Bangalore District Court
In - Kumar vs In 1. Rudrasenan S on 15 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE AND XX ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE & M.A.C.T.,
BENGALURU (SCCH-24).
PRESENT: Smt. Zaibunnisa
B.Com.LL.B.
XXII Addl.Small Causes Judge & XX A.C.M.M. &
Member M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
Dated This the 15the Day of April 2017.
M.V.C.No.3919/2015 and M.V.C.No.3920/2015
M
Petitioner in - Kumar,
MVC.3919/2015 S/o Rangaswamaiah,
Aged 39 years,
R/A No.15, Kurubarahalli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore-560 073.
(Rept:By Sri. D.G. Manjunath,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
Petitioner in - K.V. Venkatesh,
MVC.3920/2015 S/o Venkatanarasappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/A No.48, Kurubarahalli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District.
(Rept:By Sri. D.G. Manjunath,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
2 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
-Versus-
Respondents in 1. Rudrasenan S.,
both the cases: S/o Sankar,
R/A No.21,
Near Ayyappa Temple,
Attibele, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore.
(RC owner of the Drilling Rigs
Lorry, Bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689)
2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Motor Third Party Claims Hub,
5th and 6th Floor,
Krushi Bhavan,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore.
(Policy No.1718003114P102909025
Valid from 27.07.2014 to 26.07.2015)
(Res.1: Ex-parte,
Res.2: By Sri. G.S. Marulaiah,
Advocate, Bengaluru).
(ZAIBUNNISA)
XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M.,
& MEMBER, M.A.C.T.,
Bengaluru.
3 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
COMMON JUDGMENT
M.V.C.3919/2015 and M.V.C.3920/2015
These two petitions filed by the petitioners under
Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act claiming the
compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- each in
M.V.C.3919/2015 and M.V.C.3920/2015 on account of
injuries sustained by them in the Road Traffic Accident.
These two petitions are arising out of the same accident.
Hence, they are clubbed and common evidence is
recorded in M.V.C.3919/2015 and taken together for
common disposal.
2. The brief case projected by the petitioners in both
the petitions is as under:
That on 12.04.2015 at about 8.15 a.m., the
petitioners in M.V.C.3919/2015 and M.V.C.3920/2015
were pillion riders on the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-
4 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
04-EW-7687 and the same was riding by its rider slowly,
carefully by observing all the traffic rules and regulations
on Nice Road, Doddagollarahatti, Bengaluru to go to
Nelamangala side, at that time the Drilling Rigs Lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689 driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner, endangering human life,
without observing any of the traffic rules and regulations
and dashed against both the petitioners. Due to which
both the petitioners fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately they were shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, Sunkadakatte, wherein they took treatment as
inpatients. During the course of treatment X-rays were
taken and confirmed the multiple fracture injuries. Due
to which the petitioners underwent surgery, after better
treatment they were discharged with an advise for
continuous follow-up treatment, restricted fracture
movement and bed rest. So far the petitioners have
5 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
spent Rs.2,00,000/- each towards medical, conveyance,
nourishing and other incidental charges.
3. It is submitted that, the injuries sustained by
the petitioners in the accident are not united, they are
getting unbearable pain often. On account of injuries the
petitioners are completely bed ridden, cannot lift or carry
any weight, undergoing deep mental shock, pain and
sufferings and the injuries caused are permanent in
nature. Prior to the date of accident, they were hale and
healthy, the petitioner in M.V.C.3919/2015 was working
as a Plumber and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month, whereas the petitioner in M.V.C.3920/2015 was
working as an office assistant and earning Rs.12,000/-
per month, with the said earnings they were maintaining
their family since they are the only earning members.
Due to the injuries till today both the petitioners cannot
attend their work, which is resulted in loss of income and
6 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
earning capacity and put them to great financial
hardship. It is submitted that, the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Drilling
Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.no.KA-51-MB-7689 and in this
connection the Tavarekere Police have registered a case
in Crime No.196/2015 punishable under Section 279,
337, 338 of IPC, Section 187 of M.V. Act against the said
driver. The 1st respondent is the R.C. owner of the said
Drilling Rigs Lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurer,
the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence,
both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to
pay the compensation to the petitioners together with
court costs and interest.
4. In response to the notice issued in both the
petitions, the respondent No. 2 appeared through its
counsel before this Tribunal and resisted the claim
petitions by filing separate objection statements.
7 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
The 1st respondent remained absent and he has been
placed ex-parte in both the cases.
5. The 2nd respondent submitted that, this
respondent has issued the Miscellaneous and Special
type of vehicles package policy in respect of Ashok
Leyland Drilling Rigs vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-
7689 in favour of the 1st respondent. The liability of this
respondent if any is subject to the terms and conditions
of the policy and provisions of M.V. Act, valid and
effective driving licence held by the driver of the said
vehicle at the time of accident and also validity of
vehicular documents such as R.C., F.C., and permit. The
2nd respondent submitted that, the 1st respondent has
failed and neglected to perform the statutory obligation to
seek indemnification by violating the policy conditions as
he has not inform the accident nor submitted the vehicle
documents including D.L. as per Section 134(c) of M.V.
8 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
Act. The 2nd respondent has denied the allegations made
in the petitions and to put the petitioners to strict proof
of the same. It is submitted that, the accident was due to
negligence on the part of the rider of the Motor Cycle
bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EW-7687, who was riding the
vehicle in a zigzag manner, without giving any signal by
violating the traffic rules in which the petitioners were
pillion riders. The insured and insurer of the above said
motor cycle are necessary parties, but the petitioners
have not made them as parties. As such the petitions are
bad for mis-joinder of parties. Further submitted that,
the contributory negligence is on the part of the
petitioners and it exceeds 50%. The 2nd respondent has
denied the injuries sustained, treatment taken, amount
spent and disability sustained by the petitioners,
avocation, earnings of the petitioners and to put them to
strict proof of the same. The 2nd respondent submitted
that, the compensation claimed by the petitioners are
9 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
exaggerated and in the event of granting of any award
may have to grant interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
For all these reasons, the 2nd respondent prayed to
dismiss the petitions.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings and the rival
contentions of both the parties, the following issues have
been framed :
ISSUES in MVC No.3919/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on
12.04.2015 at about 08.15 a.m., on
Nice Road Toll, Doddagollarahalli,
Bengaluru, at that time the driver of
Rigs Lorry bearing registration No.KA-
04-EW-7687 drove in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against
the petitioner's motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-05-MB-7689 and
due to which, he fell down and
sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What order or award?
10 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
ISSUES in MVC No.3920/2015
1. Whether the petitioner proves that,
on 12.04.2015 at about 08.15 a.m.,
on Nice Road Toll, Doddagollarahalli,
Bengaluru, at that time the driver of
Rigs Lorry bearing registration No.KA-
04-EW-7687 drove in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed against
the petitioner's motor cycle bearing
registration No.KA-05-MB-7689 and
due to which, he fell down and
sustained grievous injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What order or award?
7. In order to substantiate their cases, the
petitioner in MVC.3919/2015 and the petitioner in
MVC.3920/2015 have been examined as P.W.1 and
P.W.2 respectively and got examined two witnesses as
P.W.3 and P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 in all.
Thereafter, the petitioners closed their side evidence.
11 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
8. In order to rebut the evidence so placed by the
petitioners, the respondents have not adduced evidence
in both the cases.
9. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials
placed on record.
10. My findings on all the above issues in both the
cases are as under :
MVC No.3919/2015
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.
The petitioner is entitled
for a total compensation
of Rs.3,61,893/-, from
the respondents No.1 and
2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order.
12 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
MVC No.3920/2015
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.
The petitioner is entitled
for a total compensation
of Rs.1,12,200/-, from
the respondents No.1 and
2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order.
for the following :-
REASONS
ISSUE No.1 IN BOTH THE PETITIONS.
11. The case of the petitioners is that, on
12.04.2015 at about 8.15 a.m., the petitioners in
M.V.C.3919/2015 and M.V.C.3920/2015 were going on
the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EW-7687 and the
same was riding by its rider slowly, carefully by observing
all the traffic rules and regulations on Nice Road,
Doddagollarahatti, Bengaluru to go to Nelamangala side,
13 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
at that time the Drilling Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-
51-MB-7689 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering human life, without observing any
of the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against
both the petitioners. Due to which both the petitioners
fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is further
case of the petitioners that, the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the Drilling Rigs Lorry
bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689 by its driver and in this
regard the Tavarekere Police have registered a case
against driver of the said Drilling Rigs Lorry in Crime
No.196/2015 for the offences punishable under Sec. 279,
337, 338 of Indian Penal Code, Section 187 of M.V. Act.
12. In order to prove the actionable negligence, the
petitioner in M.V.C.No.3919/2015 entered into the
witness box and got examined as P.W.1 and the
petitioner in M.V.C.3920/2015 got examined as P.W.2.
14 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
P.W.1 and P.W.2 have re-iterated all the allegations made
in the claim petitions in their respective evidence
affidavits with regard to the said accident. P.W.1 and
P.W.2 have deposed that, the accident has occurred due
to the rash and negligent driving of the Drilling Rigs
Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689 by its driver.
During the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 and P.W.2
deposed that, P.W.2 was riding the motor cycle at the
time of accident and denied the suggestions that, the
lorry was moving slowly on the left side of the road and
there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the
lorry but both the petitioners have contended in their
respective petitions that, they are the pillion riders hence
the third person was riding the motor cycle without
knowing the riding negligently and dashed against the
Drilling Rigs Lorry. Further suggested that, since the
said third person who was riding the motor cycle was not
holding driving licence and the vehicle was not covered
15 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
with any insurance, therefore P.W.1 and P.W.2 falsely
deposing that, P.W.2 was riding the motor cycle.
Except the said suggestions, no worthwhile materials
have been brought out from the mouth of P.W.1 and
P.W.2 to discredit their version in the examination-in-
chief and with respect to alleged negligence on the part
of rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EW-
7687.
13. The petitioners in both the cases have relied
on the copies of various documents produced at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.3, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.13. Out of these
documents, Ex.P.1, is the First Information Report,
Ex.P.2 is the Complaint, Ex.P.3 is the Wound Certificate
of the petitioner in M.V.C.3919/2015, Ex.P.7 is the
Wound Certificate of the petitioner in M.V.C.3920/2015,
Ex.P.10 is the Mahazar, Ex.P.11 is the Seizure Mahazar,
Ex.P.12 is the two IMV Reports and Ex.P.13 is the
16 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
Charge Sheet. Ex.P.1, the First Information Report,
which is prepared on the basis of the complaint as per
Ex.P.2. These records discloses that, the Criminal Case
has been registered against the driver of the Drilling Rigs
Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689 for the offences
punishable under Sec.279, 337 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation,
the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of
the said Drilling Rigs Lorry for the offences punishable
under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code, Section 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Ex.P.10 i.e., the
Mahazar drawn on the seen of occurrence of the accident
also supports the case of the petitioners. The contents of
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.13 prima
facie establishes the rashness and negligence on the part
of the driver of the Drilling Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-
51-MB-7689 in causing the accident.
17 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
14. The 2nd respondent has taken specific defence
that, the accident was due to negligence on the part of
the rider of the Motor Cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-EW-
7687, who was riding the vehicle in a zigzag manner,
without giving any signal in which the petitioners were
pillion riders. Further submitted that, the contributory
negligence is on the part of the petitioners and it exceeds
50%. In order to substantiate the said defence, the 2nd
respondent has not placed any material evidence. It has
not examined any eyewitness or the driver of the Drilling
Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689, who is the
best witness to depose about the alleged negligence if any
on the part of the rider of motor cycle. By considering all
the above aspects, and in the absence of satisfactory
rebuttal evidence, the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is to be
believed. Under these circumstances, the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, Ex.P.7
and Ex.P.10 to Ex.P.13 establishes that the accident has
18 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
caused solely due to rash and negligent driving of the
Drilling Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689 by its
driver and the petitioners of M.V.C.3919/2015 and
M.V.C.3920/2015 have sustained injuries in the said
accident. Accordingly, issue No.1 of both
M.V.C.No.3919/2015 and M.V.C. No.3920/2015 are
answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2 IN BOTH THE CASES:-
IN MVC NO.3919/2015
15. The petitioner Kumar has sustained injuries in
the said accident. He has relied upon Ex.P.3 i.e., the
Wound Certificate issued by Ashraya Hospital,
Bengaluru. Ex.P.3 reveals that, the petitioner has
sustained following injuries.
1. Fracture shaft of femur left.
2. Abrasion left knee.
3. CLW of 2 c.m., on Scalp.
19 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
As per Ex.P.3 injury No.1 is grievous in nature and
injuries No.2 and 3 are simple in nature. There is no
much dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by
the petitioner. In view of the findings recorded on issue
No.1, the petitioner has suffered injuries because of the
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the
Drilling Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.
16. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has
taken treatment as an inpatient from 12.04.2015 to
20.04.2015, he underwent surgery and discharged with
an advise for follow-up treatment, bed rest. Taking into
consideration of the nature of injuries, duration of the
treatment, I am of the considered opinion that, the
petitioner has suffered pain because of the said
accidental injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a
sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
20 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
17. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, he has spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance,
nourishment and other incidental charges. In this regard
the petitioner has produced the 17 medical bills
amounting to Rs.1,21,419/- and 13 Prescriptions at
Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.15 i.e., 11 Medical Bills
amounting to Rs.35,474/-. During the course of cross-
examination, 2nd respondent has denied the bills
produced at Ex.P.5 as not tallied with the prescriptions
produced at Ex.P.6 and the advance receipt amount of
Rs.25,000/- and other medical expenses amount are not
deducted from any of the medical bills. Therefore the
amount said to have incurred towards medical expenses
cannot be considered as sought by the petitioner and
after deducting all the above said amount the
approximate medical expenses will be Rs.60,000/- only.
It is also suggested that, the petitioner has included the
paper publication bill for Rs.1,500/- in this case and
21 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
same cannot be considered. But in respect of the above
said aspect, 2nd respondent has not produced any contra
evidence. Taking into consideration of the nature of the
injuries and the treatment as an in and outpatient, I am
of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a total
sum of Rs.1,56,893/- towards Medical Expenses.
18. It is the case of the petitioner that,
immediately after the accident he was shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an
inpatient from 12.04.2015 to 20.04.2015. P.W.1 deposed
that, as per the advise of the doctor, he has continued
follow-up treatment in other private hospitals and
regularly attended physiotherapy treatment. In this
regard the petitioner has produced Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.14
i.e., two discharge summaries issued by Ashraya
Medinova Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. Ex.P.4 shows that, the
petitioner was admitted to the said hospital on
22 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
12.04.2015 and discharged on 20.04.2015. Ex.P.14
shows that, the petitioner was admitted on 09.05.2016
and discharged on 10.05.2016. The petitioner has not
produced any materials to show that, he has taken
follow-up treatment. No doubt, due to the said injuries
he must have spent some amount towards conveyance,
food and nourishment expenses. He must have taken
bed rest for certain period. The nature of injuries
necessitates the follow-up treatment. During treatment
period and bed rest he must have an attendant as he was
not in a position to do his work independently. In this
regard the petitioner has not placed any documentary
evidence before this Tribunal except the oral evidence. In
the absence of documentary evidence and having regard
to all the said aspects, I am of the considered opinion
that, the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of
Rs.15,000/- towards food and nourishment expenses,
attend and conveyance charges.
23 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
19. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that, prior to the
accident he was hale and healthy, aged about 39 years,
working as a plumber and earning Rs.15,000/- per
month. P.W.1 deposed that, with the said earnings he
was maintaining his family members, since he is the only
earning member in the family. Further deposed that, due
to injuries, he could not attend to his work as a result he
lost his earnings and put to great financial hardship. In
order to show his avocation and income, the petitioner
has not produced any material evidence. He has not
produced any medical records to show that he has taken
follow-up treatment and not attended for his work.
However, considering the age and avocation of the
petitioner and present day conditions, I am of the opinion
that, if the income of the petitioner is inferred at
Rs.8,000/- per month that would meet the ends of
justice. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of
the considered opinion that, the petitioner could not
24 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
attend to his work at least for a period of two months.
Hence, the compensation of Rs.16,000/- (Rs.8,000/- X 2)
is awarded towards loss of income during the laid
down period for treatment.
20. It is the case of the petitioner that, on account
of the injuries, he cannot stand, walk, sit, squat on the
floor, lift or carry weight and he is undergoing deep
mental shock, giddiness, head ache, pain and sufferings
and the injuries caused permanent in nature. P.W.1
deposed that, due to accidental injuries he could not
attend his work, as a result he lost earnings and earning
capacity and put to great financial hardship. In order to
substantiate the said facts, the petitioner has examined
Dr. Arjun S. Prakash as P.W.3. P.W.3 in his affidavit
evidence deposed that, the petitioner has sustained
fracture shaft femur left, he was treated in the form of
interlock nailing. Further deposed that, he was re-
25 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
admitted on 07.05.2016 for implant removal and recently
he examined the petitioner on 28.01.2017 for the
purpose of disability assessment. P.W.3 assessed the
total permanent disability of limbs at 45% and
permanent physical disability for whole body at 15%.
In this regard he has produced inpatient record and one
X-ray Film at Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18. During the course of
cross-examination P.W.3 admitted that, according to his
evidence and X-ray the fracture is completely united,
therefore there is no bone disability to the petitioner. He
further admitted that, if the petitioner follow proper
treatment, stiffness shown in the injured parts of the
petitioner will be decreased with some residue. He also
admitted that, he can carryout his plumbing inspite of
the above said disability with little difficulty. By
considering the above said oral and documentary
evidence and the present condition of the petitioner, I am
of the opinion that, the disability assessed by P.W.3 to
26 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
shaft femur left and to whole body is seems to be at little
higher side. Hence, it is just and proper to consider the
whole body disability at 10% to meet the ends of justice.
So, there is loss of future income of Rs.800/-(Rs.8,000/-
X 10%) per month. In the cause title the age of the
petitioner is shown as 39 years. In the copy of Election
Identity Card of the petitioner his date of birth is shown
as 01.01.1975. Hence the age of the petitioner is
considered between 39 to 40 years at the time of accident
and the proper multiplier applicable to this case is '15'.
Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of
(Rs.800x12x15) Rs.1,44,000/- towards Loss of Future
Earnings.
21. The injuries sustained by the petitioner shows
that he must have sustained pain and suffering. The
accident has put him to discomfort and he has lost the
amenities of life to some extent. Taking all these facts
into consideration, I came to conclusion that, the
27 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.10,000/-
towards Loss of Amenities of Life. Thus this Tribunal is
of the considered opinion that, it would be both fair and
justifiable to award the compensation under the
following heads :
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000=00
2. Medical expenses. Rs. 1,56,893=00
3. Food and Nourishment Rs. 15,000=00
expenses, conveyance
and attendant charges.
4. Loss of income during Rs. 16,000=00
treatment period.
5. Loss of Future Income Rs. 1,44,000=00
6. Loss of amenities of life. Rs. 10,000=00
Total: Rs. 3,61,893=00
So, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.3,61,893/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty One Thousand
Eight Hundred and Ninety Three only) with interest at
the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of realization.
28 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
IN MVC NO.3920/2015
22. The petitioner has sustained injuries in the said
accident. He has relied upon Ex.P.7 i.e., the Wound
Certificate issued by Ashraya Hospital, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.7 reveals that, the petitioner has sustained following
injuries.
1. Volar Barton Fracture right wrist.
2. Abrasion right elbow.
As per Ex.P.7 injury No.1 is grievous in nature and
injuries No.2 is simple in nature. There is no much
dispute with regard to the injuries sustained by the
petitioner. In view of the findings recorded on issue No.1,
the petitioner has suffered injuries because of the
actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the
Drilling Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-MB-7689.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation.
29 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
23. It is the case of the petitioner that, he has
taken treatment as an inpatient from 12.04.2015 to
14.04.2015, he underwent surgery and discharged with
an advise for follow-up treatment, bed rest. Taking into
consideration of the nature of injuries, duration of the
treatment, I am of the considered opinion that, the
petitioner has suffered pain because of the said
accidental injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a
sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings.
24. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that, he has spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical, conveyance,
nourishment and other incidental charges. In this regard
the petitioner has produced the one medical bill
amounting to Rs.16,800/-. During the course of cross-
examination, it is suggested that to get the compensation
P.W.2 has got created the bill at Ex.P.9 and he has not
spent any amount towards treatment and he has
30 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
sustained only simple injuries. Except the above said
suggestions, 2nd respondent has not produced any
evidence to deny the medical expenses incurred by this
petitioner. Taking into consideration of the nature of the
injuries and the treatment as an in and outpatient, I am
of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rs.16,800/- towards Medical Expenses.
25. It is the case of the petitioner that,
immediately after the accident he was shifted to Ashraya
Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took treatment as an
inpatient from 12.04.2015 to 14.04.2015. P.W.2 deposed
that, as per the advise of the doctor, he has continued
follow-up treatment in other private hospitals and
regularly attended physiotherapy treatment. In this
regard the petitioner has produced Ex.P.8 i.e., the
discharge summary issued by Ashraya Medinova Pvt.
Ltd., Bengaluru. Ex.P.8 shows that, the petitioner was
31 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
admitted to the said hospital on 12.04.2015 and
discharged on 14.04.2015. The petitioner has not
produced any material documents to show that, he has
taken follow-up treatment. No doubt, due to the said
injuries he must have spent some amount towards
conveyance, food and nourishment expenses. He must
have taken bed rest for certain period. The nature of
injuries necessitates the follow-up treatment. During
treatment period and bed rest he must have an attendant
as he was not in a position to do his work independently.
In this regard the petitioner has not placed any
documentary evidence before this Tribunal except the
oral evidence. In the absence of documentary evidence
and having regard to all the said aspects, I am of the
considered opinion that, the petitioner is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards food and
nourishment expenses, attend and conveyance
charges.
32 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
26. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that, prior to the
accident he was hale and healthy, aged about 48 years,
working as an office assistant and earning Rs.12,000/-
per month. P.W.2 deposed that, with the said earnings
he was maintaining his family members, since he is the
only earning member in the family. Further deposed
that, due to injuries, he could not attend to his work as a
result he lost his earnings and put to great financial
hardship. In order to show his avocation and income,
the petitioner has not produced any material evidence.
He has not produced any medical records to show that he
has taken follow-up treatment and not attended for his
work. However, considering the age and avocation of the
petitioner and present day conditions, I am of the opinion
that, if the income of the petitioner is inferred at
Rs.8,000/- per month that would meet the ends of
justice. Taking all these facts into consideration, I am of
the considered opinion that, the petitioner could not
33 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
attend to his work at least for a period of one month.
Hence, the compensation of Rs.8,000/- is awarded
towards loss of income during the laid down period for
treatment.
27. It is the case of the petitioner that, on account
of the injuries, he cannot stand, walk, sit, squat on the
floor, lift or carry weight and he is undergoing deep
mental shock, giddiness, head ache, pain and sufferings
and the injuries caused permanent in nature. P.W.2
deposed that, due to accidental injuries he could not
attend his work, as a result he lost earnings and earning
capacity and put to great financial hardship. In order to
substantiate the said facts, the petitioner has examined
Dr. Arjun S. Prakash as P.W.4. P.W.4 in his affidavit
evidence deposed that, the petitioner has sustained Volar
Barton fracture right, he was treated in the form of
reduction with casting. Further deposed that, recently
34 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
he examined the petitioner on 28.01.2017 for the
purpose of disability assessment. P.W.4 assessed the
total permanent disability of limbs at 30.07% and
permanent physical disability for whole body at 10.02%.
In this regard he has produced inpatient record and one
X-ray Film at Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 During the course of
cross-examination P.W.4 admitted that, according to his
evidence and X-ray the fracture is completely united,
therefore there is no bone disability to the petitioner. He
further admitted that, if the petitioner follow proper
treatment, the restriction of range of movement in right
wrist of the petitioner will be decreased with some
residue. By considering the above said oral and
documentary evidence and that the petitioner is now
suffering with restriction of range of movement of right
wrist only, I am of the opinion that, the disability
assessed by P.W.4 is seems to be at little higher side.
Hence, it is just and proper to consider the whole body
35 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
disability at 5% to meet the ends of justice. So, there is
loss of future income of Rs.400/-(Rs.8,000/-X 5%) per
month. In the cause title the age of the petitioner is
shown as 48 years. Ex.P.7 the copy of Wound Certificate
discloses that, the petitioner was aged about 49 years at
the time of accident. The copy of Ration Card produced
by the petitioner himself discloses that, he was aged
about 40 years in the year 2009. Hence the age of the
petitioner is considered as between 48 and 49 years at
the time of accident and the proper multiplier applicable
to this case is '13'. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation of (Rs.400x12x13) Rs.62,400/- towards
Loss of Future Earnings.
28. The injuries sustained by the petitioner
shows that he must have sustained pain and suffering.
The accident has put him to discomfort and he has lost
the amenities of life to some extent. Taking all these
36 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
facts into consideration, I came to conclusion that, the
petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,000/-
towards Loss of Amenities of Life. Thus this Tribunal is
of the considered opinion that, it would be both fair and
justifiable to award the compensation under the
following heads :
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 10,000=00
2. Medical expenses. Rs. 16,800=00
3. Food and Nourishment Rs. 10,000=00
expenses, conveyance
and attendant charges.
4. Loss of income during Rs. 8,000=00
treatment period.
5. Loss of Future Income Rs. 62,400=00
6. Loss of amenities of life. Rs. 5,000=00
Total: Rs. 1,12,200=00
So, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of
Rs.1,12,200/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand and
Two Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 8% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
37 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
29. It is held supra by this Tribunal that, the
accident has occurred solely due to rash and negligent
driving of the Drilling Rigs Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-51-
MB-7689 by its driver. The 2nd respondent has admitted
the issuance of insurance policy and its force at the time
of accident in respect of said Drilling Rigs Lorry.
Respondent No.1 being the R.C. owner and respondent
No.2 being the insurer of the said Drilling Rigs Lorry are
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the
petitioner in M.V.C.3919/2015 and the petitioner in
M.V.C.3920/2015. Accordingly, Issue No.2 of
M.V.C.3919/2015 and M.V.C.3920/2015 are answered
partly in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.3 in M.V.C.No.3919/2015 and
M.V.C.No.3920/2015
30. For the foregoing reasons and the discussions
made above, the petitions filed by the petitioners in
38 SCCH-24
M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15
M.V.C.No.3919/2015 and M.V.C.No.3920/2015 deserve
to be allowed in part with costs.
In result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The Claim Petition filed in M.V.C.3919/2015 by the petitioner Under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded for a total compensation of Rs.3,61,893/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Three only) together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit. The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
Out of the compensation amount awarded, 25% shall be kept in fixed deposit in any of the 39 SCCH-24 M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15 Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of petitioner for a period of five years. The remaining amount with accrued interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly. The Claim Petition filed in M.V.C.3920/2015 by the petitioner Under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is awarded for a total compensation of Rs.1,12,200/- (Rupees One Lakh Twelve Thousand and Two Hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition, till deposit.
The respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded in this case to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation amount into the Tribunal within 60 days from the date of this order.
40 SCCH-24 M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15 The entire compensation amount with interest shall be disbursed to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw Award Accordingly. Original Judgment is kept in MVC No.3919/2015 and the copy of the same is kept in MVC No.3920/2015.
(Dictated to the stenographer on Computer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of April, 2017).
(Zaibunnisa) XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M., & MEMBER, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE Witness examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 - Kumar. P.W.2 - K.V. Venkatesh. P.W.3 - Dr. Arjun S. Prakash. P.W.4 - Dr. Arjun S. Prakash.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents :
- Nil -
41 SCCH-24 M.V.C.3919/15 C/w 3920/15 Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 - Copy of the First Information Report. Ex.P.2 - Copy of the Complaint. Ex.P.3 - Copy of the Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.4 - Discharge Summary of P.W.1. Ex.P.5 - 17 Medical Bills of P.W.1. Ex.P.6 - 13 Prescriptions.
Ex.P.7 - Copy of the Wound Certificated of P.W.2. Ex.P.8 - Discharge Summary of P.W.2. Ex.P.9 - One Medical Bill of P.W.2. Ex.P.10 - Copy of the Mahazar. Ex.P.11 - Copy of the Seizure Mahazar. Ex.P.12 - 2 IMV Reports.
Ex.P.13 - Copy of the Charge Sheet. Ex.P.14 - Discharge Card of P.W.1. Ex.P.15 - 11 Medical Bills of P.W.1. Ex.P.16 - Lab Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.17 - Inpatient Record of P.W.1. Ex.P.18 - One X-ray Film of P.W.1. Ex.P.19 - Inpatient Record of P.W.2. Ex.P.20 - One X-ray Film of P.W.2.
Documents marked on behalf of the Respondents:
1 - Nil -
(Zaibunnisa) XXII A.S.C.J. & XX A.C.M.M., & MEMBER, M.A.C.T., Bengaluru.