Bangalore District Court
In Mvc Smt. B.P. Lakshmidevi vs In 1. Sri Rangaswamy on 4 December, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 04th day of December 2015
M.V.C. Nos.879/2015, 878/2015 & 946/2015
Petitioner in MVC Smt. B.P. Lakshmidevi,
879/2015 W/o Thimmaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
Tailor by profession,
R/at No.37/2, Ist B Cross,
Byatarayanapura Layout,
Binnipete, Bangalore - 26.
(Sri R. Shashidhara, Advocate)
Petitioner in MVC Sri J. Basavaraj,
878/2015 S/o Jayaram,
Aged about 20 years,
Painter by profession,
R/at No.32, Maggad road,
Near National Public School,
Beereshwarnagar,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 62.
(Sri R. Shashidhara, Advocate)
Petitioner in MVC Sri Mahalingaiah,
946/2015 S/o Rangashamaiah,
Aged about 35 years,
Factory worker,
R/o Yadaladaku Village,
Sira Taluk, Now R/o No.20,
Ist Cross, Benaka Layout,
Thippeenahalli,
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
Bangalore - 73.
(Sri R. Shashidhara, Advocate)
V/s.
Respondents in 1. Sri Rangaswamy,
all the cases S/o Pandurangaiah,
Age major, Owner of the
Indica car bearing No.KA-41-A-
315, R/o No.6, I main,
3rd Cross, Avalahalli,
Bapujinagara, Bangalore South,
Bangalore - 26.
(Exparte)
2. The Legal Manager,
The Reliance General Insurance
Company Ltd., 4th Floor,
Centenary Building, M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 01.
(Sri H.C. Betsur, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These claim petitions filed by the petitioners against
the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- each
for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic
accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petitions in MVC
Nos.879/2015, 878/2015 and 946/2015 are as under:
3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
The petitioners being said to be the pedestrians and
the injured in their claim petitions were alleged that on
30-11-2014 at about 7.30 p.m., they were proceeding as
a pedestrians from Chikkagollarahatti towards
Kachohalli Cross, when they reached near water tank,
the driver of the Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-41-S-315
was came from Kachohalli Cross proceeding towards
Kachohalli with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner, without observing the traffic rules and
regulations, dashed against them, due to the said
impact, they were fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. So, immediately they were shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, wherein they took the treatment as an
inpatient by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident they were hale and healthy
working as a tailor, painter and factory worker by getting
monthly income of Rs.9,000/-, Rs.12,000/- and
Rs.15,000/- respectively, due to the accidental injuries,
they could not do the work as before. The accident in
question was taken place on account of rash and
4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
negligent driving of the car driver. Thereby,
Madanayakanahally Police have registered the case
against the car driver in their police station crime
No.574/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and
337 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. The respondent
No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the
insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally
liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the
claim petitions.
4. In response of the notice, the respondent No.1 did
not appear nor file his written statement, as he was
placed exparte. The respondent No.2 being the insurer
has appeared through his counsel and filed the written
statement in which has alleged that the claim petitions
filed by the petitioners are not maintainable in law or on
facts and he has denied about the issuance of the policy
in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of the first
respondent and he has alleged that the accident in
question was taken place on account of negligence on the
part of the petitioners, since they were walking on the
5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
road without observing the vehicular traffic and without
cautious and he has denied the involvement of the
vehicle in the alleged accident and the petitioners have to
strict proof that as on the date of the alleged accident,
the first respondent was the owner of the offending
vehicle and he has alleged that either the owner of the
vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the
mandatory provisions of Section 134(C) and 158(6) of MV
Act, in furnishing better particulars and as on the date of
the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was not
holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the
same and the first respondent being the owner has
entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding
valid and effective driving licence. So, the first respondent
has contravened the policy conditions. So, he is not liable
to pay any compensation to the petitioners and he has
denied the averments made in column Nos.1 to 15 and
17 to 22 of the claim petitions and he has also denied
that the petitioners are being said to be the pedestrians
were proceeding by walk by observing all traffic rules and
6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
regulations, the offending vehicle driver has drove the
same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
without observing the traffic rules and regulations
dashed against the petitioners, as a result, they were fell
down and sustained grievous injuries and took the
treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount and
underwent surgeries and he has also denied the age,
avocation and income of the petitioners and prays for
reject the claim petitions.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed in all the claim petitions:
MVC No. 879/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in wound certificate, in a road
traffic accident on 30-11-2014 at about
7.30 p.m., near Kachohalli Cross, C.G.
Hatti-Kachohalli road, Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
Tata Indica car bearing registration
No.KA-41-A-315?
7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
any compensation? If so to what extent
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
MVC No. 878/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in wound certificate, in a road
traffic accident on 30-11-2014 at about
7.30 p.m., near Kachohalli Cross, C.G.
Hatti-Kachohalli road, Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
Tata Indica car bearing registration
No.KA-41-A-315?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
any compensation? If so to what extent
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
MVC No. 946/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in wound certificate, in a road
traffic accident on 30-11-2014 at about
8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
7.30 p.m., near Kachohalli Cross, C.G.
Hatti-Kachohalli road, Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk, due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the
Tata Indica car bearing registration
No.KA-41-A-315?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
any compensation? If so to what extent
and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed
memo on 03-08-2015 and prays for club the MVC
Nos.878/2015 and 946/2015 with MVC 879/2015.
Accordingly the said memo was came to be accepted.
MVC Nos.878/2015 and 946/2015 are clubbed in MVC
946/2015, as these claim petitions are arising out of the
same accident, for recording of common evidence and for
disposal.
7. The petitioners in order to prove their claim
petitions, have examined themselves as PW1 to PW3 and
got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and they
have examined one witness on their behalf as PW4 and
9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
got marked the documents as Ex.P17 to Ex.P29. The
respondent No.2 has not examined any witness nor
marked any documents in his favour.
8. Heard arguments on both side.
9. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Case No. Issue No.1 Issue No.2 Issue No.3
MVC
879/2015
MVC In the Partly in the As per the
878/2015 affirmative affirmative final order
MVC
946/2015
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 in all the claim petitions.
The petitioners being said to be the pedestrians and
injured were approached the court on the ground that on
30-11-2014 at about 7.30 p.m., they were proceeding by
walk from Chikkagollarahatti towards Kachohalli Cross,
when they reached near water tank, the driver of the
offending vehicle has drove the same with high speed in a
rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic
10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
rules and regulations dashed against them, as a result
they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries and
took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge
amount. Thereby, the petitioners have filed the instant
claim petitions against the respondents.
11. The petitioner in MVC 879/2015 in order to
prove her claim petition has filed her affidavit as her chief
examination as PW1 in which has stated that on 30-11-
2014 at about 7.30 p.m., herself, Basavaraj and
Mahalingaiah in order to visit the relatives house of
Basavaraj, were proceeding as a pedestrians from
Chikkagollarahatti towards Kachohalli Cross, when they
reached near water tank, the driver of the Tata Indica car
bearing No.KA-41-S-315 was came from Kachohalli Cross
proceeding towards Kachohalli with high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules
and regulations, dashed against them, due to the said
impact, they were fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. So, immediately she was shifted to Ashraya
11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
Hospital, wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient
for a period of 25 days by spending more than an amount
of Rs.4,00,000/-. The accident in question was taken
place on account of rash and negligent driving of the car
driver. Thereby, Madanayakanahally Police have
registered the case against the car driver in their police
station crime No.574/2014 for the offences punishable
u/s 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. The
PW1 in her cross examination has admitted that as on
the date of the alleged accident in all three persons were
proceeding by walk on the left side of the road and
number of vehicles were passing on the alleged road and
the car was came on their back side and she has denied
that as on the date of the alleged accident, they were
proceeding on the tar road, without observing the traffic
rules and regulations. So, on their own negligence, the
accident was occurred and the accident was not occurred
on account of rash and negligent driving of the car driver.
12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
12. The PW2 being the petitioner in MVC 878/2015
in his evidence has stated that on 30-11-2014 at about
7.30 p.m., himself and his friend Mahalingaiah and
Lakshmidevi in order to visit the relatives house of
Basavaraj, were proceeding as a pedestrians from
Chikkagollarahatti towards Kachohalli Cross, when they
reached near water tank, the driver of the Tata Indica car
bearing No.KA-41-S-315 was came from Kachohalli Cross
proceeding towards Kachohalli with high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules
and regulations, dashed against them, as a result, they
were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So,
immediately he was shifted to Ashraya Hospital, wherein
she took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 25
days by spending more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
. The accident in question was taken place on account of
rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Thereby,
Madanayakanahally Police have registered the case
against the car driver. The PW2 in his cross examination
has admitted that as on the date of the alleged accident
13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
in all three persons were proceeding by walk on the left
side of the road and the car was came on their back side
and dashed against them, as a result he was fell down
and sustained grievous injuries and he has denied that
the accident was occurred on their own negligence and
the accident was not occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the car driver.
13. The PW3 being the petitioner in MVC 946/2015
in his evidence has stated that on 30-11-2014 at about
7.30 p.m., himself and his friend Basavaraj and
Lakshmidevi in order to visit the relatives house of
Basavaraj, were proceeding as a pedestrians from
Chikkagollarahatti towards Kachohalli Cross, when they
reached near water tank, the driver of the Tata Indica car
bearing No.KA-41-S-315 was came from Kachohalli Cross
proceeding towards Kachohalli with high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules
and regulations, dashed against them, as a result, they
were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So,
14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
immediately he was shifted to Ashraya Hospital, wherein
she took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 27
days by spending more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-
. The accident in question was taken place on account of
rash and negligent driving of the car driver. Thereby,
Madanayakanahally Police have registered the case
against the car driver. The PW3 in his cross examination
has admitted that they were proceeding towards their
relative house to attend the function by walk as a
pedestrians on the left side of the road and the car was
came on their back side and dashed against them, as a
result they were sustained the injuries and he has denied
that the accident was occurred on their own negligence
and it was not taken place on account of rash and
negligent driving of the car driver and unknown vehicle
has caused the accident, thereby the delay was caused in
filing the complaint by implicating the vehicle by
colluding with the police and the owner of the offending
vehicle.
15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
14. The petitioners in support of their oral
evidence have produced the documents marked as Ex.P1
to Ex.P29. Ex.P1 is the information filed by one
Basavaraj who is none other than the petitioner in MVC
878/2015 in which has stated that on 30-11-2014 at
about 7.30 p.m., himself and his friend Mahalingaiah
and Lakshmidevi were proceeding towards his relatives
house as a pedestrians from Chikkagollarahatti towards
Kachohalli Cross, when they reached near water tank,
the driver of the Tata Indica car bearing No.KA-41-S-315
was came on their back side from Kachohalli Cross
proceeding towards Kachohalli with high speed in a rash
and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules
and regulations, dashed against them, as a result, they
were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So,
immediately they were shifted to Ashraya Hospital and
they were under the treatment. The accident was
occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the
car driver. So, based on the information
Madanayakanahally Police have registered the case
16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
against the car driver in their police station crime
No.574/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and
337 of IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act. The learned
counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined the
PW1 to PW3, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve their
evidence. Though, he has suggested the PW1 to PW3 that
the accident was occurred on their own negligence, since
they were proceeding in the tar road, without observing
the traffic rules nor the movements of the traffic for
which they have denied the same, even he has suggested
that unknown vehicle has caused the accident, in order
to get the compensation they have filed the false
complaint on the next day of the accident by implicating
the offending vehicle in colluding with the police and the
owner of the vehicle for which also they have denied the
same. If at all the accident was taken place on the
negligence of the petitioners nothing is prevented to the
respondent to examine the offending vehicle driver to
show that the accident in question was taken place on
the negligence of the petitioners, since the petitioners
17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
were proceeding on the tar road, without observing the
movements of the vehicles nor observing the traffic rules,
if that is so, the matter would have different.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
much argued that the accident was occurred on account
of negligence of the petitioners, since the petitioners were
proceeding on the tar road, without observing the vehicle
movements nor observing the traffic rules, though there
is a foot path to the pedestrians and requested the court
to consider the contributory negligence on the part of the
petitioners. It is an admitted fact, the petitioners have not
produced the sketch, however they have produced the
panchanama marked as Ex.P3 in which it is clear that
the width of the road is 15 feet and there is a foot path on
both side of the road measuring 8 feet and the alleged
road is proceeding from north to south and the accident
was occurred towards extreme western side of the road.
So, for the proper appreciation of the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent, it is
18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
necessary for reproduction of the recitals as appeared in
the Ex.P3 reads like thus;
aPÀÌ UÉƼÀîgÀºÀnÖ PÀq¬
É ÄAzÀ PÁZÉÆúÀ½î PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ
mÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 15 Cr CUÀ®«zÀÄÝ, gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ EPÉÌ®ÄUÀ¼À°è
8 Cr CUÀ®zÀ ªÀÄtôÚ£À ¥ÀÅmÁàvï¬ÄzÀÄÝ, GvÀÛgÀ - zÀQëuÁ©ü
ªÀÄÄRªÁVzÀÄÝ, zÀQëtzÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ GvÀÛgz
À À PÀqÉUÉ ¸Àé®à
E½eÁgÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. F gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ CAa£À°è PÀÊvÀå £ÀqÉzÀ
¸ÀܼÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
16. The above recitals as appeared in the Ex.P3
clearly reflects that the accident was occurred towards
extreme western side of the road. Though, there is a
sufficient space towards eastern side of the road to avoid
the accident, but the reasons best known to the offending
vehicle driver has not taken minimum care to avoid the
accident. So, on his own negligence, the accident was
occurred. So, question of considering the contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioners does not arise. If
at all the accident was occurred while crossing the road,
if there were no zebra cross nor walking in the middle of
the road without observing the vehicular movement nor
19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
the traffic rules, if that is so, the mater would have
different, but the accident was occurred towards extreme
western side of the road. So, there was no negligence on
the part of the petitioners to consider the contributory
negligence as canvassed by the learned counsel for the
respondent and moreover the respondent nor the
offending vehicle driver have not challenged the Ex.P1
and Ex.P2 on the ground that the accident was occurred
on account of negligence on the part of the petitioners
and they have falsely implicated the vehicle in colluding
with the police in order to get the compensation, if that is
so, the matter would have different. So, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2
are remained unchallenged and Ex.P3 corroborate the
evidence of the PW1 to PW3. Ex.P4, Ex.P9 and Ex.P13
are the wound certificates clearly reflects that the
petitioners were sustained the injuries in a road traffic
accident said to have been taken place on 30-11-2014.
Ex.P6, Ex.P10 and Ex.P14 are clearly reflects that the
petitioners soon after the accident have got admitted to
the Ashraya Hospital and took the treatment as an
20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
inpatient for a period of 26 days and 28 days respectively
in connection of the injuries sustained by them in a road
traffic accident. Ex.P8, Ex.P12 and Ex.P16 are clearly
reflects that the petitioners have took the treatment in
connection of the injuries sustained by them in a road
traffic accident. Ex.P17 to Ex.P29 are clearly reflects that
the petitioners were took the treatment at Ashraya
Hospital as an inpatient and underwent surgeries and
the medico legal case has been registered, due to the
accidental injuries sustained by the petitioners in a road
traffic accident said to have been taken place on 30-11-
2014. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P29 are
coupled with the oral evidence of the PW1 to PW3 and
moreover the respondent No.2 has not lead any rebuttal
evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence
of the petitioners. On the other hand, the petitioners
have proved their case through oral and documentary
evidence that the accident in question was taken place on
account of rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle driver. Hence, I am of the opinion that the issue
21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
No.1 in all the claim petitions is answered as
affirmative.
17. Issue No.2 in MVC 879/2015:
The PW1 being the injured in MVC 879/2015 in her
evidence has clearly stated that on 30-11-2014 at about
7.30 p.m., herself and Basavaraj as well as Mahalingaiah
were proceeding as a pedestrians by observing all traffic
rules and regulations, driver of the offending vehicle has
drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent
manner, without observing the traffic rules and
regulations dashed against her, as a result, she was fell
down and sustained the following injuries;
1) Fracture of left radius.
2) Fracture of right ankle.
3) Comminuted fracture of left clavicle.
4) Fracture of both bones of left leg.
18. So, immediately she was shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient
for a period of 25 days and she was underwent surgeries
22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
by spending more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, but
inspite of best treatment, she could not come to the
normal position.
19. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy
working as a tailor by getting monthly income of
Rs.9,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, she could not
do the work as before, as she is facing financial difficulty
to lead her life and to maintain her family and she is
unable to walk nor sit cross leg and could not able to do
her daily work nor any other works as prior. The PW1 in
her cross examination has admitted that soon after the
accident, she was got admitted to the Ashraya Hospital,
wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 25 days and she has denied that she was not
underwent any surgery and sustained only simple
injuries and she has created the medical bills placed
before the court in order to get the compensation and
after the discharge she has not took the follow up
treatment, but she has admitted that she has not
23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
produced any document to show that prior to the
accident, she was doing tailoring work by getting monthly
income of Rs.9,000/- and she has denied that she has
reimbursed the entire amount which was spent for her
treatment out of the Mediclaim policy of her sons.
20. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon at
Ashraya Hospital, Magadi main road, Bangalore in his
evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an
accident said to have been taken place on 30-11-2014
and sustained the following injuries;
1) Fracture of both bones left leg.
2) Bimalleolar fracture right ankle.
3) Fracture distal radius left.
4) Communited fracture left clavicle.
21. So, she was underwent surgery for interlocking
nailing left tibia and ORIF with plate and screws for
injury No.2 on 01-12-2014 under SA. K-wiring was done
for radius fracture and strapping for clavicular fracture
and she was discharged with an advice for follow up
24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
treatment. Recently on 01-09-2015 he has examined the
petitioner for assessment of disability and found the
following difficulties;
a) Restriction of range of movement of right
ankle.
b) Restriction of movement of left knee.
c) Restriction of movement of left wrist.
d) The complete union of all fractures.
22. So, the petitioner has sustained disability to an
extent of 54% and sustained permanent functional
disability to an extent of 18%. The PW4 in his cross
examination has admitted that the petitioner has got
admitted to the hospital and MLC was registered and
they have not mentioned the vehicle number in the MLC
register, but they have mentioned as RTA and he has
denied that on the following day of the accident,
themselves and police along with petitioners colluding
each other were created the documents and filed the false
case against the car driver on the ground that the
accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent
25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
driving of the car driver, but he has admitted that they
will record the age of the petitioners based on the
information given by the attenders of the patient and at
the time of recording of the age, the injured will not
furnished the document to show the age and he has
denied that the wound certificate reflects the injuries
sustained by her in respect of her left leg, but he has
stated that the wound certificate reflects relating to the
injuries in respect of both legs and he has denied that
the petitioner has not underwent any surgeries as shown
in the wound certificate and he has stated that the
petitioner has underwent the surgery in respect of injury
Nos.1 to 3, still implants are in situ and he has admitted
that the fracture is united and he has denied that the
petitioner is not facing any difficulties, due to the
accidental injuries and he has stated more disability in
order to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
23. The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has
clearly stated that she has sustained the fracture of both
26 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
bones of left leg, fracture of right ankle, fracture distal
radius left and communited fracture left clavicle.
Thereby, she was underwent surgeries, but inspite of
best treatment, she could not come to the normal
position, still she is under treatment and facing the
difficulties in her day to day life. The PW4 being the
Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated
about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after
the accident and he has also stated about the surgeries
underwent by the petitioner, due to the accidental
injuries. So, the evidence of the PW4 corroborate the
evidence of the PW1. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate
issued by the Sri Ashraya Hospital, Bangalore clearly
reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following
injuries;
1) Fracture of D/E radius (L).
2) Bimalleolar fracture right ankle.
3) Communited fracture left clavicle.
4) Fracture of both bones left leg.
5) Cut lacerated wound of 1x3 cm on left
knee.
27 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
24. So, the above said injury Nos.1 to 4 are grievous
in nature and injury No.5 is simple in nature. Ex.P6 is
the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner
soon after the accident has got admitted to the Ashraya
Hospital, wherein she took the treatment as an inpatient
from 30-11-2014 to 25-12-2014 for a period of 26 days,
as she has sustained the following injuries;
1) Fracture both bones left leg with bimalleolar.
2) Fracture right ankle.
3) Fracture left clavicle.
4) Fracture of distal end radius left.
25. So, she was underwent operation of IL nailing
left tibia on 01-12-2014 under SA. Bimalleolar fixation
was done. K-wiring of distal radius done. Ex.P8 is the
medical bills clearly reflects that the petitioner has took
the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by
her in a road traffic accident. Ex.P17 and Ex.P18 are
clearly reflects that the MLC was registered and police
intimation has been issued in connection of the injuries
sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Ex.P19 and
28 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
Ex.P20 are clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after
the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took
the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 26 days and
she was underwent surgeries and implants in situ. So
considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident and the evidence of PW1 and PW4 as
well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to
grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following
heads;
a) Pain and suffering.
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has
clearly stated that she has sustained grievous injuries in
a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on
30-11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 26 days and she has underwent surgery, but
inspite of best treatment she could not come to the
normal position. PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in
his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and
disability of the petitioner after the accident and also
stated about the surgeries which was underwent by the
29 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
petitioner. So, considering the evidence of the PW1 and
PW4 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well
as the duration of treatment he would have sustained
pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to
award compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the above head,
it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.60,000/- is
awarded for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has
stated that prior to the accident she was hale and
healthy working as a tailor by getting monthly income of
Rs.9,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, she could not
do the work as before. But the reasons best known to her
has not examined any independent witness nor placed
any materials to substantiate her income as alleged in
the claim petition and moreover in her cross examination
has categorically admitted that she has not produced any
document to show that prior to the accident she was
working as a tailor by getting monthly income of
Rs.9,000/-. In the absence of the materials on record, it
30 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
is very difficult to believe the income of the petitioner as
alleged in the claim petition. So, considering the age and
skill of the petitioner and the present life condition, it is
just and necessary to consider the monthly notional
income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet the ends of justice.
Ex.P4 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the
petitioner has sustained five injuries, out of the five
injuries, four injuries are grievous in nature and one is
simple in nature. Ex.P6 is the discharge summary clearly
reflects that she has sustained the grievous injuries and
took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 26
days. So, the petitioner might have lost income for a
period of four months. So, four months income comes to
Rs.24,000/-. So, Rs.24,000/- is granted for the above
head.
c) Medical expenses
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has
stated that she has sustained grievous injuries in a road
traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by
spending more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, but on
31 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
record the petitioner has produced the medical bills
worth of Rs.2,29,378/-. Though the learned counsel for
the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced
by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show
that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are
created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation.
The learned counsel for the respondent has much argued
that the bill amount is already included in the main bill,
but whereas in the main bill nowhere appears that the
other bill amount is also included in the main bill, if that
is so, the matter would have different. So, in the absence
of the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner
has took the treatment in connection of the injuries
sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Therefore,
Rs.2,29,378/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that she has sustained fracture in a road
traffic accident said to have been taken place on 30-11-
2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period
32 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
of 26 days and she was underwent surgery, but inspite of
best treatment, she could not come to the normal
position. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his
evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and
disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to
him the petitioner has sustained whole body disability to
an extent of 18% as her functional disability. The PW4 in
his cross examination has admitted that the fracture is
united. So, considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW4
and the medical records and the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and duration of treatment as well as her
avocation, it is just and necessary to consider the
disability of 12% of the whole body instead of 18%, it will
meet the ends of justice. So, her income is already
considered as Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.P4, Ex.P6,
Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 are clearly reflects that as on the date
of the alleged accident, the petitioner was aged about 50
years. The petitioner in her claim petition has clearly
stated that as on the date of the alleged accident, she
was aged about 50 years. Therefore, the petitioner age is
33 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
taken into consideration as 50 years as on the date of the
alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
the multiplier applicable is 13. So the loss of future
earning is works out as under;
Rs.6,000X12X13X12/100=1,12,320/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,12,320/-
for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has
clearly stated that she has sustained the fractures in a
road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 30-
11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 26 days and she was underwent surgery and
she has also took the treatment as an outpatient. The
PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has
clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the
petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence
34 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
of PW1 and PW4 and duration of treatment as well as the
complaints and disability of the petitioner after the
accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.40,000/- for
the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So
Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has
clearly stated that she has sustained grievous injuries
and underwent surgery and implants are in situ. The
PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has
stated that one more surgery is required for removal of
implants it may cost of Rs.65,000/-. So considering the
injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident and
the evidence of the PW1 and PW4, it is just and
necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will
meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.15,000/- is granted for
the above head.
26. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00
2. Loss of income during Rs. 24,000-00
35 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
laid up period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 2,29,378-00
4. Loss of future earning Rs. 1,12,320-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00
Total Rs. 4,80,698-00
27. Issue No.2 in MVC 878/2015:
The PW1 being the injured in MVC 878/2015 in his
evidence has clearly stated that on 30-11-2014 at about
7.30 p.m., himself and Mahalingaiah as well as
Lakshmidevi were proceeding as a pedestrians by
observing all traffic rules and regulations, driver of the
offending vehicle has drove the same with high speed in a
rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic
rules and regulations dashed against him, as a result, he
was fell down and sustained the following injuries;
1) Dislocation of left knee.
2) Injury to left tibial nerve.
3) Fracture of shaft of left femur.
36 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
28. So, immediately he was shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient
for a period of 25 days and he was underwent surgeries
by spending more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, but
inspite of best treatment, he could not come to the
normal position.
29. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working as a painter by getting monthly income of
Rs.20,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not
do the work as before, as he has facing financial difficulty
to lead his life and to maintain his family and he is
unable to walk nor sit cross leg and could not able to do
his daily work nor any other works as prior. The PW2 in
his cross examination has admitted that soon after the
accident, he was got admitted to the Ashraya Hospital,
wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient and he has
denied that he has not underwent any surgery nor
implants in situ and the medical bills placed before the
court are created in order to get the compensation, but
37 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
he has admitted that he has not produced any document
to show that prior to the accident, he was working as a
painter by getting monthly income of Rs.20,000/-.
30. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon at
Ashraya Hospital, Magadi main road, Bangalore in his
evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an
accident said to have been taken place on 30-11-2014
and sustained the following injuries;
1) Dislocation of left knee.
2) Injury to left tibial nerve.
3) Tear of Tendo Achilles tendon left.
4) Fracture shaft femur left.
31. So, he was underwent surgery for knee
reduction under sedation on 3011-2014 and in the form
of TA tendon repair and inter locking left femur on 01-12-
2014 under SA Tibial nerve was found to be injured and
nerve condition studies and MRI done. Nerve release was
done on 06-12-2014 under SA. Recently on 01-09-2015
he has examined the petitioner for assessment of
disability and found the following difficulties;
38 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
1) Restriction of range of movement of right
knee.
2) Restriction of movement of left knee.
3) Restriction of movement of left hip.
4) Complete union of all fractures.
32. So, the petitioner has sustained permanent
functional disability of limbs to an extent of 72% and
permanent functional disability for whole body to an
extent of 24%. The PW4 in his cross examination has
admitted that MLC has been registered at 8.00 p.m., and
in MLC register they have shown as RTA and the fracture
is united and the petitioner can do his work as earlier, he
cannot face any difficulties, due to the accidental injuries
and he has denied that the petitioner is not facing any
difficulties nor sustained any disability as stated in his
affidavit.
33. The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and
he was underwent surgeries, but inspite of best
treatment, he could not come to the normal position, still
39 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
he is under treatment and facing the difficulties in his
day to day life. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon
in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints
and disability of the petitioner after the accident and he
has also stated about the surgeries underwent by the
petitioner, due to the accidental injuries. So, the evidence
of the PW4 corroborate the evidence of the PW2. Ex.P9 is
the wound certificate issued by the Sri Ashraya Hospital,
Bangalore clearly reflects that the petitioner has
sustained the following injuries;
1) Dislocation of left knee.
2) Injury to left tibial nerve.
3) Tear of Tendo Achilles tendon left.
4) Fracture of shaft of left femur.
5) Cut lacerated wound 2x2 cm on scalp.
34. So, the above said injury Nos.1 to 4 are grievous
in nature and injury No.5 is simple in nature. Ex.P10 is
the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner
soon after the accident has got admitted to the Ashraya
Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient
40 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
from 30-11-2014 to 25-12-2014 for a period of 26 days,
as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Dislocation left knee with tibial nerve
injury with open tar of left tendo-achilles .
2) Fracture of left femur.
35. So, he was underwent knee reduction under
sedation on 30-11-2014 and he was treated in the form
of TA tenon repair, IL nailing left femur on 01-12-2014
under SA. Tibial nerve was found to be injured and nerve
conduction studies and MRI done. Nerve release was
done on 06-12-2014 under SA. Ex.P12 is the medical
bills clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the
treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him
in a road traffic accident. Ex.P21 and Ex.P22 are clearly
reflects that the MLC was registered and police
intimation has been issued in connection of the injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Ex.P23 to
Ex.P25 are clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after
the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took
the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 26 days and
41 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
he was underwent surgeries and implants in situ. So
considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident and the evidence of PW2 and PW4 as
well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to
grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following
heads;
a) Pain and suffering.
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries in a
road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 30-
11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 26 days and he has underwent surgery, but
inspite of best treatment he could not come to the normal
position. PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his
evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and
disability of the petitioner after the accident and also
stated about the surgeries which was underwent by the
petitioner. So considering the evidence of the PW2 and
PW4 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well
as the duration of treatment he would have sustained
42 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to
award compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the above head,
it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.60,000/- is
awarded for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working as a painter by getting monthly income of
Rs.20,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not
do the work as before. But the reasons best known to
him has not examined any independent witness nor
placed any materials to substantiate his income as
alleged in the claim petition and moreover in his cross
examination has categorically admitted that he has not
produced any document to show that prior to the
accident he was working as a painter by getting monthly
income of Rs.20,000/-. In the absence of the materials on
record, it is very difficult to believe the income of the
petitioner as alleged in the claim petition. So considering
the age and skill of the petitioner and the present life
43 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
condition, it is just and necessary to consider the
monthly notional income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet the
ends of justice. Ex.P9 is the wound certificate clearly
reflects that the petitioner has sustained five injuries, out
of the five injuries, four injuries are grievous in nature
and one in simple in nature. Ex.P10 is the discharge
summary clearly reflects that he has sustained the
grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient
for a period of 26 days. So, the petitioner might have lost
income for a period of four months. So four months
income comes to Rs.24,000/-. So Rs.24,000/- is granted
for the above head.
c) Medical expenses
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
stated that he has sustained grievous injuries in a road
traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by
spending more than an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, but on
record the petitioner has produced the medical bills
worth of Rs.3,25,193/-. Though the learned counsel for
the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced
44 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show
that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are
created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation.
Though, the learned counsel for the respondent while
canvassing his arguments has submitted that the
medical bills amount is already included in the main bill,
but whereas in the main bill nowhere appears that the
other bills amount is also included in the main bill, if
that is so, the matter would have different. So, in the
absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the
petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the
injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
Therefore, Rs.3,25,193/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained fracture in a road
traffic accident said to have been taken place on 30-11-
2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period
45 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
of 26 days and he was underwent surgery, but inspite of
best treatment, he could not come to the normal position.
The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence
has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of
the petitioner after the accident. According to him the
petitioner has sustained permanent functional disability
of limbs to an extent of 72% and permanent functional
disability for whole body to an extent of 24%. The PW4 in
his cross examination has admitted that the fracture is
united. So, considering the evidence of the PW2 and PW4
and the medical records and the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and duration of treatment as well as his
avocation, it is just and necessary to consider the
disability of 16% of the whole body instead of 24%, it will
meet the ends of justice. So, his income is already
considered as Rs.6,000/- per month. Ex.P9, Ex.P10 and
Ex.P23 are clearly reflects that as on the date of the
alleged accident, the petitioner was aged about 20 years.
The petitioner in his claim petition has clearly stated that
as on the date of the alleged accident, he was aged about
46 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
20 years. Therefore, the petitioner age is taken into
consideration as 20 years as on the date of the alleged
accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298
the multiplier applicable is 18. So the loss of future
earning is works out as under;
Rs.6,000X12X18X16/100=2,07,360/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,07,360/-
for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained the fractures in a
road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 30-
11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a
period of 26 days and he was underwent surgery and he
has also took the treatment as an outpatient. The PW4
being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has
clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the
47 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence
of PW2 and PW4 and duration of treatment as well as the
complaints and disability of the petitioner after the
accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.40,000/- for
the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So
Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW2 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and
underwent surgery and implants are in situ. The PW4
being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated
that one more surgery is required for removal of implants
it may cost of Rs.65,000/-. So considering the injuries
sustained by him in a road traffic accident and the
evidence of the PW2 and PW4, it is just and necessary to
grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the
ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above
head.
36. Thus the total award stands as follows:
48 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00
2. Loss of income during Rs. 24,000-00
laid up period
3. Medical expenses Rs. 3,25,193-00
4. Loss of future earning Rs. 2,07,360-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00
Total Rs. 6,71,553-00
37. Issue No.2 in MVC 946/2015:
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that on 30.11.2014 at about 7.30 p.m.,
himself and his friend one Basavaraj, Lakshmidevi being
the pedestrians from Chikkagollarahatti towards
Kachohalli cross, when they were reached water tank, the
driver of the TATA indica car bearing registration No.KA-
41-S-315 has drove the same in a rash and negligent
manner, without observing the traffic rules and
regulations dashed against them. Due to the said impact
he was sustained the following injuries;
49 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
1) Fracture of both bones of right,
2) Fracture of medial malleoli left and other
injuries.
38. So, immediately he was shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as inpatient for a
period of 27 days and he was underwent surgery by
spending an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.
39. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working in a factory by getting monthly income of
Rs.15,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not
do the work as before as he could not able to walk, sit
cross legg and not able to do his daily work as earlier.
So, he is facing financial difficulties to lead his life to
maintain his family. PW3 in his cross-examination has
admitted that soon after the accident they got admitted to
the Ashraya hospital and took the treatment and he has
not taken treatment in any other hospital, but he has
denied that he was not underwent any surgery nor
implants in situ and he has created the medical bills in
order to get the compensation and he has denied that
50 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
after discharge he has not facing any difficulties due to
the accidental injuries, but he has stated that he has
took the treatment for a period of 7 to 8 times and he has
admitted that since 2-3 years he was working in a
factory, but he has not produced any documents to show
that prior to the accident he was working in a factory by
getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/- and he has
denied that he has not facing any difficulties and is
working in the same factory as earlier.
40. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his
evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an
accident on 30.11.2014 and sustained the following
injuries;
1)Fracture of both bones of left leg
2)Fracture of medical malleli left
3)Partial loss of tibia is anterior muscle left with
tendon
41. So, he was underwent operation of interlocking
nailing right tibia with screw fixation for medical malleoli
51 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
fracture and repair of tibials anterior muscle on
1.12.2014 under SA, skin grafting was done for the raw
area and he was discharged on 27.12.2014. Recently on
1.9.2015 he has examined the petitioner for assessment
of disability and found the following difficulties;
1)Complete union of all fractures
2)Restriction of range of movement of right
ankle
3)Restriction of movement of right knee
4)Scar on lateral aspect of left leg of 15X10
cms.
42. So, the petitioner has sustained permanent
functional disability of 59% of left lower limb and 4% of
disability due to cosmetic scar and total functional
disability of whole body is 20%
43. The PW4 in his cross-examination has admitted
that the petitioner has underwent surgery in respect of
four injuries sustained in a road traffic accident and he
has admitted that the medical records reflects that as on
52 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
the date of alleged accident the petitioner was consuming
the alcohol and he has denied that the petitioner was
fallen when he was under the influence of alcohol.
Thereby, they have not recorded in respect of other two
injured medical records about the intoxication of alcohol
while walking on the road as pedestrian and he has
admitted that at the time of admission he was not found
any smell of alcohol. Thereby he was not subjected the
petitioner for examination, but he has admitted that the
fracture is united and he has denied that the petitioner
has not sustained disability as stated in his affidavit in
order to help the petitioner has stated more disability.
44. PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated about fracture it was sustained in a road
traffic accident said to have been taken place on
30.11.2014 and he has also stated about his difficulties
after the accident due to the accidental injuries. The PW4
being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has
clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the
53 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
petitioner after the accident. So, the evidence of the PW4
corroborate the evidence of the PW3. Ex.P3 is the wound
certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has
sustained the following injuries;
1)Lacerated wound of about 20X 10 cms on
lateral aspect of left leg
2)Partial loss of tibial anterior muscle left
with tendon tear
3)Fracture of medial malleoli left
4)Fracture of both bones of right leg
5)Abrasion right knee
45. So, the injury Nos.1 to 4 are grievous in nature
and injury No.5 is simple in nature. Ex.P14 is the
discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner
soon after the accident has got admitted to the Ashraya
Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient
from 30.11.2014 to 27.12.2014 for a period of 28 days,
as he has sustained the following injuries;
Fracture both bones of right leg with
fracture of medial malleoli left ankle with
54 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
degloving injury left leg with loss of tibialis
anterior muscle
46. So, he was underwent wound debridement on
left leg and IL nailing right tibia on 1.12.2014 under SA.
Medial malleoli was fixed with cancellous screws. Skin
grafting was done on 16.12.2014 under SA.
Physiotherapy was initiated and the patient was treated
with IV fluids. Ex.P16 are the medical bills reflects that
the petitioner soon after the accident has admitted to the
hospital and took the treatment by spending an amount
of Rs.2,86,920/-. Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 are reflects that
the petitioner got admitted to the hospital and MLC has
been registered and intimation was given to the police in
respect of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic
accident. Ex.P28 and Ex.P29 are clearly reflects that the
petitioner soon after the accident got admitted to the
hospital and took the treatment as inpatient and
underwent surgery and implants in situ. So, the oral
and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that the
petitioner has sustained fracture as shown in the wound
55 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
certificate and underwent surgery and implants in situ.
So, the oral and documentary evidence on record it is
clear that the petitioner has sustained fracture as shown
in the wound certificate and underwent surgery, in spite
of best treatment he could not do the work as before. So
considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident and the evidence of PW3 and PW4 as
well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to
grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following
heads;
a) Pain and suffering.
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of both
bones of right leg with fracture of medial malleoli left
ankle with degloving injury left leg in a road traffic
accident said to have been taken place on 30.11.2014
and took the treatment as an inpatient and also as an
outpatient. PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his
evidence has clearly stated about the surgery which was
underwent by the petitioner due to the accidental injuries
56 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
said to have been taken place on 30.11.2014 and he has
also stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as
inpatient and outpatient. So, considering the evidence of
the PW3 and PW4 and the injuries sustained by the
petitioner as well as the duration of treatment he would
have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and
necessary to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the
above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence,
Rs.50,000/- is awarded for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy
working in a factory by getting monthly income of
Rs.15,000/-, due to the accidental injuries he could not
do the work as before. But the reasons best known to
him has not examined any independent witness nor
examined the person under whom he was working to
show that prior to the accident he was working in a
factory by getting monthly income of Rs.15,000/-.
Moreovoer PW3 in his cross-examination has
57 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
categorically admitted that he has not produced any
documents to show that prior to the accident he was
working in a factory by getting monthly income of
Rs.15,000/- as stated in his affidavit. In the absence of
the materials on record, it is very difficult to believe the
income of the petitioner as alleged in the claim petition.
So, considering the age and skill of the petitioner and the
present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider
the monthly notional income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet
the ends of justice. Ex.P13 and Ex.P14 are clearly reflects
that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and
took the treatment as inpatient for a period of 28 days
and underwent surgery. So, considering the duration of
treatment and the injuries sustained by him in a road
traffic accident he might have lost income for a period of
four months. So, four months income comes to
Rs.24,000/-. So, Rs.24,000/- is granted for the above
head.
58 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
c) Medical expenses
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and
underwent surgery by spending more than Rs.4,00,000/-
for the injured sustained by him in a road traffic
accident. But on record he has produced the medical
bills worth of Rs.2,86,920/-. Though the learned counsel
for the respondent has disputed the medical bills
produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on
record to show that the medical bills produced by the
petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the
compensation. So, in the absence of the materials on
record, it is clear that the petitioner has took the
treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him
in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.2,86,920/- is
granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of both
59 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
bones of left leg, fracture of malleoli left and partial loss
of tibia is anterior muscle left with tendon in a road
traffic accident said to have been taken place on
30.11.2014 and underwent surgery took the treatment as
inpatient for a period of 28 days, but inspite of best
treatment, he could not come to the normal position. The
PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has
clearly stated about the injuries sustained by the
petitioner and underwent surgery. According to him the
petitioner has sustained permanent functional disability
to an extent of 59% of right lower limb and 20% of total
body. So, considering the evidence of the PW3 and PW4
and the medical records and the injuries sustained by
the petitioner and duration of treatment, it is just and
necessary to consider the disability of 12% of the whole
body instead of 20%, it will meet the ends of justice. So,
his income is already considered as Rs.6,000/- per
month. Ex.P13, Ex.P14 and Ex.P18 clearly reflects that
as on the date of the alleged accident, the petitioner was
aged about 35 years. The petitioner in his claim petition
60 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
has clearly stated that as on the date of the alleged
accident, he was aged about 35 years. Therefore, the
petitioner age is taken into consideration as 35 years as
on the date of the alleged accident. So, by virtue of the
Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd.,
reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is
16. So the loss of future earning is works out as under;
Rs.6,000X12X16X12/100=1,38,240/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,38,240/-
for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained the grievous injuries
and underwent surgery and took the treatment as an
inpatient for a period of 28 days even after discharge still
he is under treatment. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic
Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the
treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient and
61 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
outpatient and he has also treated about the surgery
which was underwent by the petitioner due to the
accidental injuries. So, considering the evidence of PW3
and PW4 and duration of treatment as well as the
complaints and disability of the petitioner after the
accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.30,000/- for
the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So
Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW3 being the injured in his evidence has
clearly stated that he has sustained grievous injuries and
underwent surgery, so one more surgery is required for
removal of implants. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic
Surgeon in his evidence has stated that the petitioner
has sustained fracture and underwent surgery and
implants in situ. So, one more surgery is required for
removal of implants, which may costs of Rs.65,000/-. So,
considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, it is just and necessary to award Rs.15,000/- for
62 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
future medication it will meet the ends of justice. So,
Rs.15,000/- is granted towards future medical expenses.
47. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
2. Loss of income during Rs. 24,000-00
laid up period
3. Medical expenses Rs.2,86,920-00
4. Loss of future earning Rs.1,38,240-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 30,000-00
conveyance, food and
nourishment, attendant
charges etc.
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00
Total Rs.5,44,160-00
48. The learned counsel for the respondent while
canvassing her arguments has submitted that the
medical records reflects that the injured were consumed
the alcohol. But the hospital authorities were
suppressed the said facts in respect of medical records of
two injured. So, the accident was occurred on their own
negligence and requested to consider contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner. It is an admitted
fact that the PW4 being the treated doctor in his cross-
63 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
examination has admitted that there is entry in the
inpatient record that the petitioner in MVC 946/2015
has been consumed alcohol. But he has denied that all
the injured were consumed the alcohol were fell down
and sustained injuries and he has stated that at the time
of admission he was not found any smell, thereby the
petitioner was not subjected for medical examination.
Even, if it is considered that as on the date of alleged
accident one of the injured was consumed the alcohol.
But it is not the case of the respondent that one of the
injured has consumed the alcohol, so, on his own
negligence the accident was occurred. If that is so, the
matter would have different. Merely on the ground that
the inpatient records discloses that he was consumed the
alcohol it does not mean that the accident was occurred
on his own negligence since the respondent has failed to
establish his case through oral and documentary
evidence that the accident was occurred on the
negligence of the petitioners. Therefore, the arguments
64 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on
this aspect holds no water.
49. The learned counsel for the respondent while
canvassing her arguments has submitted that the
petitioners while proceeding in a tar road knowing fully
well about the movement of the vehicle, without following
the traffic rules and movements of the vehicle sustained
injuries on their own negligence. But whereas Ex.P3 is
the panchanama reflects that the accident was occurred
on the extreme western side of the road in which
nowhere appears that the accident was occurred either in
the middle of the road nor while crossing the road where
there was no zebra crossing as the learned counsel for
the respondent while canvassing her arguments has
drawn the court attention on the judgement of 2004 ILR
1104. On careful perusal of the said decision, in the said
decision, his lordship held that certain degree of
contributory negligence will have to be attributed to him
if pedestrian is crossing over the road way at any place
65 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
other than which is meant for pedestrian crossing, he
cannot claim any specific precedence and the
responsibility for causing the accident.
50. In the instant case it is not the case of the
respondent nor it is not the case of the petitioners that
while crossing the road where there was no zebra cross,
the accident was occurred. If that is so, the decision
relied by the learned counsel for the respondent would
have applicable. But it is not the case of the petitioners
that while crossing the road, where there was no zebra
cross the accident was occurred. If that is so, the matter
would have different. Therefore, I do respect to the
decision relied by the learned counsel for the respondent,
but the facts and circumstances of the present case and
the decision relied by the learned counsel for the
respondent are different. Therefore, the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on
this aspect holds no water.
66 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
51. The learned counsel for the respondent while
canvassing her arguments has submitted that there is a
delay in lodging the complaint as the unknown vehicle
has caused the accident and the petitioners in colluding
with the owner of the vehicle have falsely implicated the
vehicle, that is the reason why the delay was caused in
lodging the complaint. But the medical records reflects
that the petitioners were sustained injuries immediately
they got admitted to the hospital and hospital authorities
were registered the MLC and intimated to the police. So,
the medical records and the evidence of PW1 to 3 reflects
that the petitioners were sustained injuries. So, after the
accident got admitted to the hospital and filed the
complaint as the accident was occurred on 30.11.2014 at
about 7.30 p.m. and the petitioners have got admitted to
the Ashraya hospital at about 8.00 p.m. within half an
hour from the accident and head constable had been to
the hospital after receipt of intimation and recorded the
statement of the injured in the hospital itself and came to
the station and register the case against the offending
67 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
vehicle driver. So, merely on the ground that the
complaint was lodged on 1.12.2014 it does not mean that
the petitioners have falsely implicated the vehicle since
the offending vehicle driver is the best witness to say
about the accident or other persons who are the eye
witness to the incident are the best witnesses to say
about the accident. But the reasons best known to the
respondent has not examined either the offending vehicle
driver nor the witnesses who are cited in the charge
sheet. So, looking from any angle the arguments
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent
holds no water.
52. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the
offending vehicle has admitted about the issuance of the
policy and produced the policy copy in which it is clear
that the policy was in existence from 31.3.2014 to
30.3.2015. The accident was occurred on 30.11.2014.
So, as on the date of alleged accident the policy was in
existence.
68 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
53. The respondent No.2 has taken up the
contention that as on the date of alleged accident the
offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and
effective driving licence to drive the same. But the
reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not
placed any materials on record nor examined any
authority i.e., RTO or ARTO to show that as on the date
of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was
not holding valid and effective driving licence and Ex.P5
is the final report filed by the I.O., nowhere appears that
the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged
accident. If at all the driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding the valid and effective driving licence the I.O.,
would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle
driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of
MV Act. So, on record there is no material to show that
the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and
effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged
accident. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of the
69 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
alleged accident, the policy was in existence and the
offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective
driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But
in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2
alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners
with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. inview of the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 KLJ
292 from the date of petitions till its realization. Hence, I
am of the opinion that the issue No.2 in all the claim
petitions is answered as partly in the affirmative.
54. Issue No.3 in all the claim petitions.
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 and 2 in all
claim petitions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The claim petitions filed by the petitioners in MVC Nos.879/2015, 878/2015 and 946/2015 u/s 166 of the M.V. Act are hereby allowed in part with costs. 70 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015, 878/2015 & 946/2015 The compensation in all the cases has been awarded as mentioned here under:
Compensation Sl. MVC Awarded No. Number (in Rupees) 1 879/2015 Rs. 4,80,698-00 2 878/2015 Rs. 6,71,553-00 3 946/2015 Rs. 5,44,160-00 Interest is granted at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the claim petitions till the date of payment/bank deposit, in all the claim petitions.
In all the claim petitions, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petitions till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest in all the claim petitions, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioners 71 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015, 878/2015 & 946/2015 in any nationalised or scheduled bank of their choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to them by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
The expenses to be incurred for future medication in all the claim petitions shall not carry any interest.
Advocate fee is fixed in each of the petition at Rs.1,000/-.
The original judgment copy shall be kept in MVC No.879/2015 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC 878/2015 and 946/2015.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this 04th day of December 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar) XII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Member-M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
72 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015, 878/2015 & 946/2015 ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 Smt. B.P. Lakshmidevi PW2 Sri Basavaraj J. PW3 Sri Mahalingaiah PW4 Dr. Arjun S. Prakash
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of FIR Ex.P3 True copy of Panchanama Ex.P4 True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P5 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P6 Discharge summary Ex.P7 9 Medical prescriptions Ex.P8 27 Medical bills amounting to Rs.2,29,378/-
Ex.P9 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P10 Discharge summary
Ex.P11 13 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P12 42 Medical bills amounting to Rs.3,25,193/-
Ex.P13 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P14 Discharge summary
Ex.P15 15 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P16 34 Medical bills amounting to Rs.2,86,920/-
Ex.P17 True copy of Accident Register
73 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.879/2015,
878/2015 & 946/2015
Ex.P18 True copy of Police intimation copy Ex.P19 Inpatient record Ex.P20 6 X-ray films Ex.P21 True copy of Accident Register Ex.P22 True copy of Police intimation copy Ex.P23 Inpatient record Ex.P24 6 X-ray films Ex.P25 5 MRI Scan films Ex.P26 True copy of Accident Register Ex.P27 True copy of Police intimation copy Ex.P28 Inpatient record Ex.P29 6 X-ray films List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.