to this accident, the Company terminated the petitioner from service and he is not in a position to get the employment, therefore he has suffered financial loss, pain and mental agony, resulted in loss of earning and earning capacity and put to great financial hardship and he is unable to come out of the same. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver-cum-owner of Mini Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-7284. The Jurisdictional Police have registered case in Crime No.217/2017 for the offence punishable under section 279 and 338 of IPC. The respondent No.1 is the insurer and respondent no.2 is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-7284 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents. The respondent no.1 appeared through DMN Advocate and has filed written statement. Though respondent no.2 has not appeared before the Court, hence he has been placed as exparte.
5. The brief averments of written statement of respondent No.1 is as under:-
(SCCH-12) 4 MVC 7483/2018Respondent No.1 has stated that, petition is not maintainable either on facts are in law. Further submits that, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties as the insurer and insured of Motorcycle is not made as parties in the claim petition. Further it has admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of Mini Tata Ace bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A-7284 vide policy bearing No.10003/31/17/164675 and the same is valid from 10.07.2016 to 09.07.2017 and the liability of it is subject to terms and conditions of policy, DL, Permit and F.C and provision of motor vehicle act. Further it has contended that the driver of vehicle in question was not having valid an effective driving license to drive the said vehicle in question. The owner of the vehicle knowing fully has entrusted to drive the said vehicle, who does not possess valid an effective driving license. As such, there is violation of terms and conditions of policy. Further stated that, the respondent No.1 has not complied the provisions under Section 147 and 149 of M.V.Act that as per Section 134(c) of the M.V.Act the police authorities have not complied the provisions under Section 158(6) of M.V.Act. Further stated that there was no negligence on the part of two wheeler Suzuki Access bearing Reg.No.KA-53-EL-6869. The alleged accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of Mini Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-7284 and there is no nexus between the injuries sustained to the petitioner in the alleged accident. Further seeks permission of this court to contest the matter on all grounds available to the insured under Section (SCCH-12) 5 MVC 7483/2018 170 of M.V.Act, if the owner fail to contest the claim in collusion with the petitioner. Further stated that, he may be permitted to file additional written statement in due course of law under the change circumstances. Further it has denied the name, address, age, occupation, monthly income of the petitioner. He also denied the nature of accident and injuries sustained to the petitioner. The claim petition filed by the petitioner is exorbitant and highly disproportionate and without any basis. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, this court has framed following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 25.04.2017 at about 2.00 p.m. the petitioner was proceeding in Suzuki Access bearing Reg.No.KA-53-EL-6869 towards Shivajinagar at Old Madras Road, Near Pai Layout junction to pick up his sister, at that time the driver cum owner of Mini TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-
7284 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's vehicle and caused accident, due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries all over the body?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If yes, How much and from whom?
(SCCH-12) 6 MVC 7483/20183. What Order or Award?
7. In order to prove his claim, the petitioner, got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to 18 documents in his favour. One Dr.Krishna Prasad - Orthopaedic Surgeon DNB Co-ordinator, Member of Teaching Staff, Professor of Orthopedics and Consultant examined as PW.2 and got marked documents Ex.19 to Ex.P.25. On the other hand, Respondent examined ARTO, Bengaluru East one D.Srinivasappa as RW.1 and got marked 3 documents as per Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3 and another one witness Smt.Sobha.K.A - Legal Officer at Shriram General Insurance Company Limited examined as RW.2 and got marked one document as per Ex.R.4 and closed her side evidence.
8. Heard the arguments of advocate for petitioner and DMN advocate for respondent no.1. The advocate for Respondent No.2 has filed written arguments. Both advocates relied upon several citations which would be considered at the time of discussion on liability to pay the compensation.
9. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before this Tribunal, I answer the above issues as follows: -
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: Partly Affirmative,
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following:-
(SCCH-12) 7 MVC 7483/2018
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 : It is the case of petitioner that, he sustained injuries in an accident which occurred on 25.04.2017 at about 2.00 p.m. he was proceeding on his two wheeler Suzuki Access bearing Reg.No..KA-53-EL-6869 near Pai Layout Junction, towards Shivajinagar at Old Madras Road, at that time, the driver Mini Tata Ace bearing Reg. No.KA-53-A- 7284 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the petitioner's motor cycle and caused accident.
11. In order to prove his case he got examined himself as PW.1. True copies of FIR, Complaint, Charge Sheet, Mahazar, Sketch, IMV Report, U/s. 133 Notice, Reply and indemnity bond, CC of Order sheet in CC No.22286.2017, Wound Certificate, Discharge Summary, Officer letter, undertaking letter, appointment letter, salary sheet, 5 X-ray, Medical bills, Lab Report, Notarized copy of Driving license are marked at Ex.P.1 to 18 respectively.
12. Upon going through Ex.P.1 FIR, it was lodged on 25.04.2017 at 15.30 p.m. whereas, the incident happened on 25.04.2017 at 15.00 hrs. There is no delay in filing the complaint. Ex.P.2 complaint was lodged by the brother of petitioner himself on the same day. Charge sheet is filed against the driver of Mini TATA ACE bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A- 7284 as accused for the offence under Section 279 and 338 IPC R/w 3(1), 181, 115, 190(2), 177 IMV Act. It is clearly explained that, accused drove his vehicle in a one way, hence (SCCH-12) 8 MVC 7483/2018 Section 177 IMV Act is added. Accused did not have valid driving license, hence Section 3(1) R/w 181, 115, 190(2) of IMV Act is added in the charge sheet. One B.Srinivasappa, ARTO, Bengaluru East who was summoned by respondent No.1 has stated in his evidence as RW.1 that said Rajesha S/o Devaputra was having LMV license from 12.11.2013 to 12.02.2033. LMV Transport and LMV Cab was issued on 15.07.2017 by RTO, K.R.Puram and on the date of accident, said Rajesh was not possessing LMVTR/LMV Cab. This goes to show that even though the respondent No.1 owner-cum-driver did not possess LMVTR license, he had LMV license as on the date of accident. Ex.P.4 is the Spot Mahazar also shows that it is a one way road and the driver of respondent No.1 drove the Tata Mini ACE in a one way against the rule and caused the accident. Ex.P.5 is the Sketch of the spot also supports this aspects. Ex.P.6 IMV Report also shows damages on front side of both vehicles. Ex.P.7 is the notice issued under Section 133 of IMV Act to the owner of the Tata Mini ACE and the reply is also given stating that the owner Rajesha himself was driving the vehicle on the said date of accident and he did not possess valid driving license. Ex.P.8 copy of the order sheet in CC No.22286/2017 wherein, accused has appeared and pleaded guilty, paid fine of Rs.3,100/- on 01.08.2017 admitting all the charges against him. Ex.P.9 - Wound Certificate of petitioner shows type-1 distal 1/3rd fracture of tibia and he was brought to the hospital within 45 minutes of the accident. Hence,all these prosecution documents clearly (SCCH-12) 9 MVC 7483/2018 proves that the petitioner has sustained injuries in an accident occurred on 25.04.2017.
In the cross examination, advocate for respondent has suggested that, the petitioner was riding his vehicle in a high speed and suddenly applied the break due to which, he himself fell on the road and sustained injuries. It is also suggested that the road was empty and due to this reason, he was going in a high speed. This suggestion is denied by the petitioner and answered that it is a one way road and there was no rush and respondent himself drove his vehicle in a one way and caused the accident. It is also suggested that, the two wheeler in which, he was proceeding had no insurance and for this reason, a false case is filed against the Lorry. This suggestion is also denied by the petitioner. On the basis of prosecution papers Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 the petitioner has proved that, the injuries are sustained in a motor vehicle accident and the same was caused by the driver of Mini Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-7284. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has proved issue no.1, I have answered issue No.1 in Affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.2:- As this court as already held that, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mini Tata Ace which caused the accident to the petitioner.
14. Advocate for petitioner has relied upon decision reported in 2004(3) Supreme Court cases 297 in the case (SCCH-12) 10 MVC 7483/2018 of National Insurance Company Limited, Swarna Singh and others and argued that, if the court comes to the conclusion that there is no valid driving license to the driver of insured vehicle, then order for pay and recovery.
He has also relied upon decision reported in 2018(3) Supreme Court cases 208 in the case of Pappu and others V/s Vinod Kumar Lamba and another.
A. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.149(2) -
Third-party insurance - Defences available to insurance company - Burden of proof.
Following Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, reiterated, insurance company entitled to take a defence that offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorized person or that person driving vehicle did not have a valid driving licence - Onus would shift on insurance company only after owner of offending vehicle pleads and proves basic facts within his knowledge that driver of offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at relevant time.
B. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.149(2) -
Third-party insurance - Liability of insurance company - offending vehicle if driven by an unauthorized person or that person driving vehicle did not have a valid driving licence - Defence of - If established - Burden of proof to establish and rebut said defence, clarified. Applying Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297, to subserve ends of justice, insurer directed to pay claim amount awarded by Tribunal to claimants in first instance, with liberty to recover same from owner of vehicle in accordance with law.
(SCCH-12) 11 MVC 7483/2018Based on this Judgment, he has argued that following the Judgment of Swarna Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered in the aforesaid case to pay and recover to the Insurance Company. Hence, prays to consider the same.
On the other hand, advocate for respondent Insurance Company has filed following citations in support of his argument.
1) MFA No.100226/2016 and MFA No.100730/2016 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between Smt. Padma and others V/s Sriram General Insurance Company and others.
2) AIR 2020 Supreme Court 4453 Beli Rama V/s Rajendrakumar.
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S.149(2)
(a)(ii), S.15 - Insurer's liability - Non-renewal of driving licence - Respondent-Claimant employed as driver met with accident while driving truck owned by employer - Licence not renewed for period of three years and that too in respect of commercial vehicle like truck -
Employer cannot wash his hands off responsibility of not checking up whether driver has renewed licence - Gross negligence on part of employer as insured in verifying driving licence - Insurance company not liable to pay compensation. Employees Compensation Act (8 of 1923), S.3
3) 2020 ACJ 2018(Kar) Sunitha and others V/s Abdul Samad and another.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 149(2)(a)(ii)- Motor insurance-Driving licence-Liability of (SCCH-12) 12 MVC 7483/2018 insurance company-Pay and recover order- Tribunal exonerated insurance company from liability on the ground that driver of offending motor cycle was not holding a valid licence and there was breach of policy-Contention that insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation and then recover the amount from the owner of offending vehicle- Where insurance company has proved breach of policy, can it be directed to satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner-Held: no.
He has also relied upon a judgment passed by 11 th Addl. District Judge and Addl. MACT, Belagavi in MVC 1863/2017 which cannot be relied upon by this Court as it is a judgment passed by Judge of Similar Cadre and it is not Precedent or binding. The Principle laid down in all the aforesaid Judgments and citations are considered while giving reasons. I have gone through all these citations.
15. It is pertinent to note that RW.1 - ARTO, Bengaluru East examined and produced the extract of DL of respondent under LMV. This goes to show that, the license was issued to the respondent under LMV on 12.11.2013 to 12.02.2033 and license for transport vehicle was issued on 15.07.2017 to 14.07.2020. It is not the case of respondent No.1 not having any type of license at all, but he was possessing LMV license and he was driving LMV transport vehicle.
"10. Form and contents of licences to drive-
(1) Every learners licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form (SCCH-12) 13 MVC 7483/2018 and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-
(a) to (c)....
(d) light motor vehicles;
(e) Transport vehicle;
(I) road roller;
(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.;
10. The distinction between a ' light motor vehicle' and a transport vehicle' Is, therefore, evident. A transport vehicle may be a light motor vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required to be obtained. The distinction between a ' transport vehicle' and a 'passenger vehicle' can also be noticed form Section 14 of the Act. Sub- Section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in case of an effective licence to drive a 'transport vehicle' whereas in case if any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years."
This court has also relied upon decision reported in Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011 Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (SCCH-12) 14 MVC 7483/2018 In conclusion by the syllabus and rules which is discussed and are referred to us thus:
(I) 'Light Motor Vehicle' as defined in Section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and 2(48). such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500kg, would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of the which does not exceed 7500kg and holder of a driving licence to drive clss of 'light motor vehicle' as provided in section 10(2) (d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motor car or tractor or road roller the "unladen weight' of which does not exceed 750 kgs. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive at transport vehicle (SCCH-12) 15 MVC 7483/2018 of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2) (d) continues to be valid after amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.03.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act NO.54/1994 w.e.f.
14.11.1994 while substituting clauses
(e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained 'medium goods vehicle" in section 10(2) (e) medium passenger motor vehicle in section 10(2) (f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and 'heavy passenger motor vehicle"
in Section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2) and section 2(41) of the Act. i.e., light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of 'transport vehicle' I s related only tot he categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and (SCCH-12) 16 MVC 7483/2018 the procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle of class of 'light motor vehicle' continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect.
Hence, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, it is clear that when respondent no.2 had LMV licence to drive light motor vehicle, it cannot be held that he did not possess valid driving licence to drive LMV transport. It is a settled law now hence, in view of above said findings Respondent no.1 being insurer of the Mini Tata Ace and respondent no.2 being the owner of the Mini Tata Ace are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. In view of valid insurance, the respondent no.1 shall indemnify the compensation to the petitioner under following:-
QUANTUM (I) Pain & suffering:
[ The petitioner has sustained left leg fracture Type-I open distal 1/3 both bone fracture and other (SCCH-12) 17 MVC 7483/2018 injuries all over the body and he underwent operation on 26.04.2017 for left tibia CRIF with IMIL (Yogeshwar 9x32mm) 16 holed S.T. Plate Fibula. He was admitted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he was treated as inpatient for 3 days i.e., from 25-04-2017 to 27.04.2017 and again admitted an an inpatient from 24.04.2019 to 26.04.2019 for removal of implant. Considering the grievousness of injury sustained, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the head Pain and Sufferings.
(ii) Medical Expenses The medical bills produced by the petitioner is marked as Ex.P.16 totally Rs.1,82,192/- wherein he was admitted on 25.04.2017 and later discharged on 27.04.2017. Again, the petitioner was admitted on 24.04.2019 for removal of implants and discharged on 26.04.2019 and petitioner has produced two medical bills which are marked as Ex.P.25 for amount of Rs.2,600/-. The Ex.P.16 and Ex.P.25 medical bills having the seal and signature of the hospital is accepted and petitioner is entitled for total bills of Rs.1,84,792/- under the head Medical Expenses.(SCCH-12) 18 MVC 7483/2018
(iii) Conveyance, Attendant, Diet food and Miscellaneous expenses:
The petitioner has sustained left leg fracture Type-I open distal 1/3 both bone fracture and other injuries all over the body. He was admitted to Hosmat hospital, Bengaluru on 25.04.2017, wherein he was treated as inpatient for 3 days. He underwent operation on 26.04.2017 for left tibia CRIF with IMIL (Yogeshwar 9x32mm) 16 holed S.T. Plate Fibula. again admitted an an inpatient from 24.04.2019 to 26.04.2019 for removal of implant.
Petitioner took treatment for a period of 6 days as inpatient. Hence this Tribunal has granted Rs.1,000/- per day during the inpatient period including food, nourishment, attendant charges in all other cases and in the present case it comes Rs.6,000/- under this head.
(iv) Loss of income during treatment period:
The petitioner has stated that he was working as an 'Customer Service Associate (H-1) under reputed Multi National Company and drawing a salary of Rs.19,930/- per month. To prove this fact, petitioner has produced his salary certificate to the same but, the person who issued the certificate was not examined to prove the actual (SCCH-12) 19 MVC 7483/2018 income of the petitioner. Accident occurred in the year 2017. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to prove his monthly income, this Tribunal has taken the revised notional income chart fixed by The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in deciding lok-adalath cases, wherein, the income of any person in the year 2017 is taken as Rs.11,000/- per month. The injuries sustained by the petitioner requires minimum three months rest. Hence the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.36,000/- as loss of income during treatment period for a period of one month under the head loss of income during treatment period.
(v) Loss of future income due to permanent disability :
The petitioner got examined a Doctor Sri.Krishan Prasad as P.W.2, who is a Orthopedic surgeon DNB Co-ordinator, Member of Teaching Staff, Professor of Orthopaedics and Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru. He has stated that, petitioner has sustained open fracture left leg both bones lower third. He was admitted to Hosmat Hospital, Bengaluru on 25.04.2017 and discharged on 27.04.2017 and from 24.04.2019 to 26.04.2019, wherein he was treated as inpatient for 6 days. On 26.04.2017 (SCCH-12) 20 MVC 7483/2018 interlocking nailing left tibia with plate fixation to left leg. Petitioner took treatment for a period of 3 days as inpatient. In total, he was admitted in 6 days in the said hospital. PW.2 examined the petitioner and has assessed the disability on 12.08.2021. On findings mentioned in the disability assessment, he needs contractual correction of his 2nd, 3nd and 4th toes, he can walk normally and it cost will Rs.65,000/-.
The doctor has opined that there is 43% lower limb disability to right upper limb and 15% disability to the whole body. The age of the petitioner is shown as 26 years at the time of accident. The notarized copy of driving license marked as Ex.P.18 shows his date of birth as 03.04.1992. Hence, his age on the date of accident completed 26 years. In the cross examination it is suggested that the petitioner is in normal condition and has no difficulty to do his routine activities. The doctor has answered that, the petitioner has no difficulty to do desk work. It is also suggested that, false disability certificate is given when the petitioner did not have any disability at all. This suggestion is denied by the witness. The tribunal is of the opinion that, the total disability to the whole body cannot exceed more than 12% since implant is already removed and he can continue to (SCCH-12) 21 MVC 7483/2018 do his desk job without any difficulty. Hence the loss of income due to disability is calculated as under:-
Monthly income: = Rs.11.000/-
Total disability to the limb
as assessed by the doctor 43%
Functional disability to the whole body assessed by the Tribunal 12% Appropriate multiplier: =17 Rs.11,000x12 = Rs.1,32,000/-
Rs.1,32,000 x12% = Rs. 15,840/-
Rs.15,840X17 = Rs.2,69,280/-
Hence, I hold that petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,69,280/- towards loss of future income due to disability.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads:-
Rs.
1. Towards Pain & Sufferings 25,000=00
2. Medical expenses 1,84,792=00
3. Conveyance, Attendant charges 6,000=00 & food and nourishment expenses:(Rs.1,000/- x 6 days)
4. Loss of income during treatment 36,000=00 period:
5. Loss of income due to permanent 2,69,280=00 disability Total 5,21,072=00 (SCCH-12) 22 MVC 7483/2018 Therefore, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,21,072/- from the respondent no. 1.
In view of the valid contract of insurance between the respondent nos.1 and 2, the respondent no.1 is directed to pay the said compensation amount with interest to the petitioner. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in "Partly Affirmative".
16. ISSUE NO.3:- As per S.171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, it can direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim. This court has relied upon the recent judgment of Karnataka High Court in MFA NO.2531/2018 C/W M.F.A.No.905/2018 in the case of Smt.Mahadevamma V/s The divisional Controller, wherein 9% interest is reduced to 6% p.a. keeping in mind the relevant factors prevailing rate of interest and also to maintain uniformity in the orders. Hence it was reduced as to 6% p.a. consistently in identical circumstances by this court. He also relied upon the Miscellaneous first appeal No.6600/2015 in the case of Jayalakshmi and others V/s The managing Director KSRTC where interest is awarded at 6% p.a. In M.F.A. NO. 4745/2019(MV-D) C/W M.F.A. NO. 869/2021 in the case of The Divisional Controller V/s Zeenath and others. The interest is awarded at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the (SCCH-12) 23 MVC 7483/2018 petition till the payment. It is held that the appellant would be entitled for interest at 6% p.a. on the total amount of compensation. Hence, keeping this citations as precedent, this Tribunal has awarded interest @t 6% p.a. in all the cases hereinafter. Therefore, I hold that the petitioners are entitled for interest @ 6% p.a. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner u/Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is allowed in part with costs against the respondent no.1 and 2 as follows: -
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs.5,21,072/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization from the respondent nos.1 and 2.
In view of the valid contract of insurance between the respondent nos.1 and 2, the respondent no.1 insurance company is directed to pay the said compensation amount with interest as above to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this award.(SCCH-12) 24 MVC 7483/2018
Out of compensation amount with cost and interest awarded to the petitioner 75% is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner and 25% is ordered to be deposited as FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized bank of his choice for a period of 3 years with liberty to withdraw the accrued interest on said FD once in 3 months.
The Advocate fee is fixed at
Rs.1,000/-.
Draw up award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcription revised, typed by her on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this 17th day of February, 2023.) (Poornima.N.Pai), XI Addl. Small Causes Judge and ACMM, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the petitioner :-
P.W.1 Prakash.G.S P.W.2 Dr. Krishan Prasad
Documents marked for the petitioner :-
Ex.P.1 True copy of F.I.R. (SCCH-12) 25 MVC 7483/2018 Ex.P.2 True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.4 True copy of Mahazar Ex.P.5 True copy of Sketch Ex.P.6 True copy of IMV Report Ex.P.7 True copy of U/Sec.133 Notice, Reply and indemnity bond Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Order sheet in CC No.22286/2017 Ex.P.9 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.10 Discharge Summary Ex.P.11 Offer letter Ex.P.12 Undertaking letter Ex.P.13 Appointment letter Ex.P.14 Salary Sheet Ex.P.15 X-ray (5 in Nos.) Ex.P.16 Medical bills (22 in Nos.) Ex.P.17 Lab Report Ex.P.18 Notarized copy of Driving license Ex.P.19 & 20 Inpatient Records Ex.P.21 & 22 Outpatient records Ex.P.23 X-ray Report Ex.P.24 X-ray Ex.P.25 Medical bills (2 in Nos.)
Witnesses examined for the respondents :-
RW.1 B.Shrinivasappa
(SCCH-12) 26 MVC 7483/2018
RW.2 Smt.Sobha K.A
Documents marked for the respondents :-
Ex.R1 Authorization letter
Ex.R2 Driving License of Rajesh
Ex.P.3 History sheet of Rajesh
Ex.P.4 Copy of policy
(Poornima.N.Pai),
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
and ACMM, Bangalore.