Bangalore District Court
Ms. Manjula vs No.1: United India Insurance Co on 5 September, 2017
SCCH-1 1 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF SEPTEMBER'2017
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, LL.B.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16,
1693/16, 1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16,
5272/16
Petitioners: MS. Manjula,
(in MVC 1348/16) D/o. Late Puttaraju,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at:
No.100, Taluk Office Road,
Devanahalli,
Bangalore.
PETITIONERS Ms. Yashasvini J. Raj,
(in MVC 1349/16) D/o. Janardhanaraj,
Aged about 18 years,
Residing at:
Venkateshwara Sweets,
Raju Complex,
Beside SBM, BB Road,
Chikkaballapur.
PETITIONERS Smt. Anjinamma,
(in MVC 1691/16) W/o. Narasimhappa,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at:
Madapalli,
Bagepalli Taluk,
SCCH-1 2 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Chikkaballapura Taluk and District.
PETITIONERS Sri. Gangadhar C.,
(in MVC 1692/16) S/o. Channappa,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing at:
No.35, Maralubagilu,
Devanahalli Town,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural Dist.
PETITIONERS Sri. P. Karagappa,
(in MVC 1693/16) S/o. Late Pillappa,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at:
No.169, AANURU Village,
Thippenahalli Post,
Shidlagatta,
Chikkaballapura Dist. - 562 103.
PETITIONERS Sri. Appaji Gowda J.R.,
(in MVC 1694/16) S/o. Ramakrishnappa M.,
Aged about 19 years.
Residing at:
Jyothipura Village,
Koira Post,
Kundana Hobli,
Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural Dist.
PETITIONERS Sri. Noor Mohammadi,
(in MVC 1695/16) S/o. Alla Baksha
Residing at:
No.3138, Ward No.4,
Bagathsingh Nagar,
Chikkaballapur Town.
SCCH-1 3 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
PETITIONERS Sri. Nagaraju G.N.,
(in MVC 1696/16) S/o. Nanjappa,
Aged about 22 years,
Residing at:
Gottipura Village,
Jadigenahalli Hobli,
Mugabala, Dasrahalli Post,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
PETITIONERS Sri. Shivaram,
(in MVC 1697/16) S/o. Lakshmaiah,
Aged about 38 years.
Residing at:
No.65, Vaddanahalli,
Aarudhi,
Doddaballapura,
Bangalore Rural.
PETITIONERS Sri. Vishnu Laxmappa Gondhakar,
(in MVC 5245/16) S/o. Laxmappa,
Aged about 48 years.
Residing at:
No.52, Nanjundappa Building,
Yalahanka Beedi,
Devanahalli Town,
Bangalore Rural District.
PETITIONERS Sri. Mahesh V.,
(in MVC 5272/16) S/o. Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 32 years.
Residing at:
Ward No.9, Niragantepalya,
Devanahalli town,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By M.G.Raghavendra, Advocate in all the
SCCH-1 4 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
above cases)
- V/s -
Respondent No.1: United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
(in all the cases) T.P. Hub, 6th Floor,
Krishibhavan Building,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore.
(Private bus bearing Reg.No. KA-40-5832)
(Sri. V. Raghunathan, Advocate in all the
cases)
Respondent No.2: Y.N. Srinivas,
S/o. Late Narayanaswamy,
Behind T.B.Banglow,
Indiranagar,
Chikkaballapur Town and Dist.
(By Sri R.Vedananda Char, Advocate in
all the cases)
**********
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are arising out of the same accident and
therefore, they are disposed off by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking
SCCH-1 5 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the road
traffic accident.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 30.12.2015 at about
8.20 a.m., they were traveling in a private bus bearing
registration No.KA-40-5823 being driven by its driver from
Devanahalli towards Bangalore and when they reached near
Kannamangalapalya Gate, at that time, the driver of the said
bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost
control over the bus and dashed to the Grills which were there
on the side of the road, due to which the bus was topple on the
left side and the petitioners sustained grievous injuries.
4. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1348/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to Apporva
Hospital wherein she took treatment and after the discharge she
is taking treatment at Sowjanya Clinic at Devanahalli and she
has incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and
conveyance. It is further contended that, at the time of accident,
she was working as Home Guard and tendering her duty to
Amruthahalli Police Station and was drawing remuneration of
SCCH-1 6 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Rs.400/- per day. Due to the said accident she is unable to
work and thereby she has lost her income and also facing
mental shock and discomfort.
5. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1349/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to Akash
hospital, Devanahalli wherein she was admitted as an inpatient
and took treatment and also spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
treatment, medicines and conveyance. It is contended that, at
the time of accident, she was a student and was studying B.E.
at Sri Vishveshvaraiah Institute of Technology, Bangalore and
due to the accidental injuries she is unable to do her work and
thereby petitioner and her family are put to great financial loss
and mental agony.
6. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1691/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to
Government hospital, Devanahalli and from there she was
shifted to MINTO hospital wherein she took treatment as an
inpatient and underwent surgery. Also contended that, she has
spent Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment, medicines and conveyance
etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident she was doing
SCCH-1 7 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
coolie and earning Rs.400/- per day. Due to the accidental
injuries she is unable to do her work and hence thereby
petitioner and her family are put to great financial loss and
mental agony.
7. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1692/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to
Government hospital and from there he was shifted to Akash
hospital and admitted as an inpatient. Also contended that, he
has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and
conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident he
was working as Store Keeper at Catgerers at Airport Bangalore
and drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental
injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby petitioner and
his family are put into great financial loss and mental agony.
8. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1693/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Leena
hospital at Devanahalli and from there he was shifted to M.V.J.
hospital at Koskote for further treatment, wherein he took
treatment as an inpatient. Also contended that, he has spent
Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and conveyance
SCCH-1 8 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident he was an
agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Due to the
accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby
petitioner and his family are put into great financial loss and
mental agony.
9. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1694/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Shirdi Sai
hospital and from there he was shifted to R.M.V. hospital
wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Also contended
that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines
and conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time of
accident he was working as Sales men in a private company
(Stones) and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due to the
accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby
petitioner and his family are put into great financial loss and
mental agony.
10. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1695/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Manasa
hospital from there he was shifted to ESI hospital and again
shifted to Chikkaballapura Govt. hospital and took treatment as
SCCH-1 9 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
an inpatient. Also contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/-
towards treatment, medicines and conveyance etc., It is
contended that, he was a Tailor by avocation and working at
Bodiac Clothing Co., Ltd., at Yalahanka, Bangalore and drawing
salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he is
unable to do his work and thereby petitioner and his family are
put into great financial loss and mental agony.
11. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1696/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Manasa
hospital at Devanahalli and took treatment. Also contended
that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines
and conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time of
accident he was working as Security Guard for G4-S Pvt., Ltd.,
and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental
injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby petitioner and
his family are put into great financial loss and mental agony.
12. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 1697/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Shirdi Sai
hospital at Devanahalli and from there he was shifted to Govt.
hospital, Chikkaballapura for further treatment and again
SCCH-1 10 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
shifted to Jeevan hospital and took treatment for the accidental
injuries. Also contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/-
towards treatment, medicines and conveyance etc., It is
contended that, at the time of accident he was working as
Junior Processing Officer at HDFC Bank and drawing salary of
Rs.13,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to
do his work and thereby petitioner and his family are put into
great financial loss and mental agony.
13. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 5245/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Akash
hospital and from there he was shifted to Govt. hospital at
Devanahalli wherein he took treatment. Also contended that,
he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment, medicines and
conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident he
was working as Security Guard for Innovation Ltd., and drawing
salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he is
unable to do his work and thereby petitioner and his family are
put into great financial loss and mental agony.
14. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 5272/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Apoorva
SCCH-1 11 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
hospital wherein he took treatment for the accidental injuries.
Also contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
treatment, medicines and conveyance etc., It is contended that,
at the time of accident he was working as Carpenter at Maruthi
Timbers GKVK, Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.7,000/-
p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do his work
and thereby petitioner and his family are put into great financial
loss and mental agony.
15. It is also the contention of the petitioners in all the
cases that, the accident was occurred due to the negligent
driving by the driver of the Private bus and the Bangalore
International Airport Traffic Police have registered a case
against the driver of the said bus bearing Reg.No. KA-40-5832
under section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC. Hence the
respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioners.
16. In pursuance of these claim petitions, this Court
issued notice against both the respondents. Respondent No.1 &
2 appeared through their respective counsels and filed objection
statement in all the cases.
SCCH-1 12 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
17. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that, the
petition is not maintainable either in law or on the given facts
and circumstances of the case and hence the same has to be
dismissed and also denied all the averments made in the
petition. Further it is contended that, the driver of the bus
bearing Reg.No. KA-40-5832 was holding valid and effective
driving licence to drive the same and also the R.C., Permit and
F.C. of the bus was valid as on the alleged date of accident.
18. 1st respondent has further contended that, it has
issued the Policy in respect of the bus bearing Reg.No. KA-40-
5832 and the same was valid from 09.07.2015 to 08.07.2016
and liability if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy and verification of the relevant documents pertaining to
the vehicle in question, valid and effective driving licence held
by the driver of the bus.
19. It is further contended that, the Petitioners have to
prove that the accident has occurred due to the rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Also have to
prove their age, nature of injuries suffered by them, treatment
taken in the hospitals, the amount spent towards medical
SCCH-1 13 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
expenses on account of accidental injuries and other incidental
expenses, the disabilities suffered by them, avocation and also
their earnings. Further contended that, their company reserves
the right to file additional statement of objections under the
changed circumstances U/s.170 of Motor Vehicle Act and also
on the grounds that comes under section 134(C) and 158(6) of
M.V.Act.
20. Further 1st respondent has contended that, if this
court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to
compensation, then this court has to restrict the rate of interest
@ 6% p.a. in the event of petitions are allowed. It is further
contended that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners is
excessive and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss all the
Petitions.
21. The respondent No.2/owner of Private bus in his
written statement has denied all the petition averments and
contended that, petitioners have to prove the same i.e. the
nature of injuries, treatment taken in the hospitals, amount
spent towards medical expenses on account of accidental
SCCH-1 14 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
injuries and the disabilities suffered by them, their age and
earnings.
22. 2nd respondent has further contended that, the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is fanciful, speculative
and exorbitant. Further it is his contention that, he is the owner
of the offending vehicle and it is insured under the 1st
respondent company and the said policy was in subsistence at
the time of the alleged accident and also had valid fitness
certificate, Ration Card, Permit and the driver of the said bus
was having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident and hence the insurer is liable to pay compensation. It
is also contended that, the driver of the bus was driving the
same slowly on correct side of the road and the petitioners have
not sustained injuries due to the alleged accident and hence the
petitions are liable to be dismissed. Also has reserved the right
to file additional statement of objections under the changed
circumstances. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions.
23. Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the
following common issues in all the cases:-
SCCH-1 15 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that she sustained
grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
that occurred on 30-12-2015 at about 8.20 a.m,
Near Kannamangalapalya Gate, BB Road,
Devanahalli, within the jurisdiction of BIAL Traffic
Police Station on account of rash and negligent
driving of the Private Bus bearing registration
No.KA-40-5832 by its driver?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
24. In order to prove their cases, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1348/16 is examined as PW.1, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1349/16 is examined as PW.2, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1691/16 is examined as PW.3, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1692/16 is examined as PW.8, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1693/16 is examined as PW.4, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1694/16 is examined as PW.5, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1695/16 is examined as PW.6, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1696/16 is examined as PW.9, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.1697/16 is examined as PW.7, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.5245/16 is examined as PW.11, petitioner in M.V.C.
No.5272/16 is examined as PW.12, and have got marked the
SCCH-1 16 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
documents at Ex.P.1 to 35 and Ex.P39 to 44. PW.4, P.W.7 and
PW.8 have also examined the Doctor as PW.13 and he got
marked the documents Ex.45 to Ex.P50. PW.3 also examined
the Doctor as PW.14. On the other hand, respondents have not
adduced any evidence before the Court.
25. I heard the arguments of petitioners counsel and
respondents counsel.
26. Having heard the arguments, based on the pleadings
and the evidence available on record, I record my findings on
the above issues as under:-
1) Issue No.1 (in all the cases)... In the Affirmative,
2) Issue No.2 (in all the cases)... Partly in the Affirmative,
3) Issue No.3 (in all the cases)... As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
27. Issue No.1: It is the case of the petitioners in all the
cases that, on 30.12.2015 at about 8.20 a.m., they were
traveling in a private bus bearing registration No.KA-40-5823
being driven by its driver from Devanahalli towards Bangalore
and when they reached near Kannamangalapalya Gate, at that
SCCH-1 17 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
time, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and having lost control over the bus dashed
to the Grills which were there on the side of the road, due to
which bus was toppled on the left side and as a result
petitioners sustained grievous injuries. It is contended that, the
accident was occurred due to the negligence on the part of the
driver of the private bus.
28. In order to prove their case, the petitioner in MVC
No.1348/2016 has been examined as PW.1, and she got marked
the documents as Ex.P.1 to P4 and Ex.P6 i.e. FIR, Mahazar,
Sketch, IMV Report and Charge sheet. In the cross examination
of PW.1 it is suggested that, she has not traveled from
Devanahalli to Bangalore on the date of the accident and the
same was denied. It is elicited that, she has boarded the bus at
Devanahalli and the bus was loaded with passengers. On the
other hand, the respondents have denied the negligence on the
part of the driver of the private bus and to substantiate the
same, they have not led any evidence before the Court nor
examined any of the witness.
SCCH-1 18 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
29. Now let me consider the evidence available before the
Court. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1 to PW9 and PW.11
and PW.12, though it is suggested that, they have not travelled
from Devanahalli to Bangalore on the date of the accident in the
bus, they have denied the same. It is elicited that, they have
boarded the bus at Devanahalli and the bus was loaded with
passengers. On perusal of Ex.P1 FIR the accident was occurred
on 30.12.2015 at 08.20 a.m. and the complaint was registered
on the same day of the accident at 9.30 a.m. and there is no
delay in lodging the complaint. The complainant has also made
an allegation against the driver of the bus stating that, he drove
the same in a rash and negligent manner.
30. On perusal of Sketch Ex.P.3, it is apparent that it is
a case of Res-ipsa-loquitor, in as much as, while the petitioners
were travelling in the bus as passengers from Devanahalli to
Bangalore and the bus reached near Kannamangalapalya Gate,
at that time, on account of over-speed and negligence, the driver
of the bus lost control over the bus, went off the road and
dashed to the grills which were there on the side of the road and
toppled. Due to which, the petitioners and other inmates of the
SCCH-1 19 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
bus suffered injuries. This is further clear from the complaint,
FIR and Ex.P6 Charge sheet filed by the police against the driver
of the bus, after investigation. The respondents have not denied
the Sketch Ex.P3 and the petitioner has not produced the IMV
Report before the Court.
31. It is contended by the respondents that, the accident
was not occurred due to the negligence on the part of the river
of the bus and it was proceeding in the right direction and in
order to substantiate their contention, they have not led any
evidence before the Court and also have not examined the driver
of the bus who is the right person to speak with regard to the
occurrence of the accident. Hence, I am of the opinion that, as
there is no contra evidence as against the evidence of PW.1 to
PW.9 and PW.11 and PW.12 and documentary evidence
available before the Court, this Court has come to the
conclusion that, the accident was occurred on account of rash
and negligent driving of the private bus bearing registration
No.KA-40-5832 by its driver. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in
the Affirmative.
SCCH-1 20 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
32. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1348/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident she has
suffered grievous injuries and immediately after the accident
she was taken to Apurva Hospital wherein she took treatment
and after the discharge she is taking treatment at Sowjanya
Clinic at Devanahalli and she has incurred Rs.1,00,000/-
towards treatment, medicines and conveyance. It is further
contended that, at the time of accident, she was working as
Home Guard and tendering her duty to Amruthahalli Police
Station and was drawing remuneration of Rs.400/- per day.
Due to the said accident she is unable to work and thereby she
has lost her income and also facing mental shock and
discomfort.
33. The petitioner in support of her contention has
examined herself as PW.1 and in her evidence she has
reiterated the averments made in the petition with regard to the
injuries suffered by her and also got marked the documents
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate, Ex.P7 Discharge Summary, Ex.P8 4
medical bills for Rs.9,977/- and Ex.P9 Prescriptions. In the
cross examination of PW.1 it is suggested to her that, she was
SCCH-1 21 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
not an inpatient at Apoorva hospital and she has denied the
same. It is elicited that, she was an inpatient for a day. It is
suggested that, the wound certificate is created for the purpose
of this case and the same was denied. It is also elicited that,
now also she is working as Home Guard. She admits that, she
has suffered simple injuries.
34. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, she claims that she has suffered simple injuries in
her cross examination. On perusal of Wound Certificate which
is marked as Ex.P.5 it discloses that, she has suffered following
injuries:
1. Cut lacerated wound lower lip,
2. Right Elbow - Blunt injury.
In the Wound certificate the doctor has opined that the
injuries are simple in nature. On perusal of Ex.P7 Discharge
Summary of Apurva hospital reveals that, she was an inpatient
for a day on 30.12.2015 and she was given conservative
treatment with tablet and injections. She has also produced the
medical bills to the tune of Rs.9,977/- which are marked as
SCCH-1 22 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Ex.P8 and it discloses that, the CT Scan was done at Apurva
hospital and its cost was Rs.3,000/- which was paid through
Cheque. Petitioner has also produced final inpatient bill of
Apurva hospital amounting to Rs.5,200/- for having taken
treatment in the said hospital for a day i.e. on 30.12.2015. She
has also produced other additional bills for having undergone
blood test and purchase of medicines.
35. With regard to the avocation and income of the
petitioner is concerned, though she claims that, she was
working as Home Guard and earning Rs.400/- per day, she has
not produced any documentary proof and in the cross
examination she admits that, now also she is working as Home
Guard. Hence after considering the materials on record and for
having taken note of the nature of injuries i.e. cut lacerated
wound lower lip and right elbow-blunt injury and petitioner has
taken treatment at Apurva hospital and produced medical bills
amounting to Rs.9,977/- and in the absence of doctor's
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
global compensation of Rs. 40,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses and
SCCH-1 23 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
medical bills. Hence I award Rs.40,000/- as global
compensation.
36. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1349/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident she has
suffered grievous injuries and immediately after the accident
she was taken to Akash hospital, Devanahalli wherein she was
admitted as an inpatient and took treatment and also spent
Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and conveyance. It
is contended that, at the time of accident, she was a student
and was studying B.E. at Sri Vishveshvaraiah Institute of
Technology, Bangalore and due to the accidental injuries she is
unable to do her work and thereby petitioner and her family are
put to great financial loss and mental agony.
37. The petitioner in support of her contention has
examined herself as PW.2 and in her evidence she has
reiterated the averments made in the petition with regard to the
injuries suffered by her and also got marked the documents
Ex.P.10 Wound certificate, Ex.P11 Discharge Summary, Ex.P12
Certificate issued by the college, Ex.P13-2 photos with C.D.,
Ex.P14 medical bills for Rs.31,559/-(47 in nos.). In the cross
SCCH-1 24 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
examination of PW.2 it is suggested to her that, she has not
taken treatment at Akash hospital and she has denied the
same. It is elicited that, she was an inpatient for a period of 10
days. It is suggested that, Ex.P12 is created for the purpose of
this case and the same was denied. It is elicited that, she has
taken the said subjects in the next Semester along with the
other subjects. She has suffered one year academic loss on
account of this accident. It is also suggested that, she is falsely
claiming that she had spent an amount of Rs.31,559/- towards
medication and the same was denied. It is suggested that, she
has suffered only simple injuries and she is not having any
difficulties and the same was denied.
38. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, petitioner in her evidence claims that she has
suffered grievous injuries. On perusal of Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P.10 it discloses that, she has suffered
Laceration 6 x 4 cm. on left elbow upto muscle depth and the
doctor has opined that the said injury is grievous in nature. On
perusal of Ex.P11 Discharge Summary of Akash hospital reveals
SCCH-1 25 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
that, she was an inpatient in the said hospital from 30.12.2015
to 09.01.2016 for a period of 10 days and she had undergone
wound debridment of left elbow on 30.12.2015 and she was
treated with tablet and injections. Petitioner claims that, she is
a B.E. student at Sir M.Vishveshvaraiah institute of Technology
at Bangalore and to prove the same she has produced Ex.P12
Letter issued by the said institute to prove that she was a
student and also for non-appearance of examination. Hence
after considering the materials on record and for having taken
note of the nature of injuries i.e. laceration on left elbow upto
muscle depth and petitioner has taken treatment at Akash
hospital and in the absence of doctor's evidence, I am of the
opinion that, it is a fit case to award a global compensation of
Rs. 40,000/- including pain and sufferings, hospitalization for
10 days, food and nourishment, conveyance and other
incidental expenses.
39. Petitioner has also produced medical bills to the
tune of Rs.31,559/- which are marked as Ex.P14. On careful
scrutiny of the medical bills it reflects that, these bills are
obtained through computer and though signatures are found on
the documents, in the list of bills mentioned in Sl.No.1 to 23
SCCH-1 26 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
are repetition of bills which are produced in Sl.No.25 to 47 of
the original bills which have been produced before the Court,
except the change of billing date, other details of medicines as
well as bill numbers are one and the same and it is nothing but
creation of documents and the very conduct of the petitioner
has to be deprecated for the reason that the petitioner has
indulged in creation of documents and no proper explanation is
give regarding doubling of bills. Hence the bills in Sl.No.1 to 23
amounting to Rs.15,596/- cannot be entertained and the same
are deducted from the total medical bills. Further it also
discloses that, petitioner has taken treatment in Akash hospital
from 30.12.2015 to 09.01.2016 and also made payment towards
purchase of medicines. Hence, after deducing an amount of
Rs. Rs.15,596/- out of the total medical bills of Rs.31,559/-, I
award an amount of Rs.15,963/- which is rounded off to
Rs.16,000/- under the head Medical Expenses.
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs. 56,000(40,000 + 16,000)/-
40. Issue No.2 (in M.V.C. No.1691/2016): It is the case
of the petitioner that, on account of the accident she has
SCCH-1 27 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident she
was taken to Government hospital, Devanahalli and from there
she was shifted to MINTO hospital wherein she took treatment
as an inpatient and underwent surgery. Also contended that,
she has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment, medicines and
conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident she
was doing coolie and earning Rs.400/- per day. Due to the
accidental injuries she is unable to do her work and hence
thereby petitioner and her family are put to great financial loss
and mental agony. Petitioner in order to substantiate her
contention has examined herself as PW.3 and relied upon
Wound Certificate, Discharge card, copy of Election ID card,
Medical bills (3 in nos.) for Rs.2,180/- which are marked as
Ex.P15 to Ex.P18.
41. The petitioner was subjected to cross examination
and in the cross examination it is suggested that, she was not
an inpatient at MINTO hospital and the same was denied. It is
elicited that, she was an inpatient for a period of 9 days. It is
suggested that, Ex.P15 is created and produced for the purpose
of this case and the same was denied. She admits that, she was
SCCH-1 28 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
working as coolie. It is suggested that, she is falsely claiming
that, she has incurred an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards
incidental, conveyance and nourishment expenses and the
same was denied. It is suggested that, she can do coolie work
and now also she is doing the coolie work and the same was
denied.
42. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of the
Doctor who has been examined as PW.14 and in her evidence
she has reiterated the nature of injuries sustained by the
petitioner. Further says that, injured has sustained Right eye -
Ant Sig(N) Vn 6/18 - 6/12, left eye Total Hyphema of Lid
Laceration and Globe Rupture and she was subjected to left eye
primary repair with IVAB under local anesthesia on 31.12.2015.
On clinical examination, she found that, patient suffers visual
disability of 100% to the left eye and totally disability 40%. In
the cross examination of PW.14 it is elicited that, she has not
treated the patient. She admits that, patient has taken the
treatment at Government Minto hospital and she has not seen
the case sheet but only seen the Discharge Summary. The
patient was in the hospital for about 6 days and she was
SCCH-1 29 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
subjected to surgery of globe rupture. The sutured wound was
there on the left eye at the time of the discharge. She also
admits that, the disability is not mentioned in the discharge
summary. It is suggested that, loss of vision is not on account
of accidental injury and she says the same is on account of
injury. It is suggested that, in order to help the petitioner she
has assessed the disability on higher side and the said
suggestion was denied.
43. Now let me appreciate both oral and documentary
evidences available before the court under the different heads:
44. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
The petitioner in her petition and also in the evidence she
has reiterated the nature of injuries sustained by her and also
says that, she has suffered the permanent disability on account
of the accident. The Petitioner in order to substantiate her
contention has produced the Wound certificate which is marked
as Ex.P15 and it reveals that, the petitioner has suffered
following injuries:
1. Grievous injuries to the left eye ball,
2. Abrasion seen over right eye region.
SCCH-1 30 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
The doctor in the wound certificate has opined that the
injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in
nature. Ex.P16 Discharge Card of Minto hospital reveals that,
she underwent left eye primary repair with IVAB on 31.12.2015.
PW.3 was inpatient in the said hospital from 30.12.2015 to
06.01.2016 for a period of 6 days. In view of petitioner has
suffered the above said injuries and also underwent left eye
primary repair, I am of the opinion that, petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, I award Rs.40,000/-
under the Head Pain and Sufferings.
45. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF
DISABILITY:
a) Disability:
Regarding the disability is concerned the petitioner has
relied upon the evidence of the Doctor PW.14 who assessed the
visual disability of 100% of left eye and 40% of total disability.
In the cross examination it is suggested that, loss of vision is
not on account of accidental injury and PW.14 says, the same is
on account of injury. For having taken note of the nature of
injury and patient was subjected to surgery of globe rupture to
SCCH-1 31 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
the left eye and in the evidence PW.3 has only relied upon the
wound certificate and discharge card and the same discloses
that, she was inpatient for 6 days and was subjected to surgery
of globe rupture, though PW.14 says she has assessed the
visual disability of 100% to left eye and total disability to the
extent of 40%, nothing is placed before the Court i.e. either the
clinical examination report or any document to show the loss of
100% visual disability. The evidence of the Doctor is only oral
say and not been supported by any documents regarding loss of
vision. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the evidence of PW.14
regarding loss of vision to the extent of 40% cannot be accepted.
Further, patient has under gone surgery of globe rupture and
hence this Court can take only 10% disability to whole body
which would be just and reasonable.
b) Income:
The Petitioner claims that, she was doing coolie and
earning Rs.400/- per day and no documentary proof is placed
before the Court with regard to the avocation and income.
Further in the cross examination she categorically admits that,
she was working as coolie. Hence in the absence of any
SCCH-1 32 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
documentary proof with regard to the earnings, I have taken
income of the petitioner as 7,000/- p.m. as notional income
since the accident was taken place in the year 2015.
c) Age & multiplier:
The Petitioner claims that he was aged about 28 years at
the time of the accident and to prove the same she has relied
upon the Ex.P17 Election ID Card in which her date of birth is
mentioned as 01.01.1987 and this accident was occurred on
30.12.2015, hence she was aged 29 years at the time of the
accident. Having taken note of the petitioner's age as 29 years,
the relevant multiplier applicable between the age group of 26 to
30 is 17.
The petitioner is entitled for the compensation of
Rs.1,42,800/-(7,000x12x10x17/100). Hence I award
Rs.1,42,800/- under the Head of Loss of Earnings due to
disability.
46. MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune of
Rs.2,180/- which is marked as Ex.P18. On perusal of Ex.P18 it
discloses that, petitioner has produced receipts for having paid
SCCH-1 33 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
the amount of Rs.830/-, Rs.1,330/- and Rs.20/- at Minto
hospital for admission and hospital charges. Hence I award
Rs.2,180/- under the head medical expenses.
47. CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT, ATTENDANT
CHARGES AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES:
During the treatment period the Petitioner must have
spent amount towards conveyance and other incidental
expenses. The petitioner was an inpatient at Minto hospital for
a period of 6 days from 30.12.2015 to 06.01.2016. She has
suffered injury to the eye and underwent globe rupture surgery.
Hence I award Rs.10,000/- under the head conveyance,
attendant charges, food and nourishment and other
incidental expenses.
48. LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF
TREATMENT:
It is important to note that, she was an inpatient for a
period of 6 days and she has sustained eye injury. The PW.1
has not placed any documentary evidence before the court to
prove that presently she is not working. Hence for having taken
note of nature of injury she has suffered, I am of the opinion
that she could not have worked for a period of 3 months.
SCCH-1 34 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Hence, I award an amount of Rs.21,000/-(7,000x3) under
the head Loss of earnings during the period of treatment.
49. LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE:
The petitioner is aged about 29 years and she has suffered
the disability and this court has fixed 10% disability to whole
body. On account of his age being 29 years and she has to lead
her rest of life with the disability of 10%, I am of the opinion
that, the Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.35,000/- on
the head loss of amenities in life.
The details of compensation, I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.
Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000.00
2. Loss of future earnings due to Rs. 1,42,800.00
disability
(7,000x12x10x17/100)
3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,180.00
4. Conveyance, food and 10,000.00
nourishment, attendant charges
and other incidental expenses.
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 21,000.00
period of treatment(7,000x3)
6. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 35,000.00
Total Rs. 2,50,980.00
which is
rounded off to
Rs.2,51,000.00
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,51,000/-.
SCCH-1 35 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
50. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1692/2016) : It is the
case of the petitioner that, on account of the accident he has
sustained the grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident
he was taken to Government hospital and from there he was
shifted to Akash hospital and admitted as an inpatient. Also
contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment,
medicines and conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time
of accident he was working as Store Keeper at Catgerers at
Airport Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. Due to
the accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby
petitioner and his family are put into great financial loss and
mental agony. Petitioner in order to substantiate his contention
has examined himself as PW.8 and also has relied upon Wound
Certificate, Discharge summary, Medical bill of Rs.11,751/-
which are marked as Ex.P30 to 32.
51. The petitioner was subjected to cross examination
and in the cross examination it is suggested that, he was not an
Inpatient at Akash hospital and the same was denied. It is
elicited that, he was an Inpatient for 10 days at Akash hospital
and he has produced discharge summery. He admits that, he
SCCH-1 36 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
has not produced any document to show that he was working
as Store Keeper at Bird Caterers at Bangalore International
Airport and earning Rs.8,000/- per month.
52. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of the
Doctor who has been examined as PW.13 and in his evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by
the injured. Further says that, injured has sustained
communited fracture of shaft of right humerus with wrist drop
and underwent Open reduction and internal fixation of
humerus and exploration of radial nerve. It is also his evidence
that, on 15.06.2017 he assessed the disability by taking into
note of difficulties faced by the petitioner and came to the
conclusion of 31% disability to the right upper limb and the
whole body disability as 11%. He says, upon the radiological
examination it shows that, the fracture is united with implants
in-situ. He has produced Ex.P45 OPD book, Ex.P46 X-ray.
53. The PW.13 was subjected to cross examination and
in the cross examination he admits that, he has not treated the
patient and he has verified the discharge summary. He admits
SCCH-1 37 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
that, petitioner has suffered the communited fractures of shaft
of right humerus with wrist drop. It is also elicited that, he does
not know the avocation of the petitioner and hence he cannot
tell whether he has got problem about his avocation. He admits
that, the fracture is united.
54. Now let me appreciate both oral and documentary
evidences available before the court under the different heads:
55. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
The petitioner in his petition and also in the evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries sustained by him and also
says that, he has suffered the permanent disability on account
of the accident. The Petitioner in order to substantiate his
contention has produced the Wound certificate which is marked
as Ex.P30 which discloses that, petitioner has sustained
fracture of right humerus and wrist drop and the doctor has
opined that the injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury
No.2 is simple in nature. Ex.P31 Discharge Summary reveals
that, PW.8 was subjected to surgery and he was treated in the
form of exploration of radial nerve and ORIF with LCP right
humerus. In view of petitioner has suffered the above said
SCCH-1 38 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
fracture and also underwent surgery, I am of the opinion that,
petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, I
award Rs.40,000/- under the Head Pain and Sufferings.
56. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF
DISABILITY:
a) Disability:
Regarding the disability is concerned the petitioner has
relied upon the evidence of the Doctor PW.13 who assessed the
disability of 11% to whole body. In the cross examination he
admits that, he has not treated the patient and only he has
examined the patient while assessing the disability and the
fracture is united. For having taken note of the admissions
elicited from the mouth of PW.13, the disability assessed by the
Doctor as 11% to whole body is little on the higher side, hence I
accept the evidence of the PW.13 to the extent of 10% since
there is no mal-union. Hence I have taken the disability as
10% which would be just and reasonable.
b) Income:
The Petitioner claims that, he was Store Keeper and
earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. and to prove the same he has not
placed any documentary proof and in the cross examination
SCCH-1 39 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
also he admits the same. In the absence of any documentary
proof with regard to the earnings of Rs.8,000/- p.m, I have
taken income of the petitioner as 7,500/- p.m. as notional
income since the accident was taken place in the year 2015.
Hence I have taken petitioner income as Rs.7,500/- p.m.
c) Age & multiplier:
The Petitioner claims that he was aged about 25 years at
the time of the accident and there is no any document to prove
the same. Hence this court has relied upon the documents
which came into existence immediately after the accident i.e.
Ex.P5 Wound certificate in which his age is mentioned as 24
years. In the Discharge Summary of Akash hospital which is
marked as Ex.P31 the injured age is mentioned as 24 years.
Hence I accept the age of the petitioner as 24 years. Having
taken note of the petitioner's age as 24 years, the relevant
multiplier applicable between the age group of 21 to 25 is 18.
The petitioner is entitled for the compensation of
Rs.1,62,000/-(7,500x12x10x18/100). Hence I award
Rs.1,62,000/- under the Head of Loss of Earnings due to
disability.
SCCH-1 40 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
57. MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune of
Rs.11,750/- which is marked as Ex.P32. On perusal of Ex.P32
it discloses that, petitioner has spent amount towards purchase
of medicines and implants. The Orange Trends has issued bill
to the tune of Rs.11,000/- for purchase of plate narrow, cortex
screws and angle stable screw. Petitioner has also produced
other bills for having purchased the medicines and for having
taken the X-ray. Though petitioner has contended that, he has
spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards hospitalization he has
not produced supporting documents. Hence I have considered
the medical bills of Rs.11,750/-. Hence I award Rs.11,750/-
under the head medical expenses.
58. CONVEYANCE, ATTENDANT CHARGES, AND OTHER
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES:
During the treatment period the Petitioner must have
spent amount towards conveyance and other incidental
expenses. The petitioner was an inpatient at Akash hospital for
a period of 10 days from 30.12.2015 to 08.01.2016. He has
suffered fractures and undergone surgery of ORIF with LCP.
SCCH-1 41 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Hence I award Rs.10,000/- under the head conveyance,
attendant charges and other incidental expenses.
59. LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF
TREATMENT:
It is important to note that, he was an inpatient for a
period of 10 days and he has sustained communited fracture of
shaft of right humerus with wrist drop and underwent Open
reduction and internal fixation of humerus and exploration of
radial nerve. The PW.1 has not placed any documentary
evidence before the court to prove that presently he is not
working. Hence for having taken note of nature of injuries he
has suffered, I am of the opinion that he could not work for a
period of 4 months. Hence, I award an amount of
Rs.30,000/-(7,500x4) under the head Loss of earnings
during the period of treatment.
60. LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE:
The petitioner is aged about 24 years and he has suffered
the disability and this court has fixed 10% disability. On
account of his age being 24 years and he has to lead his rest of
life with the disability of 10%, I am of the opinion that, the
SCCH-1 42 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head
loss of amenities in life.
61. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Doctor who has been examined as PW.13 before the
court says that, petitioner is in need of one more surgery for
removal of implants. In the cross examination he admits that,
he has not given any estimation for future removal of implants.
On perusal of records it discloses that, petitioner was subjected
to ORIF of Humerus and exploration of radial nerve. For having
taken note of the communited fracture of shaft of right humerus
with wrist drop and underwent Open reduction and internal
fixation of humerus and exploration of radial nerve, I am of the
opinion that, an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards removal of
implants is just and reasonable. Hence I award an amount of
Rs.20,000/- under the head future medical expenses.
The details of compensation, I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.
Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000.00
2. Loss of future earnings due to Rs. 1,62,000.00
disability (7,500x12x10x18/100)
3. Medical expenses Rs. 11,750.00
SCCH-1 43 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
4. Conveyance, attendant 10,000.00
charges and other incidental
expenses.
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 30,000.00
period of treatment(7,500x4)
6. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 25,000.00
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000.00
Total Rs. 2,98,750.00
which is
rounded off to
Rs.2,99,000/-
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs. 2,99,000/-
62. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1693/2016) : It is the case
of the petitioner that, on account of the accident he has
sustained the grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident
he was taken to Leena hospital at Devanahalli and from there
he was shifted to M.V.J. hospital at Koskote for further
treatment, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient. Also
contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment,
medicines and conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time
of accident he was an agriculturist and earning Rs.10,000/-
p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do his work
and thereby petitioner and his family are put into great financial
loss and mental agony. Petitioner in order to substantiate his
SCCH-1 44 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
contention has examined himself as PW.4 and also has relied
upon Wound Certificate, Medical bills (32 in nos.) for
Rs.20,070/-, 24 prescriptions which are marked as Ex.P19 to
21.
63. The petitioner was subjected to cross examination
and in the cross examination he admits that, he was an
Inpatient for a period of 37 days at MVJ hospital at Hoskote. It
is suggested that, he was not an Inpatient and the documents
which he has produced are created and the same was denied. It
is suggested that, he is falsely claiming that he had spent an
amount of Rs.70,077/- towards medication and the same was
denied. He admits that, he has not produced any document to
show that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as
agriculturist.
64. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of the
Doctor who has been examined as PW.13 and in his evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by
the injured. Further says that, injured has sustained
communited fracture of distal end of (L) radius and underwent
ligamento taxis. It is also his evidence that, on 18.06.2017 he
SCCH-1 45 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
assessed the disability by taking into note of difficulties faced by
the petitioner and came to the conclusion of 32% disability to
the right upper limb and the whole body disability as 11%. He
says, upon the radiological examination it shows that, the
fracture is mal-united with implants in-situ. He has produced
Ex.P47 OPD Card, Ex.P48 X-ray.
65. The PW.13 was subjected to cross examination and
in the cross examination he admits that, he has not treated the
patient and he has verified the discharge summary. He admits
that, petitioner has suffered the communited fractures of distal
end of left radius and he was subjected to ligamento taxis and
the external fixation was removed. It is also elicited that, the
fracture is mal-united.
66. Now let me appreciate both oral and documentary
evidences available before the court under the different heads:
67. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
The petitioner in his petition and also in the evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries sustained by him and also
says that, he has suffered the permanent disability on account
SCCH-1 46 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
of the accident. The Petitioner in order to substantiate his
contention has produced the Wound certificate which is marked
as Ex.P19 which discloses that, petitioner has sustained
abrasion over face and fracture noted over right wrist and right
forearm and the doctor has opined that the injury No.1 is
simple in nature and injury No.2 is grievous in nature. In view
of petitioner has suffered the above said fracture and also
underwent surgery, I am of the opinion that, petitioner is
entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Hence, I award
Rs.40,000/- under the Head Pain and Sufferings.
68. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF
DISABILITY:
a) Disability:
Regarding the disability is concerned the petitioner has
relied upon the evidence of the Doctor PW.13 who assessed the
disability of 12% to whole body. In the cross examination he
admits that, he has not treated the patient and only he has
examined the patient while assessing the disability and the
fracture is mal-united. For having taken note of the admissions
elicited from the mouth of PW.13, the disability assessed by the
SCCH-1 47 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Doctor as 12% to whole body is little on the higher side, hence I
accept the evidence of the PW.13 to the extent of 11% since
there is mal-union. Hence I have taken the disability as 11%
which would be just and reasonable.
b) Income:
The Petitioner claims that, he was an agriculturist and
earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. and to prove the same he has not
placed any documentary proof and in the cross examination
also he admits that he has not produced any document to show
that he was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. as an agriculturist. In
the absence of any documentary proof with regard to the
earnings of Rs.10,000/- p.m, I have taken income of the
petitioner as 7,500/- p.m. as notional income since the accident
was taken place in the year 2015. Hence I have taken petitioner
income as Rs.7,500/- p.m.
c) Age & multiplier:
The Petitioner claims that he was aged about 62 years at
the time of the accident and there is no any document to prove
the same. Hence this court has relied upon the documents
which came into existence immediately after the accident. On
SCCH-1 48 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
perusal of Ex.P19 Wound certificate the age of the petitioner is
not mentioned. Further on perusal of the bills produced before
the Court petitioner's age is mentioned as 64 years and in the
petition he claims his age as 62 years. Hence I accept the age of
the petitioner is aged between 62 to 64 years and the relevant
multiplier applicable between the age group of 61 to 65 is 7.
The petitioner is entitled for the compensation of
Rs.69,300/-(7,500x12x11x7/100). Hence I award Rs.69,300/-
under the Head of Loss of Earnings due to disability.
69. MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune of
Rs.20,007/- which are marked as Ex.P20. On perusal of
Ex.P20 it discloses that, petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.
5175/- for having taken treatment in the Leena hospital on
30.12.2015 and has also produced other bills towards purchase
of medicines and consultation charges. In the cross examination
it is suggested that, he was not an inpatient at MVJ hospital
and the same was denied. Though he admits that, he was an
inpatient for a period of 37 days at MVJ hospital at Hoskote, he
SCCH-1 49 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
has not produced the discharge summary before the Court.
Hence I award Rs.20,000/- under the head Medical
Expenses.
70. CONVEYANCE, ATTENDANT CHARGES, AND OTHER
INCIDENTAL EXPENSES:
During the treatment period the Petitioner must have
spent amount towards conveyance and other incidental
expenses. The petitioner claims that, he was an inpatient for a
period of 37 days at MVJ hospital, Hoskote and to prove the
same he has not placed the Discharge summary of said
hospital. Hence for having taken note of the gravity of injury,
and the medical bills produced before the Court and also as per
the evidence of PW.13, the fracture is mal-united and he must
have spent some amount towards conveyance, attendant
charges and other incidental expense. Hence I award an
amount of Rs.10,000/- which is just and reasonable under the
head conveyance, attendant charges and other incidental
expenses.
SCCH-1 50 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
71. LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF
TREATMENT:
It is important to note that, there is no any documentary
proof is placed before the Court to show that, he took treatment
as an inpatient. It has to be noted that, petitioner has
sustained communited fracture of distal end of (L) radius and
underwent ligament taxis and later external fixation was
removed. The PW.4 has not placed any documentary evidence
before the court to prove that presently he is not doing
agriculture. Hence for having taken note of nature of injuries
he has suffered, I am of the opinion that he could not work for a
period of 4 months. Hence, I award an amount of
Rs.30,000/-(7,500x4) under the head Loss of earnings
during the period of treatment.
72. LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE:
The petitioner is a senior citizen and he has suffered the
disability and this court has fixed 11% disability. On account of
his age being 62 to 64 years and he has to lead his rest of life
with the disability of 11%, I am of the opinion that, the
Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- on the head
loss of amenities in life.
SCCH-1 51 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
The details of compensation, I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.
Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000.00
2. Loss of future earnings due Rs. 69,300.00
to disability
(7,500x12x11x7/100)
3. Medical expenses Rs. 20,000.00
4. Conveyance, attendant 10,000.00
charges and other incidental
expenses.
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 30,000.00
period of treatment(7,000x4)
6. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 25,000.00
Total Rs. 1,94,300.00
which is
rounded off to
Rs.1,95,000.00
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs. 1,95,000/-
73. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1694/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident he has suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was
taken to Shirdi Sai hospital and from there he was shifted to
R.M.V. hospital wherein he took treatment as an inpatient.
Also contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
SCCH-1 52 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
treatment, medicines and conveyance etc., It is contended that,
at the time of accident he was working as Sales men in a private
company (Stones) and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due
to the accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and
thereby petitioner and his family are put into great financial
loss and mental agony.
74. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.5 and in his evidence he has reiterated
the averments made in the petition with regard to the injuries
suffered by him and also got marked the documents Ex.P.22
Wound certificate, Ex.P23 Discharge Summary, Ex.P24 medical
bills for Rs.6,158/-. In the cross examination of PW.5 it is
suggested to him that, he was not an inpatient at RMV hospital
and he has denied the same. It is elicited that, he was an
inpatient for 4 days. It is suggested that, he has not produced
any document to show that he was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m.
and the same was denied. It is suggested that, he has suffered
only simple injuries and not grievous injuries and the same was
denied. He admits that, he has not produced the document for
having spent Rs.50,000/- towards incidental expenses.
SCCH-1 53 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
75. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, he claims that he has sustained grievous injuries
and suffered permanent disability and he has not examined the
Doctor to prove the same. On perusal of Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P.22 it discloses that, he has suffered
Bilateral Mandible fracture and the doctor has opined that the
injury is grievous in nature. On perusal of Ex.P23 Discharge
Summary of Rajmahal Vilas hospital reveals that, he was an
inpatient for 4 days from 30.12.2015 to 02.01.2016 and he
underwent ORIF bilateral mandible. He has also produced the
medical bills to the tune of Rs.6,158/- which are marked as
Ex.P24 and it discloses that, the Rajmahal Vilas hospital has
issued an inpatient bill of Rs.64,091/- for having admitted in
their hospital form 30.12.2015 to 02.01.2016, in which the Star
health insurance has paid an amount of Rs.57,933/- and the
petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.6,158/-.
76. With regard to the avocation and income of the
petitioner is concerned, though he claims that, he was working
as Sales Men in a Granite Company and drawing salary of
SCCH-1 54 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Rs.12,000/- p.m., has not placed any documentary proof before
the Court. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries i.e. bilateral
mandible fracture and petitioner has taken treatment at
Rajmahal Vilas hospital and produced medical bills amounting
to Rs. 6,158/- and in the absence of doctor's evidence, I am of
the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a global compensation
of Rs. 50,000/- including pain and sufferings, loss of income
and other incidental expenses and medical bills. Hence I award
Rs.50,000/- as global compensation.
77. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1695/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident he has suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was
taken to Manasa hospital from there he was shifted to ESI
hospital and again shifted to Chikkaballapura Govt. hospital
and took treatment as an inpatient. Also contended that, he
has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and
conveyance etc., It is contended that, he was a Tailor by
avocation and working at Bodiac Clothing Co., Ltd., at
Yalahanka, Bangalore and drawing salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m.
SCCH-1 55 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and
thereby petitioner and his family are put into great financial
loss and mental agony.
78. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.6 and in his evidence he has reiterated
the averments made in the petition with regard to the injuries
suffered by him and also got marked the documents Ex.P.25
Wound certificate, Ex.P26 Discharge Summary, Ex.P27 medical
bills for Rs.3,423/-. In the cross examination of PW.6 it is
suggested to him that, he was not an inpatient at Manasa
hospital and he has denied the same. It is elicited that, he was
an inpatient for 2 days. It is elicited that, he was an inpatient
at Chikkaballapur Manasa hospital for a period of 2 days. It is
suggested that, Ex.P25 is created and produced for the purpose
of this case and the same was denied. He also admits that, he
has taken the treatment at ESI hospital, Devanahalli. It is
elicited that, he was working in the garments. It is suggested
that, he has not suffered any monitory loss on account of
accident and the same was denied. It is suggested that, now
also he is working at garments and witness volunteers that,
SCCH-1 56 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
because of injury sustained, he could not be able to do the
work.
79. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, he claims that he has sustained grievous injuries
and suffered permanent disability and he has not examined the
Doctor to prove the same. On perusal of Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P.25 it discloses that, simple abrasion
over UL and lips and the doctor has opined the said injuries as
simple in nature. On perusal of Ex.P26 Discharge Summary of
Manasa hospital reveals that, he was an inpatient for 2 days
from 01.01.2016 to 02.01.2016 and took conservative
treatment. He has also produced the medical bills to the tune
of Rs.3,423/- which are marked as Ex.P27 and it discloses that,
the Manasa hospital has issued an inpatient bill of Rs.2,000/-
for having admitted in the said hospital form 01.01.2016 to
02.01.2016. Petitioner has also produced other bills for having
purchased the medicines and for having paid the consultation
fees.
SCCH-1 57 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
80. With regard to the avocation and income of the
petitioner is concerned, though he claims that, he was working
as Tailor in Bodiac Clothing Co., Ltd., and drawing salary of
Rs.7,000/- p.m., has not placed any documentary proof before
the Court. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries and petitioner
has taken treatment at Manasa hospital and produced medical
bills amounting to Rs. 3,423/- and in the absence of doctor's
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses and
medical bills. Hence I award Rs.20,000/- as global
compensation.
81. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.1696/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident he has suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was
taken to Manasa hospital at Devanahalli and took treatment.
Also contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards
treatment, medicines and conveyance etc., It is contended that,
at the time of accident he was working as Security Guard for
SCCH-1 58 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
G4-S Pvt., Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m. Due to
the accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby
petitioner and his family are put into great financial loss and
mental agony.
82. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.9 and in his evidence he has reiterated
the averments made in the petition with regard to the injuries
suffered by him and also got marked the documents Ex.P.33
Wound certificate, Ex.P34 medical bills for Rs.7,124/-. In the
cross examination of PW.9 it is suggested to him that, he was
not an inpatient at Manasa hospital and he has denied the
same. It is elicited that, he was an inpatient for 3 days and he
has not produced the discharge summary. It is suggested that,
he is falsely claiming that he had spent an amount of
Rs.57,124/- towards medication and other incidental expenses
and the same was denied. He admits that, he has not produced
any document to show that he was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m.
83. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
SCCH-1 59 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
noted that, he claims that he has sustained grievous injuries
and suffered permanent disability and he has not examined the
Doctor to prove the same. On perusal of Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P.33 it discloses that, patient has
sustained side distal end Radius fracture and MUL tear and the
doctor has opined that, the injuries are grievous injuries. He
has also produced the medical bills to the tune of Rs.7,124/-
which are marked as Ex.P34 and it discloses that, the Manasa
hospital has issued an inpatient bill of Rs.5,000/- for having
admitted in the said hospital on 30.12.2016. Petitioner has also
produced other bills for having purchased the medicines and for
having paid the consultation fees.
84. With regard to the avocation and income of the
petitioner is concerned, though he claims that, he was working
as Security Guard for G4S Pvt. Ltd., and drawing salary of
Rs.12,000/- p.m., has not placed any documentary proof before
the Court. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries and petitioner
has taken treatment at Manasa hospital and produced medical
bills amounting to Rs. 7,124/- and in the absence of doctor's
SCCH-1 60 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
global compensation of Rs. 50,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses and
medical bills. Hence I award Rs.50,000/- as global
compensation.
85. Issue No.2 (in M.V.C. No.1697/2016): It is the case
of the petitioner that, on account of the accident he has
sustained the grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident
he was taken to Shirdi Sai hospital at Devanahalli and from
there he was shifted to Govt. hospital, Chikkaballapura for
further treatment and again shifted to Jeevan hospital and took
treatment for the accidental injuries. Also contended that, he
has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and
conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident he
was working as Junior Processing Officer at HDFC Bank and
drawing salary of Rs.13,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental
injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby petitioner and
his family are put into great financial loss and mental agony.
Petitioner in order to substantiate his contention has examined
SCCH-1 61 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
himself as PW.7 and also has relied upon Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P29.
86. The petitioner was subjected to cross examination
and in the cross examination he admits that, he was taken to
Shiridi hospital and thereafter shifted to Government hospital,
Chikkaballapura but he has suffered fractures and hence he
was an inpatient at Jeevan hospital for a period of 2 days. It is
suggested that, Ex.P29 is created and produced for the purpose
of this case and the same was denied. It is suggested that, he
was not working as Junior Processing Officer at HDFC bank
and the same was denied. It is suggested that, he is falsely
claiming that, he was earning Rs.13,000/- p.m. and the same
was denied. He admits that, he is working at HDFC bank as an
out sourcing employee and they have not given processing job
but provided the other incidental work.
87. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of the
Doctor who has been examined as PW.13 and in his evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by
the injured. Further says that, injured has sustained crush
SCCH-1 62 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
injury to right hand and fracture of greater tuberosity left
humerus and underwent wound debridment and tendon repair
and right hand fracture treated conservatively. It is also his
evidence that, on 17.06.2017 he assessed the disability by
taking into note of difficulties faced by the petitioner and came
to the conclusion of 36% disability to the right upper limb and
the whole body disability as 12%. He says, upon the radiological
examination it shows that, the fracture is united. He has
produced Ex.P49 OPD Card, Ex.P50 X-ray.
88. The PW.13 was subjected to cross examination and
in the cross examination he admits that, petitioner has suffered
crush injury to right hand and fracture greater tuberosity left
Humerus and he was subjected to wound debridment and
tendon repair of right hand and the fracture is united and per is
not in need of any future surgery.
89. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, petitioner claims that he has sustained grievous
injuries and suffered permanent disability. Petitioner has also
SCCH-1 63 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
examined the Doctor as PW.13 and he has assessed the
disability to the extent of 36% to upper limb and 12% to whole
body he admits that, the fracture is united. With regard to the
avocation and income of the petitioner is concerned, though he
claims that, he was working as Security Guard for G4S Pvt.
Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.12,000/- p.m., and due to the
accidental injuries he lost his income, in the cross examination
he admits that, now also he is working at HDFC bank as a out
sourcing employee and they have not given processing job but
provided other work. Further no documentary evidence is
produced before the court to prove his previous and present
income and for having suffered loss of income after the
accident. On perusal of Wound Certificate which is marked as
Ex.P29 discloses that, petitioner has sustained following
injuries:
1. Cut lacerated wound over right index finger 3 x 1 cm.
2. Abrasion over the right forehead and right parietal
region.
3. Tender swelling over right shoulder with fracture of
right humerus.
The doctor has opined that the injuries are grievous in
nature. There is no discharge summary and medical bills for
taking treatment either in the Shiridi hospital or in the
SCCH-1 64 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Government hospital, Chikkaballapur. Hence after considering
the materials on record and for having taken note of the nature
of injuries i.e. fracture of right humerus, I am of the opinion
that, it is a fit case to award a global compensation of Rs.
60,000/- including pain and sufferings, loss of income and
other incidental expenses. Hence I award Rs.60,000/- as global
compensation.
90. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.5245/2016): It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident he has suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was
taken to Akash hospital and from there he was shifted to Govt.
hospital at Devanahalli wherein he took treatment. Also
contended that, he has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment,
medicines and conveyance etc., It is contended that, at the time
of accident he was working as Security Guard for Innovation
Ltd., and drawing salary of Rs.9,000/- p.m. Due to the
accidental injuries he is unable to do his work and thereby
petitioner and his family are put into great financial loss and
mental agony.
SCCH-1 65 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
91. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.11 and in his evidence he has
reiterated the averments made in the petition with regard to the
injuries suffered by him and also got marked the documents
Ex.P.39 Wound certificate, Ex.P40 medical bills for Rs.9,165/-,
Ex.P41 prescriptions, Ex.P42 x-rays. In the cross examination
of PW.11 it is suggested to him that, he was not an inpatient at
Manasa hospital and he has denied the same. It is elicited that,
he was an inpatient for 4 days at Manasa hospital and he was
an inpatient for 8 days at Jayadeva hospital and he has not
produced the discharge summary. It is suggested that, he is
falsely claiming that he had spent an amount of Rs.9,217/-
towards medication and the same was denied. He admits that,
he has not produced any document to show that he was
working as security at Innovation Limited and earning
Rs.9,000/- p.m.
92. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, he claims that he has sustained grievous injuries
and suffered permanent disability and he has not examined the
SCCH-1 66 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Doctor to prove the same. On perusal of Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P.39 it discloses that, injured has
sustained abrasion on left forehead 3x2 cms. and abrasion on
dorsum of left elbow 2x4 cms. and the doctor has opined that,
the injuries are simple in nature. He has also produced the
medical bills to the tune of Rs.9,165/- which are marked as
Ex.P40 and it discloses that, the Manasa hospital has issued an
inpatient bill of Rs.5,750/- for having admitted in the said
hospital from 15.08.2016 to 17.08.2016 for a period of 3 days.
Petitioner has also produced other bills for having purchased
the medicines and for having paid the consultation fees.
93. With regard to the avocation and income of the
petitioner is concerned, though he claims that, he was working
as Security Guard at Innovation Ltd., and drawing salary of
Rs.9,000/- p.m., has not placed any documentary proof before
the Court. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries and petitioner
has taken treatment at Manasa hospital and produced medical
bills amounting to Rs. 9,217/- and in the absence of doctor's
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
SCCH-1 67 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
global compensation of Rs. 25,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses and
medical bills. Hence I award Rs.25,000/- as global
compensation.
94. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.5272/2016): It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident he has suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was
taken to Apoorva hospital wherein he took treatment for the
accidental injuries. Also contended that, he has spent
Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and conveyance
etc., It is contended that, at the time of accident he was working
as Carpenter at Maruthi Timbers GKVK, Bangalore and drawing
salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries he is
unable to do his work and thereby petitioner and his family are
put into great financial loss and mental agony.
95. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.12 and in his evidence he has
reiterated the averments made in the petition with regard to the
injuries suffered by him and also got marked the documents
Ex.P.43 Wound certificate, Ex.P44 - 3 medical bills for
SCCH-1 68 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
Rs.8,128/. In the cross examination of PW.12 it is suggested to
him that, he was not an inpatient at Apoorva hospital and MVG
hospital and he has denied the same. He admits that, he has
not produced the discharge summary. It is suggested that, he
is falsely claiming that he had spent an amount of Rs.8,128/-
towards medication and the same was denied. He admits that,
he has not produced any document to show that he was
working as carpenter and earning Rs.700/- per day.
96. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, he claims that he has sustained grievous injuries
and suffered permanent disability and he has not examined the
Doctor to prove the same. On perusal of Wound Certificate
which is marked as Ex.P.39 it discloses that, injured has
sustained right elbow contusion and right shoulder and the
doctor has opined that, the injuries are simple in nature. He
has also produced the medical bills to the tune of Rs.8,128/-
which are marked as Ex.P44 and it discloses that, the Apurva
hospital has issued an inpatient bill amounting to Rs.6,350/-
after discount of Rs.500/- for having admitted in the said
SCCH-1 69 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
hospital on 30.12.2015 for one day. Petitioner has also
produced other bills for having purchased the medicines and for
having taken the X-ray.
97. With regard to the avocation and income of the
petitioner is concerned, though he claims that, he was working
as Carpenter and earning Rs.700/- per day has not placed any
documentary proof before the Court. Hence after considering
the materials on record and for having taken note of the nature
of injuries and petitioner has taken treatment at Apurva
hospital and produced medical bills amounting to Rs. 8,128/-
and in the absence of doctor's evidence, I am of the opinion
that, it is a fit case to award a global compensation of Rs.
25,000/- including pain and sufferings, loss of income and
other incidental expenses and medical bills. Hence I award
Rs.25,000/- as global compensation.
98. INTEREST:
Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya
Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of
SCCH-1 70 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is
also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of
application till the date of payment and also by following the
principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481:(AIR 2012 SC 100)
(Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar
Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with regard to the rate
of interest, and also it is settled law that while awarding interest
on the compensation amount, the Court has to take into
account the rate of interest of the nationalized bank and the
rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the higher side.
Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of
9% p.a.
99. LIABILITY:
As regards to the liability to be fixed on the respondents is
concerned, while answering issue No.1, it is held that the
accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the private bus bearing Reg.No. KA-40-
5832. In the case on hand, admittedly the respondent No.1 and
2 are the insurer and owner of the said bus and they are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.
SCCH-1 71 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16
However, primary liability is fixed on the respondent No.1 -
insurance company to satisfy the award. Hence, this issue is
answered accordingly.
100. Issue No.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
M.V.C. No. 1348/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 1349/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.56,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
SCCH-1 72 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 1691/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.2,51,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount so awarded, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner and the balance amount 50% shall be invested in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalised bank of the choice of the petitioner. Interest on F.D. is payable on maturity.
SCCH-1 73 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 M.V.C. No. 1692/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,99,000/-. He is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum only on Rs.2,79,000/- from the date of petition till realization. The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount so awarded, 50% with proportionate interest is ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner and the balance amount 50% shall be invested in fixed deposit for a period of 5 years in the name of the petitioner in any of the nationalised bank of the choice of the petitioner. Interest on F.D. is payable on maturity.
M.V.C. No. 1693/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer SCCH-1 74 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16, 1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged more than 60 years, entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to him.
M.V.C. No. 1694/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 1695/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
SCCH-1 75 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 1696/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 1697/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
SCCH-1 76 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 5245/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
SCCH-1 77 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 M.V.C. No. 5272/2016 The petition is partly allowed with costs against respondents.
The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation along with interest to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.1 being the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioner within 2 months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.1348/2016 and a copy of the same be retained in other cases.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 05th day of September 2017) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
SCCH-1 78 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
PW-1 Manjula PW-2 Yasaswini J. Raj PW-3 Anjinamma PW-4 P. Karagappa PW-5 Appajigowda J.R. PW-6 Noor Mohammadi PW-7 Shivaram PW-8 Gangadhara L.C. PW-9 Nagaraju G.N. PW-10 Umesh B.V. PW-11 Vishnu Lakshmappa Gondkar PW-12 Mahesh V. PW-13 Dr. Ramesh B. PW-14 Dr. B.C. Rathna
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Mahazar
Ex.P.3 Sketch
Ex.P.4 IMV report
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
Ex.P.6 Chargesheet
Ex.P.7 discharge summery
Ex.P.8 medical bills ( 4 in nos.) for Rs. 9,977/-
Ex.P.9 Prescription
Ex.P.10 Wound certificate
Ex.P.11 Discharge summery
SCCH-1 79 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 Ex.P.12 Certificate issued by the college Ex.P.13 2 photos with CD Ex.P.14 Medical bills ( 47 in nos.) for Rs. 31,559/- Ex.P.15 Wound certificate Ex.P.16 Discharge card Ex.P.17 Notarized copy of election ID card (original compared) Ex.P.18 Medical bills (3 in nos.) for Rs. 2,180/- Ex.P.19 Wound certificate Ex.P.20 Medical bills (32 in nos.) for Rs.20,070/- Ex.P.21 24 prescriptions Ex.P.22 Wound certificate Ex.P.23 Discharge summery Ex.P.24 Medical bill for Rs. 6,158/- Ex.P.25 Wound certificate Ex.P.26 Discharge summery Ex.P.27 Medical bills ( 7 in nos.) for Rs. 3423/- Ex.P.28 2 Prescriptions Ex.P.29 Wound certificate Ex.P.30 Wound certificate Ex.P.31 Discharge summery Ex.P.32 Medical bills (5 in nos.) for Rs. 11,751/- Ex.P.33 Wound certificate Ex.P.34 Medical bills ( 4 in nos.) for Rs.7,124/- Ex.P.35 3 Prescriptions Ex.P.36 Wound certificate Ex.P.37 discharge summery Ex.P.38 Medical bills (3 in nos.) for Rs. 8,266/- Ex.P.39 Wound certificate Ex.P.40 17 medical bills for Rs.9,165/-SCCH-1 80 M.V.C. No. 1348/16, 1349/16, 1691/16, 1692/16, 1693/16,
1694/16, 1695/16, 1696/16, 1697/16, 5245/16, 5272/16 Ex.P.41 11 prescriptions Ex.P.42 2 x-rays Ex.P.43 Wound certificate Ex.P.44 3 medical bills for Rs.8,128/-
Ex.P.45 OPD card Ex.P.46 X-ray Ex.P.47 OPD card Ex.P.48 X-ray Ex.P.49 OPD card Ex.P.50 X-ray
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents: Nil.
Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Nil.
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore *S.D.* ***********