Bangalore District Court
And The Said Vehicles In Front Of Him Had ... vs No.2 Insurance Company Under Insurance ... on 2 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 2nd day of December, 2015.
PRESENT : SMT.INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR,
B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.), L.L.M.,
IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
M.V.C.No.2812/2014
Sri. Balappa. H., .....PETITIONER
S/o Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Residing at No.85,
Dwaraganahalli,
Gowribidnur Taluk,
Chickballapur District.
(By Sri. B.V. Sudhakar, Adv.,)
V/s
1. Kamalesh Deedwaniya, .....RESPONDENTS
S/o Ramgopal,
Major,
Residing at No.56,
III Cross, III Main Road,
V.V. Nagar, II Block,
Behind Gokula Apartment,
Near Akshayapatra Temple,
Chennasandra,
Kanakapura Road,
Bangalore-78.
(R.C. Owner of Mahindra Car Bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356)
2 MVC No.2812-2014
(SCCH-7)
2. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited,
Golden Heights, IV Floor, No.1/2,
59th C Cross, IV M Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore.
(Insurer of Mahindra Car Bearing
Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356)
(Policy No: OG-13-9906-1801-00041530,
Valid from 05-03-2013 to 04-03-2014)
(R1- By Sri. Abhay Kumar. P. Jain, Adv.,)
(R2- By Sri. Manoj Kumar. M. R., Adv.,)
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner has filed the present petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and costs.
2. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case are as follows;
a) On 18.01.2014 at about 01.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q- 5919 on Bangalore-Doddaballapur Road, Near Adinatha Heights Farm, Hessarghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, from Bangalore towards Doddaballapur, by observing all the 3 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) traffic rules and regulations and at that time, a Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 proceeding ahead suddenly applied the breaks without giving any signals to the vehicles coming to its back, as a result, the Scarpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50-N-6864 proceeding behind the Mahindra Car touched to the Mahindra Car in question, due to impact, a quails bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042, which was coming behind the Scarpio Car touched to the Scarpio Car in question and as a result, the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919, which was coming behind the TOYOTA Qualis touched to the TOYOTA Qualis in question. He, who was proceeding on Motor Cycle, sustained grievous injuries. All the vehicles sustained damages.
b) Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Magrath Road, Bangalore, wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014. The Doctors in the said Hospital, after examining him and after taking X-rays, have confirmed the injuries as stated in the claim petition. He underwent Surgery. Treatment was given and discharged with an advise to take bed-rest and to continue regular follow-up treatment. As per the advise of the Doctors, he is in continuing treatment and so far spent a sum of Rupees 3,50,000/- towards treatment, medicines, conveyance, nourishing food and attendants charges etc., He has to spend huge amount towards his further treatment. He 4 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) has also spent of Rupees 25,000/- towards the repairs of the Motor Cycle in question.
c) He is aged 44 years. Prior to the date of the accident, he was hale and healthy. He is working as a Head Constable in Manipur Station, on a salary of Rupees 25,000/- per month.
d) On account of the injuries sustained in the said accident, he is not in a position to walk, stand, sit, squat, climb staircase, drive the vehicles, use the Indian Type of Toilet etc., and he is not in a position to attend his work so far and as such, he may lose his income and claims the same from the Respondents.
e) The accident in question has occurred solely due to rash and reckless driving of the driver of Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 by applying breaks suddenly without giving any signals to the other road users. The Rajanakunte Police have registered a case as against the driver of the said Mahindra Car, in their Crime No.19/2014 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
f) The First Respondent being the R.C. Owner and the Second Respondent being the Insurer of the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 and the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of the accident 5 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) and hence, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this Petition.
3. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel and has filed the written statement.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.2 has appeared before this Tribunal through its Learned Counsel. But, initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent No.2 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order dated 04.02.2015 passed on I.A.No.II, the written statement filed by the Respondent No.2 is taken on file.
5. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) At the outset, the petition filed by the Petitioner for a compensation of Rupees 10,00,000/- and accidental reliefs as prayed for showing the cause of action as the road action, which allegedly took place on 18.01.2014 due to the alleged fault of the Respondent No.1 is false bad in law and on facts.
b) The Petitioner being a Police Head Constable has used his influence with the Rajanakunte Police Station and filed a false FIR in Crime No.19/2014 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 337 and 338 of IPC.
6 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
c) The Petitioner has further misused his influence to obtain false medical records from the Hospital Authorities solely for the purpose of filing this petition.
d) The Petitioner has suppressed the information sought for in the petition.
e) The fact is that, on 18.01.2014, at around the place and time mentioned in the petition, his driver of the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356, Sri.Lingaraju. C. was driving the said Car at normal speed by following all the traffic rules and regulations, towards Doddaballapur from Bangalore side. Thereafter, the driver of the said vehicle of him, slowed down by showing proper indicator lights and hand signal to the other road users. However, the vehicles, which were behind his vehicle, including the Petitioner's Motor Cycle, were being driven in a rash and negligent manner since a long time, as, it was visible in the rear-view mirror of the said vehicle of him. Due to said reason, the Motor Cycle of the Petitioner probably met with an accident and the Petitioner allegedly suffered injuries. If the Petitioner and the said vehicles in front of him had exercised caution, the accident could have been averted. Moreover, the vehicle of him did not suffer any damage nor any of its occupants sustained any injury. This proves that, the vehicle of him was not at all involved in the said accident.
7 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
f) In fact, probably, it was the other vehicles following the vehicle of him, as mentioned in the petition, which had applied sudden brakes, due to which, the Motor Cycle of the Petitioner met with an accident and the Petitioner allegedly suffered injuries. Strangely, the Petitioner has not arrayed the owners/insurers of the said other vehicles, though the Petitioner has admitted that, these vehicles were between his Motor Cycle and the vehicle of him at the time of accident.
g) The owners/insurers of the said vehicles have not been arrayed as parties in spite of the Petitioner knowing their registration numbers, which are mentioned in the petition. The petition is therefore bad due to non-joinder of parties.
h) Moreover the entire claim is vitiated due to the fact that, though the Petitioner was immediately taken to a Hospital, he has not been subjected to alcohol test and therefore, the possibility of drunken driving by the Petitioner cannot be ruled out.
i) The claim amount appears hugely inflated.
j) He is also unaware that, the Petitioner was hale and healthy at the time of accident as mentioned in his petition. In any case, even if he has incurred certain expenses and loss of earnings, it is totally due to his own fault and due 8 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) to the fault of the drivers of the vehicles in front of him, who have not been arrayed in the petition and therefore no liability can be fastened upon him.
k) In the event of the Hon'ble Tribunal coming to the conclusion that, the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for the said alleged road accident, the order for the payment of the said compensation to the Petitioner may be passed as against the Respondent No.2, since on the date of the said alleged accident, the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 was sufficiently insured by the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company under Insurance Policy No.OG-13-9906-1801-00041530 dated 05.03.2013, which is valid from 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 (midnight).
l) The said driver of his vehicle, Sri. Lingaraju. C. S/o Channaiah holds a valid driving licence bearing No.KA- 05-20080021019, which is valid from 08.01.2008 to 30.06.2020 issued by the Licensing Authority, Bangalore South.
m) He also holds a valid driving licence bearing No.3915/2002, which is valid from 03.06.2002 to 31.05.2022 issued by the Licensing Authority, Bangalore South.
n) He is the registered owner of the said Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356.
9 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
o) On the date of the accident, the said Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 was insured by the Respondent No.2 vide Insurance Policy No.OG-13-9906-1801- 00041530 dated 05.03.2013, which is valid from 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 (midnight) and therefore, on the date of the accident his was fully covered under the said Insurance Policy issued by the Respondent No.2. Moreover, he has not violated any of the terms of the said policy. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
6. The Respondent No.2 inter-alia denying the entire case of the Petitioner, has further contended as follows;
a) All material allegations made in petition are false and petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law against as against it.
b) The policy of insurance is issued by the Office of it at Pune, Maharastra and as well the road traffic accident having occurred at the Rajankunte Police Station limits of Doddaballapura jurisdiction, Hessaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, wherein, the Petitioner in fact being a resident of Gowribidanur Town of Chickaballapura District as per the charge sheet, that for the best reasons best known to the Petitioner, have filed the present claim petition before this Hon'ble Court. As such, on the aspect of jurisdiction, the claim petition could not be adjudicate before this Hon'ble 10 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Court and as such, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on the question of jurisdiction.
c) The interest in vehicle Mahindra Car bearing Registration No. KA-05-MK-8356 was covered at the material time under the policy of insurance issued by it subject to the terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations thereof and the confirmation of the compliance of Section 64 VB of the Insurance Act, 1938. The Insurance Policy issued by it in favour of the insured bearing No. OG-13-9906-1801- 00041530 for the period from 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 is in the possession of the insured. The insured may kindly be directed to produce the original insurance policy before the Hon'ble Tribunal, failing which, it shall produce the copy of the policy, which may kindly be exhibited and read in evidence.
d) Without prejudice to the above contention, the Respondent No.1 had so entrusted the vehicle to one Mr.Lingaraju S/o Channaiah, who was on the wheels at the material time of accident, did not possess valid and effective Driving Licence to drive the insured vehicle and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured/Respondent No.1. As such, in violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the claim petition as against it is liable to be dismissed.
e) It is learnt that, the accident occurred on account of composite negligence caused by a motor accident on 11 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) account of rash and negligent driving of more than one motor vehicle by its drivers, namely, unknown Auto rickshaw, which said driver had so abruptly all of a sudden stopped the vehicle, since followed by Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356, followed by another Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50-N-6864, followed by yet another Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042, lastly followed and proceeding behind the said Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 by Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.40-Q-5919, driven by the Petitioner. In view of sudden halt of the Auto Rickshaw on the road by the driver of unknown Auto rickshaw, the complainant/informant since being the driver of Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042, the driver/complainant of the said Scorpio Car had so stopped the vehicle on the road, in view of the sudden halt of the Scorpio Car ahead of Car No.KA-05-Z-9042. The complainant/driver of Scorpio Car No.KA-05-Z-9042 having suddenly stopped the Scorpio Car due to sudden stop of the other two vehicles ahead of Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 had so dashed against the insured Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8365. The complainant/informant/driver of Scorpio Car having stopped the vehicle, was so dashed against by Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042, since followed by yet another two wheeler bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919, had dashed against the Toyota Qualis Car bearing 12 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 and all the vehicles were in motion, on the same road and in the same direction. Alternatively, the accident occurred on account of use of more than one vehicle. As such, all the vehicles involved in the accident must be held to be guilty of composite negligence and the law of Full Bench in "GANESH' reported in ILR 1999 Kar 403 would apply. The owner and insurer of the other vehicle, namely, Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50- N-6864, Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z- 9042, unknown Auto Rickshaw, which were also involved in accident, are not impleaded inspite of declaration of law in "GANESH".
f) It seeks protection under the Section 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act.
g) As per Section 134 of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the Respondent No.1, to furnish the particulars of policy, date, time and place of accident, particulars of injured and the name of the driver and particulars of the driving licence, but, the insured/First Respondent has not complied with statutory demand. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation and the case is liable to be dismissed as against it for non-compliance of statutory demand.
h) As per Section 158(6) of M.V. Act, 1988, it is mandatory duty of the concerned Police Station to forward all 13 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) the relevant documents to the concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of the information, but, the Rajanakunte Police Station Authorities have failed to forward the documents and not complied with the statutory demand.
i) The Petitioner is not entitled to claim any interest on non-pecuniary damages as per the observations of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
j) The accident occurred due to the negligence of the Petitioner himself, who since proceeding riding Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919, was so riding the Motor Cycle without keeping safe distance and as well was not wearing an helmet and in fact the Petitioner/rider of Motor Cycle, who since did not know the art of riding a two wheeler and as well did not possess valid and effective driving license. Thereto, had driven the vehicle Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner and had made a daring attempt in riding the Motor Cycle in between the gap of moving keeping to the left side of the road and unable to negotiate the riding had dashed against the stationed Toyota Qualis Car KA-05-Z- 9042, would clearly establish and indicate that, the accident solely due to the negligence of the Petitioner himself and as well the driver of Scorpio Car bearing Registration KA-50-N- 6864, Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 and unknown Autorickshaw.
14 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
k) It is not aware that, the injured is aged about 44 years, earning a sum of Rupees 28,000/- p.a. and Rupees was employed as a Head Constable at Police Department, Manipur Station. Hence, the Petitioner be put to strict proof with documentary evidence regarding injured age, income and occupation.
l) The claim petition is not maintainable, in view of the fact as stated in column No.3 of the claim petition that, the Petitioner had failed to mention the "Age of the vehicle damaged", i.e., the year of manufacture of the Petitioner's vehicle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919, wherein, the Petitioner also claiming damage to property/vehicle, the mention of age of the Petitioner, no way implies in determining the compensation to the damage caused to the vehicle. Further, as per the IMV Report, the damages so sustained to the vehicle KA-40-Q-5919, did not warrants as to incur expenses of Rupees 25,000/- towards spares, labour charges etc., as per Schedule I of policy terms and conditions, considering the make/year of manufacture of the vehicle, the amount so to be incurred towards repair of the vehicle of Petitioner would be negligible.
m) In view of the fact that, the Petitioner had failed to submit the estimate, qualified surveyor being engaged to survey the damaged vehicle, so as to assess the actual damages caused in the accident that occurred on 18.01.2014 15 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) and so an amount of Rupees 25,000/- being incurred is thus only to suit the requirement of the Petitioner. As well, the Petitioner having claiming compensation with his insurer towards damage to vehicle in full and final satisfaction, the claim towards damages as against the offending vehicle insured with it, is not maintainable.
n) It craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to take all defences available to the Respondent No.1, under Section 170 of M.V. Act and contest the case on all the grounds apart from those specified under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act, 1988.
o) Without prejudice to the said contentions, the amount of Rupees 10,00,000/- with interest and costs claimed by the Petitioner, the petition is more excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated and the Petitioner is not entitled for the same from it. Hence, prayed to dispose of the claim petition with exemplary costs.
7. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the following Issues;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Car bearing Reg.No.KA-05-MK-8536 by its driver and in the said accident, he sustained injuries?
16 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation and damages?
If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order?
8. In order to prove his case, the Petitioner himself has been examined as P.W.1 and has also examined three witnesses as P.W.2 to P.W.4 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has examined its Assistant Manager as R.W.1 and has also examined Panel Investigator as R.W.2 by filing the affidavits as their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.R.1 to Ex.P.7. On the other hand, the Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
9. Heard the arguments. The Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 has filed the written arguments.
10. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.B.V.Sudhakar has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) ILR 2003 KAR 493 (Mallamma V/s Balaji and Others), wherein, it is observed that, 17 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59/1988) - Section 173(1) - Whether provisions of the Evidence Act apply strictly in a case of motor vehicles? - No. Strict rules of Evidence Act need not be applied in a case of motor vehicle Accident to prove rash and negligent driving.
ii) 2014 Kant M.A.C. 330 (SC) (Meera Devi and Another V/s Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173(1) - Appeal - Compensation -
Awarded by Tribunal, reduced by High Court on ground of contributory negligence - Validity of - Deceased, a student, son of appellants died in a vehicular accident - Tribunal awarded compensation of Rupees 3,17,200/-
holding accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Bus) - Reduced by High Court to Rupees 1,58,600/- holding accident occurred due to contributory negligence both on part of deceased/Scooterist and Bus driver in ratio of 50:50 - No cogent evidence to prove plea of contributory negligence - Doctrine of common law cannot be applied - compensation awarded by Tribunal just and proper -
impugned judgment dated, 27.03.2006 of High Court set aside - Judgment and award dated 01.07.2003 upheld - Appeal allowed.
18 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
iii) ILR 1999 KAR 403 (Ganesh V/s Syed Munned Ahmed and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59/1988) - Section - Liability in cases of composite negligence of the drivers of the offending vehicles - it is joint as well as several or each driver is liable proportionate to the extent of negligence which they contributed to the accident?
Liability in cases of composite negligence is joint and several.
In view of the conflicting decisions of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Mr. M.Rama Jois and Justice Mr. S.Rajashekar Murthy rendered in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation V/s Reny Mammen ILR 1990 KAR 3181 holding that, liability is restricted proportionate to the extent of rashness or negligence involved and another set of Division Bench decisions starting with A.Shivarudrappa Vs General manager Mysore State Road Transport Corporation 1973 - Accident Claims Journal" (Mysore) 302 and Rama Bai V/s Mukund Kamath ILR 1986 Kar 48 and K.Narayana Karanth V/s Shankar Vittal Motor company Ltd., and others 1963 Mysore Law Journal (supplement) 368 taking a different view that, the liability is joint and several, the following questions were referred to the full Bench.
(i) Whether in a case of a motor vehicle accident caused due to the 19 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) composite negligence of the drivers of two or more vehicles, the person who is injured or the legal representatives of a person who is killed in such an accident, entitled to claim the entire compensation from all or any of the drivers, owners and insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident.
(ii) Whether in such a case the injured or the legal representatives of the dc can recover only that part of compensation from each set of driver, owner or insurer which is proportionate to the quantum of negligence of that, driver, which contributed to the accident.
iv) 2010 ACJ 145 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench (Gajanand and Others V/s Virendra Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Claim application - Maintainability of - Non-joinder of necessary party -
Accident between a Matador and truck resulting in death of Matador driver and passengers traveling in it - Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that, claimants did not implead owner and Insurance Company of Matador - Criminal case registered against the driver of truck who remained exparte - Whether claim application is maintainable - Held: yes; even if it is assumed that, driver of Matador in which the deceased was traveling was negligent then so far as claimants are concerned it is a case of composite negligence and in 20 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) no circumstances the claim petition could be dismissed.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Claim application - Maintainability of - Negligence - Composite negligence - Apportionment of inter se liability - Joint tortfeasers - Non-Joinder of - Accident between a Matador and truck resulting in death of Matador driver and passengers traveling in it - Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that, claimants did not implead the owner and Insurance Company of Matador -
Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application on account of non- impleadment of owner and Insurance Company of Matador - Held: yes; there is no necessity to apportion the inter se liability of joint tortfeasors. (2005 ACJ 831 (MP) relied).
v) 2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and Another V/s Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and Others), wherein, it is observed that, (A) Motor Vehicles Act, (59 of 1988), Ss.168, 170(b) - compensation -
Contributory negligence - head on collision between truck and Car driven by deceased - Evidence of injured eye-
witness that, occurrence was on account of rash and negligent driving of offending truck - Corroborated with evidence of betel shop owner whose shop is situated near spot of incident - Non production of FIR has no consequence - Insurance Company though claimed permission 21 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) under S.170(b) to contest proceedings by availing defence of owner of offending vehicle - But, it did not choose to examine either driver of truck or any other independent eye witness to prove allegation of contributory negligence on part of deceased - Finding of contributory negligence on part of deceased driver - Is erroneous for want of proper consideration of pleadings and legal evidence.
11. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, Sri.Manoj Kumar. M.R. has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in,
i) 2000 ACJ 1039 High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Rajendra Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Negligence - Composite negligence -
Apportionment of inter se liability - Jeep driven at fast speed was racing behind a truck transporting wooden logs which were protruding beyond its body- Truck suddenly stopped without giving any signal and jeep dashed against the hind portion of the truck - Passenger in jeep sustained fatal injuries - Since the truck driver failed to give signal before stopping the truck and the jeep driver failed to keep a reasonable distance, Tribunal held that, both drivers were equally negligent in causing the accident - Tribunal's finding upheld in appeal.
22 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 147 (1) - Motor Insurance - Act policy -
Private vehicle - Gratuitous passengers - Liability of Insurance Company - Death of a gratuitous passenger in a private jeep when it met with accident due to negligence of its driver - Contention that, under 'Act only policy' risk to a gratuitous passenger traveling in a private jeep is not covered - whether the Insurance Company is liable - Held: yes. (2000 ACJ 1 (SC) followed).
The legal effect of omission of clause
(ii) of the proviso to section95 (1) (b) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, from the corresponding relevant section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, brings about a sweeping change in the extent of insurer's liability to pay compensation to the injured victims or the dependants of the deceased victim of a motor accident, in that, under the new Act, the insurer is required to cover the risk to 'any person' who is a victim of the motor accident, whether or not the victim was a gratuitous passenger in any insured vehicle - either it be a private Car or a private jeep vehicle, or a goods truck or even a two wheeler.
ii) 2006 (1) T.A.C. 553 (Kerala) (New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Others V/s Parameswaran and Others), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 140 and 163-A - Compensation - No -
fault liability - Award of interim 23 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) compensation - Liability of Insurance Company - Scope of injuries under Section 140 of the Act - Death of jeep driver - legal representatives of deceased claimed compensation under Section 163-A of M.V. Act - Under Section 140 liability to pay compensation being absolute when death or permanent disablement of any person is out of use of motor vehicle - not necessary for claimants to plead and prove wrongful act or negligence - No - fault liability under Section 140 created by Statute being outside the law of torts - No necessity to enter into enquiry as to who was wrong doer - This substantive right accrued and liability incurred on date of accident and not on date of consideration of claim accidental death of jeep driver occurred during use of vehicle of owner -
Insurance Company held liable to pay compensation under Section 140 of the Act - Tribunal rightly awarded compensation of Rupees 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act.
iii) M.F.A. No.2829/2009 (MV) (Manju S/o Mahadevappa V/s Mathue. K.P. and Another), wherein, it is observed that,
9. The Insurance Company to prove the contents of medico legal report and treatment chart has examined R.W.1 Dr.Ganapathi, Director of Mangala Nursing Home, wherein, claimant was treated. I have no reasons to suspect the evidence of R.W.1. The claimant has no case that, R.W.1 had ill-will against him.
24 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7) The Tribunal on critical analysis of evidence has held that, claimant had fabricated documents in connivance with Police.
10. The learned counsel for claimant would submit that, jurisdictional Police after investigation filed charge sheet against I-Respondent. Therefore, the court will have to presume that, accident had occurred in the manner stated by claimant. The filing of charge sheet under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C., may give raise to a presumption. However, that, is not decisive on the issue. If the Court finds evidence adduced by parties and material placed by parties are sufficient to hold that, charge sheet filed by Police is a fabricated document, the claim petition cannot be sustained.
11. The law is fairly well settled that, Court has to consider documents filed under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C., in addition to the evidence adduced by parties before Tribunal. The Court should not be swayed away by the documents filed under Section 173(5) Cr.P.C. The I- Respondent / owner-cum-rider of vehicle involved in the accident had benevolently lent his name and vehicle to fabricate charge sheet to lend support to the case of claimant. In the circumstances, jurisdictional Police did not have any difficulty to fabricate the documents and file charge sheet against I-Respondent, who in fact had readily obliged. In the circumstances, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay 25 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) compensation in a claim petition filed on the basis of fabricated documents.
12. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed, however without any order as to costs.
iv) Criminal Petition No.5009/2007 dated 27.03.2008 High Court of Karnataka (Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s State by Halsur Gate Police Bangalore and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners is that, a false criminal case has been foisted though the deceased died not on account of the alleged accident and if the driver were to plead guilty in the criminal case, it would be binding on the Claims Tribunal and the Petitioners being the insurer of the vehicle in question would be saddle liability of the owner of the vehicle.
Therefore, the Petitioners pray for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1934/2007 on the file of MMTC, Bangalore.
5. The Police have investigated the case and laid charge-sheet against the driver of the vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident. There is no abuse of process of criminal law. In this event of driver pleading guilty, the Petitioners can contest the case on the grounds including on the point of negligence. Therefore, the Petitioners 26 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) have no right to seek for quashing the criminal proceedings. There is no good ground to entertain the petition.
6. In the result, the petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.
v) ILR 2000 KAR 3443 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd., V/s D.C. Rajanna and Another), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act No.59 of 1988) - Section 168 -
compensation for "Loss of future Earnings" can be awarded in case where it is shown that, the claimant has, in fact, suffered such a loss and not otherwise.
It is only in so far as it relates to the award of compensation of Rupees 1,15,200/- towards loss of future earnings, it is contended that, the question of awarding compensation under this head does not arise since here was no any loss of earnings as the injured was working as the Deputy manager of H.M.T. and that, there was also no evidence to show that, his wages have been reduced or any increments have been stopped or withheld. It is unfortunate that, in almost all cases, the Claims Tribunal without applying its mind and appreciating the evidence, blindly award compensation on the heading "Los of future earnings". It has to be borne in mind, while awarding compensation for future loss of earnings 27 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) there must be evidence to show that, as a result of injury, the income was reduced or there was loss of earnings or he was removed from service on account of disability or he is incapable of doing any work. In the absence of these factors, the question of awarding any compensation on the heading "Loss of future earnings"
does not arise.
vi) 2003 ACJ 332 High Court of Karnataka (Bhaskar Rao and Others V/s Arun Kumar), wherein, it is observed that, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 173 - Appeal - Maintainability of -
Contention that, owner/driver of offending vehicle did not contest the claim before the Tribunal and as such, appeal filed by them along with Insurance Company is not maintainable
- Owner/driver did no filed written statement but, Tribunal allowed the owner /drive to cross-examine the claimant and his witnesses in regard to quantum of compensation - Whether the appeal is maintainable-Held: yes; there was effective participation of the owner and claim petition was contested by him.
Quantum -injury-Principles of assessment -Claimant sustained injuries in accident and his left leg was amputated above knee - Injured a Sales Officer in a Private firm, continued in the same job drawing salary at par with other Sales Officers - Whether claimant could be awarded future loss of income on the 28 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) basis of percentage of disability - Held:
no.
vii) ILR 2010 KAR 2439 (Sri.Subhash V/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and Others), wherein, it is observed that, MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ACCIDENT CLAIM - Judgment and award - Inadequacy of compensation -
Appealed against by the Claimant -
Insurance Company appeal seeking reduction in compensation - Claimant continued in the services after the accident - Award of compensation towards loss of future income by the Tribunal - legality of - HELD, The Tribunal has grossly erred in awarding compensation towards loss of future income, resulting in serious miscarriage of justice, when in fact, the claimant has been continued in the services of the Corporation as 'Conductor'. If the claimant is continued in service, then, the question of awarding compensation towards loss of future income does not arise. - Therefore, compensation awarded towards loss of future income is liable to be set aside - Judgment and Award is modified.
12. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
29 MVC No.2812-2014
(SCCH-7)
The Petitioner is
entitled for compensation
of Rupees 6,05,509/- with
interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO.1 :- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner
has stated in his examination-in-chief that, on 18.01.2014 at about 01.30, when he was proceeding on Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919 on Bangalore-Doddaballapur Road, Near Adinatha Heights Farm, Hessarghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, from Bangalore towards Doddaballapur, by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and at that time, a Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 proceeding ahead suddenly applied the breaks without giving any signals to the vehicles coming to its back and as a result, the Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50-N-6864, which was proceeding behind the Mahindra Car touched to the Mahindra Car in question, due to impact, a Quails bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z- 9042, which was coming behind the Scorpio Car touched to the Scorpio Car in question and as a result, his Motor Cycle, which was proceeding behind the TOYOTA Qualis touched to 30 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) the TOYOTA Qualis in question. He has further stated that, as a result, he sustained grievous injuries and all the vehicles sustained damages and he sustained injuries, i.e., wound over right leg, posterior accetabulum coloumn fracture right and posterior dislocation right hip + type 2 open fracture right tibia. He has further stated that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Magrath Road, Bangalore, wherein, he was admitted as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014 and the Doctors in the said Hospital, after examining him and after taking X-rays, have confirmed the said injuries. He has further stated that, treatment was taken and discharged with an advise to take bed-rest and to continue regular follow-up treatment. He has further stated that, as per the advise of the Doctors and in spite of bed rest and continuation of follow-up treatment, he was getting heavy pain in the fracture situ and hence, he was admitted to C.R.P.F. Hospital, Bangalore and the Doctors have sent him to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore, on 16.04.2014 for removal of implants and again the Hosmat Hospital Authority have sent back to the C.R.P.F. Hospital on 19.04.2014. He has further stated that, the accident in question has occurred solely due to rash and reckless driving of the driver of Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05- MK-8356 by applying breaks suddenly without giving any signals to the other road users and the Rajanakunte Police have registered a case as against the driver of the said 31 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Mahindra Car, in their Crime No.19/2014 under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC.
14. No doubt, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, his Motor Cycle hit to Qualis and it was touched to the Qualis Vehicle and after touch to the said Qualis, his Motor Cycle fell down and his Motor Cycle was not touched to Mahendra Scorpio vehicle and Mahendra Xuv 500 Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 and since his Motor Cycle hit to the Qualis, he had sustained injuries. He has further stated that, he has not lodged the complaint as against the driver of the Qualis Vehicle and the driver of the Mahendra Scorpio vehicle, i.e., KA-05-N-6864, before the Rajanakunte Police. He has further stated that, at the time of accident, the colour of the said Mahendra Huv 500 Car might be red. He has further stated that, in front of his Motor Cycle, Quails Car was proceeding and he does not know its registration number and the front portion of his Motor Cycle was damaged. He has further stated that, Bangalore- Doddaballapura Road is a heavy traffic road and he did not know that, which vehicle was proceeding infront of the said Mahendra Jeep 500 and one Auto was proceeding and since suddenly the said Auto Rickshaw driver applied the break, the above said 3 vehicles were by applying sudden break had stopped the vehicles. He has further stated that, his Motor Cycle was not directly hit to the said Mahendra Jeep 500 and the Qualis Car hit to his Motor Cycle and before the accident, 32 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) he had seen the break light of the said Qualis Car. He has further stated that, he does not know, who had shifted him to the said Hospital and he has not personally lodged a complaint before the Police. Further, the R.W.1, who is the Assistant Legal Department of the Respondent No.2 has stated in his examination-in-chief that, in the claim petition, it is averred that, the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 was so driven by the driver thus observing traffic rules and regulations and the Petitioner, who was since riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA- 40-Q-5919 had so dashed as against the left portion of Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919 and insured vehicle Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK- 8356 had so not come into contact with nor the Petitioner's Motor Cycle had so dashed the insured Mahindra Car. He has further stated that, the accident having occurred on 18.01.2014 at around 1.30 p.m., the Petitioner having sustained injuries while Petitioner was proceeding and riding Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919 and was driving the said Motor Cycle in sufficient high speed, but, erratically on the Doddaballapur-Bangalore Road, thus without observing traffic rules and regulations, had so dashed as against the left portion of Toyota Qualis bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042. He has further stated that, the driver of the insured Mahindra Car since having possessed licence was infact on the right course of direction, wherein, the Petitioner/rider of Motor Cycle had so failed to keep 33 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) sufficient safe distance ahead of on moving vehicles, thereby, colluding with Toyota Qualis and as well, the Hospital Records of Hosmat Hospital, wherein, the Petitioner was shifted immediately after the accident does indicate, as, "H/o RTA patient was driving 2 wheeler hit to Car, when Car driver applied sudden brakes." He has further stated that, as per the Mahazar so prepared by the concerned jurisdictional Police Authorities and IMV Report, it indicate that, the accidental injuries so sustained by the Petitioner was due to involvement of more than two vehicles and the width of the road being 18 feet and the Petitioner ought to have taken reasonable care while proceeding riding Motor Cycle keeping towards left side of its direction as well by following traffic rules and regulations, by taking reasonable and this aspect proves beyond doubt that, the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the Petitioner, in having taken the risk of riding Motor Cycle without maintaining safe distance ahead of the on moving vehicles. He has further stated that, the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the Petitioner. Further, the Respondent No.2 has also examined its Panel Investigator as R.W.2, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, he was entrusted the work of investigation and as well to collect the Police documents from concerned Police Station and contact the injured, insured/owner, accused driver, as well to collect and forward vehicle documents. He has further stated that, on receipt of the claim petition in respect of the said matter as to secure 34 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) and forward the Police documents, including vehicle documents, like, DL, in addition to conduct investigation in regard to the said claim. He has further stated that, accordingly, after obtaining the Police documents from concerned jurisdictional Rajanakunte Police Station, he had contacted the insured/owner and also obtained medical records/accident and Trauma Chart from Hosmat Hospital, wherein, the Petitioner was treated initially. He has further stated that, he had approached and also he had contacted the insured/owner in the present case and accordingly, he had submitted the Report dated 12.01.2015 to its Company, as, the case being of no negligence on the part of the insured vehicle Mahindra Car driver bearing Registration No.KA-05- MK-8356. The Respondent No.2 has also produced Ex.R.5 Investigation Report dated 12.01.2015, Ex.R.6 Accident and Trauma Chart and Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary through R.W.2.
15. But, based on the above said oral version of P.W.1, which has been elicited from his mouth by the Respondents, the oral version of R.W.1 and R.W.2 as well as the contents of Ex.R.5 Investigating Report dated 12.01.2015 and Ex.R.6 Accident and Trauma Chart, it cannot be believed and accept the defence taken by the Respondents that, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 and the said offending Mahindra Car had not come into contact with and 35 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Motor Cycle, wherein, the Petitioner was proceeding, had dashed as against the said offending Mahindra Car and the entire negligence is on the part of the Petitioner, who was proceeding on the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40- Q-5919, which was riding by him and dashed to Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042, when the driver of the said vehicle had applied breaks suddenly, as, to corroborate his oral version, the Petitioner has produced the material documentary evidence, which are Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 MVI Report, Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate and also produced Ex.P.10 Case Sheet through P.W.2, who is a main Male Staff Nurse at C.R.P.F. Hospital, Bangalore and has also produced Ex.P.12 Inpatient Records 2 in numbers and Ex.P.13 X-ray Films with Reports 5 in numbers relating to Hosmat Hospital, through P.W.3, which clearly disclosed that, the entire negligence is on the part of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 by its driver, who had suddenly applied the break and without giving any signals to the vehicles coming on its back side and due to which, the Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50-N- 6864, Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 and the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919 were dashed to each other and due to the said impact, the Petitioner had sustained 3 grievous injuries on his right leg and by admitting as an inpatient at Hosmat Hospital and C.R.P.F. Hospital, totally, for 135 days, he took treatment to 36 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) the accidental injuries, which is clear from the following discussion. Further more, Ex.R.5 Investigation Report dated 12.01.2015 is not a conclusive proof and the R.W.2, who has submitted the said Ex.R.5 Investigation Report has clearly stated in his cross-examination that, as per the Police documents, which he has collected, the charge sheet is filed as against the driver of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356. Further, the R.W.2 has not seen the accident, which has been clearly admitted by him in his cross-examination. He has further clearly stated that, only based on the damages caused to both the vehicles, he came to know that, no negligence is on the part of the Mahindra Car driver. It is pertinent to note here that, in Ex.R.5 Investigation Report itself, it is mentioned by the R.W.2 that, the said accident was taken place the Car driver applied the sudden break. The same has been clearly admitted by the R.W.2 in his cross-examination. Further more, the R.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly admitted that, as per the Police documents, since the driver of Mahindra Car had suddenly applied the break and due to this, the accident was taken place and the charge sheet filed as against the driver of the Mahindra Car. He has further stated that, they have not challenged the charge sheet and they have not questioned the contents of the charge sheet by writing a letter to the higher Police Officer. He has further stated that, he knew about the MLC Extract relating to Hosmat Hospital. If really, there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending 37 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 in the commission of the said road traffic accident, the owner of the said offending Mahindra Car, i.e., Respondent No.1 could have definitely lodged a complaint immediately after the accident before the concerned Police and the driver of the offending Mahindra Car could have definitely challenged the very registration of the criminal case as against him by the concerned Police, before the Hon'ble Appellate Court or before the higher Police Authority. Further more, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, his Motor Cycle was not hit to Qualis, but, it was touched to the Qualis and after touch to the said Qualis, his Motor Cycle fell down and he sustained injuries. He has further stated that, Narayana Swamy had lodged a Complaint before the Police, who was a driver of the Mahindra Scorpio at the time of accident and since he was little distance from the Mahindra Xuv 500 Car, i.e., offending vehicle, he knew that, due to sudden applying break of the said vehicle, the said accident was taken place and he has seen the applying of the break by the said driver of the said offending vehicle. He has further clearly stated that, before the accident, he had no injuries at all and on 18.01.2014, he was on leave and on that day, he was proceeding from Bangalore to Doddaballapura with a speed of 30 - 40 kmph and at that time, he was wearing helmet and on that day, he was saw the moving vehicles on the road. He has further clearly stated that, the two Cars, which were proceeding infront of his vehicle were moving in high speed 38 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) and in front of his Motor Cycle, Qualis Car was proceeding and there was 6 ft. distance in between his Motor Cycle and Qualis bearing Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 and at the time of accident, he was on the left side of the road. He has further stated that, on that day, infront of his vehicle, Mahindra Jeep 500, Scorpio and Qualis Car were proceeding and before the accident, he had seen the break light of the said Qualis Car and after the accident, he was unconscious and when he regain conscious, he was in the Hosmat Hospital in ICU and thereafter, he has informed about the accident to the Hospital Authority. He has further stated that, after conscious, he came to know that, immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the said Hospital through 108 Ambulance and Dr. Niranjan, Dr. Swaminath, Dr.Thomas Chandi and Dr. Krishna Prasad were treated him in Hosmat Hospital and he was admitted in C.R.P.F. Hospital from 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014. Further more, the P.W.1 has clearly denied the suggestions put to him that, the said Mahendra Huv 500 Car not at all involved in the alleged accident and since the drivers of the said Mahendra Scorpio and Qualis were applied break suddenly, the accident was occurred and the driver of the Mahendra Huv 500 Car not at all applied the break suddenly and since he was not knowing riding of the Motor Cycle at the time of accident, as such, due to his own negligence, the said accident was taken place and since he has benefited from the Mahendra Scorpio and Qualis vehicles, he has not made the owners and insurer of the said vehicles 39 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) are not made as parties to the petition and in collusion with the Rajanakunte Police, a false charge sheet is filed and false petition is filed. He has further clearly denied the suggestions put by the Respondents that, he was also proceeding with high speed behind the said Qualis Car and since the front portion of his Motor Cycle was damaged in the said road traffic accident, which disclosed that, he himself dashed his Motor Cycle to the said Qualis Car and due to his own negligence, the said accident was taken place and since he is working in Police Department, purposefully, he has not impleaded the said Auto Rickshaw in the complaint and there is no negligence on the part of Mahendra Jeep 500, but, the entire negligence is on the part of Auto driver. From this, it is made crystal clear that, even though the Respondents No.1 and 2 have cross-examined the P.W.1, nothing has been elicited from his mouth to consider their specific defence.
16. The contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint further clearly disclosed that, the eye witness as well as the owner of the Scarpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50-N- 6864 had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint before the Rajanukunte Police as against the driver of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 by alleging that, on 18.01.2014 at 1.30 p.m., he was proceeding on his Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.Ka-50-N-6864 from Bangalore towards Doddaballapura on Bangalore - Doddaballapura Road and infront of Adinatha Hites Form, the driver of the 40 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK- 8356 was proceeding in front of his vehicle with very high speed, rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the break and due to which, offending Scorpio Car dashed on its behind and sustained damages and the Toyota Qualis Car bearing Registration No.KA.05-Z-9042 dashed on back side of his Car and it was also damaged and the Splendor Plus Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919 was also proceeding on the back side of the said Toyota Qualis, which also dashed to the said Toyota Qualis and Balappa, i.e., the Petitioner, who was riding the Motor Cycle had sustained grievous injuries on his right knee and the said accident was taken place due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 by its driver, as, he has suddenly applied the break and as such, he prayed to take necessary legal action as against the said driver and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have registered a criminal case as against the driver of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. It is also clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and Ex.P.2 Complaint that, there is no delay as such in lodging Ex.P.2 Complaint in respect of the said road traffic accident.
17. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.4 MVI Report further clearly disclosed that, the entire 41 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 and there was no negligence on the part of the Petitioner in riding his Motor Cycle and also the driver of the above said vehicles and the said offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident. The contents of Ex.P.4 MVI Report clearly disclosed the damages shown in Ex.P.4 MVI Report caused to the said vehicles, which clearly disclosed about the terrific impact of the said accident. It is also clearly mentioned in Ex.P.4 MVI Report that, the said accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicles.
18. The contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate clearly disclosed that, with a alleged history of road traffic accident on 18.01.2014 at 1.20 p.m., the Petitioner was brought to Casualty Department of Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore on 18.01.2014 at 2.45 p.m., itself and on examination, it is found that, he had sustained injuries, i.e., right leg wound, posterior dislocation right hip + type 2 open fracture right tibia and posterior acetabulum column fracture right, which are grievous in nature and by admitting as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014, i.e., for 11 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries. From this, it is made crystal clear that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries.
42 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
19. Ex.P.12 Inpatient Record and Ex.P.13 X-ray with reports produced by the P.W.3 further clearly disclosed that, by admitting as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014, i.e., for 11 days and again by admitting as an inpatient from 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days, the Petitioner had taken treatment to the accidental injuries at Hosmat Hospital.
20. The contents of Ex.P.10 Case Sheet of C.R.P.F. Hospital further clearly disclosed that, by admitting as an inpatient from 29.01.2014 to 28.05.2014, i.e., for 120 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries.
21. From the above said medical evidence, it clearly goes to show that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries and by admitting as an inpatient, totally for 135 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries.
22. The contents of Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet further clearly disclosed that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, the entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356, as, he was driving the said vehicle with very high speed, rash and negligent manner on 18.01.2014 at 1.30 p.m., from Rajanukunte Road towards D.B. Pura and he has suddenly applied the break without giving any signal and due to which, Scorpio Car bearing Registration No.KA-50-N-6864, Toyota Qualis Car bearing 43 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Registration No.KA-05-Z-9042 and Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919, which were proceeding on its behind were dashed to each other on their back side and due to which, the Petitioner, who was riding the said Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KA-40-Q-5919 had sustained grievous injuries on his left knee and all the said vehicles were damaged and as such, after thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet as against the driver of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC. There is no allegation made by the Investigating Officer as against the Petitioner in Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet about his negligence in the commission of the said road traffic accident.
23. From the above said material evidence, both oral and documentary, it clearly goes to show that, due to very high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK- 8356 by its driver itself, the said road traffic accident was taken place and the said offending Mahindra Car as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
44 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
24. ISSUE NO.2 :- The Petitioner has produced Ex.P.7 Driving Licence relating to him, which disclosed that, his date of birth is on 01.02.1970. The date of accident is on 18.01.2014. On perusal of the said dates, it appears Rupees, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 44 years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 44 years at the time of accident.
25. The P.W.1 has stated that, prior to the date of the accident, he was hale and healthy and was working as a Head Constable in Manipur Station, on a salary of Rupees 31,318/- per month. The Petitioner has also examined S.I. (Ministerial), Office of DIGP, Group Centre, C.R.P.F. Yelahanka, Bangalore, as P.W.4, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, as per the records, the Petitioner has joined to CRPF as a Constable on 07.04.2011 and drawing gross salary of Rupees 35,809/- per month. The P.W.4 has produced Ex.P.19 Service Register relating to Petitioner. On perusal of the said oral version of P.W.1 and P.W.4 as well as the contents of Ex.P.19 Service Register, it clearly goes to show that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was working as a Head Constable in Manipur Station and he was drawing a salary of Rupees 31,318/- per month. In this regard, no question or suggestions put to P.W.1 and P.W.4 by the Respondents. Furthermore, the P.W.1 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he is not an income tax assessee. Hence, it is 45 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) considered that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was drawing a salary of Rupees 31,318/- per month.
26. The P.W.1 has stated that, he underwent closed reduction right hip with lower femoral skeletal traction + exfix right tibia on 18.01.2014 wound debridement + multiple muscle flap + SSG on 21.01.2014, open reduction and internal fixation with inter fragmentary screw and recon plate on 24.01.2014 and treatment was given and discharged with an advise to take bed rest and to continue regular follow-up treatment. He has further stated that, as per the advise of the Doctors and inspite of bed-rest and continuation of follow-up treatment, he was getting heavy pain in the fracture situ and hence, he was admitted to C.R.P.F. Hospital, Bangalore on 29.01.2014 as an inpatient and treatment was taken and discharged on 28.05.2014 and during the Hospitalisation in CRPF Hospital, Bangalore, the Doctors of CRPF Hospital have sent him to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore on 16.04.2014 for removal of inter fragmentary screws + IMIL nailing right tibia + bone grafting from same side iliac crest and the same was done on 17.04.2014 in Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore and again the Hosmat Hospital Authority have sent back to CRPF Hospital, on 19.04.2014 and the Doctors have advised him to take bed rest and to continue regular follow-up treatment and as per the advise of the Doctors, he is continuing follow-up treatment. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has also 46 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) clearly stated that, after discharge on 28.01.2014, he has visited the Hospital for follow-up treatment.
27. Based on the contents of Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.10 Case Sheet and Ex.P.12 Inpatient Records 2 in numbers, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had sustained right leg wound, posterior dislocation right hip + type 2 open fracture right tibia and posterior acetabulum column fracture right, i.e., three grievous injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014, i.e., for 11 days and from 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days, at Hosmat Hospital and also by admitting as an inpatient from 29.01.2014 to 28.05.2014, i.e., for 120 days, at C.R.P.F. Hospital, totally for 135 days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries. It is also clear from the said medical documents as well as Ex.P.13 X-ray Films and Reports that, during the course of treatment, C/R right hip with lower femoral skeletal traction + exfix right tibia on 18.01.2014, wound debridement + multiple muscle flap + SSG on 21.01.2014 and ORIF with interfragmentary screw and recon plate on 24.01.2014 were done. It is also clear from the said medical records that, even during the course of treatment in CRPF Hospital, the Doctors of the said Hospital have sent the Petitioner to Hosmat Hospital for treatment to the said accidental sites. Since, the Petitioner had 3 grievous injuries and as such, after his discharge from the said 47 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Hospitals, he had to take follow-up treatment as per the advise of the Doctors and as such, the evidence stated by the P.W.1 in respect of the continuing follow-up treatment as per the advise of the Doctors after his discharge from the Hospital is believed and accept. Furthermore, it supports the contents of Ex.P.11 Outpatient Records, which has been produced by the P.W.3.
28. The P.W.1 has stated that, on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident, even now, he is getting heavy pain in fracture situ and as such, he has been given light work and he is doing the same with great difficulty and on account of this accident, he has lost his physical fitness, which is very important for his future promotions and his future prospectus and increments in salary is affected on account of this accident.
29. The P.W.4 has stated that, now the Petitioner is working but, he has been declared fit for light duty without arms and ammunition.
30. The P.W.3, who has assessed the disability of the Petitioner has stated that, he has assessed the disability of the Petitioner on 06.01.2015 and he says that, he has been assigned light duty, he has missed his promotion and is likely to lose pension benefits, he has suffered a cut in his salary, he has difficulty in kneeling squatting and in sitting cross- legged, he is unable to do any physical training, he needs to 48 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) use a support during walking, he has a large skin graft in his right leg and develops swelling in the right leg on walking, he needs stocking to prevent the swelling, he has a crackling sound in his right knee (creptius) and he has swelling and stiffness of his right ankle. By considering the mobility component of lower limb in respect of right hip, its flexion, extension, adduction and rotations, right knee movements, right and left ankle and flexion and inversion eversion and also by considering stability component and by using the combined values chart and the standard formula and with reference to the standard manuals, the P.W.3 has opined that, the Petitioner is having right lower limb disability of 58% and total whole body of 20%. He has further stated that, the findings mentioned in the disability assessment correlate with the problems mentioned by the Petitioner in the problem statement. As this Tribunal has already observed about the production of Ex.P.11 Outpatient Record, Ex.P.12 Inpatient Records and Ex.P.13 X-ray Films with Reports, by the P.W.3.
31. No doubt, the P.W.3 is not a treated Doctor. Further, the Petitioner has not examined the treated Doctor to consider the difficulties, which has been sustained by him due to the said accidental injuries.
32. Further, the P.W.3 in his cross-examination has stated that, he has no hurdle to produce the combined values chart standard formula and manuals, which quoted in his 49 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) affidavit and material document to show that, the Petitioner has a chance of 20% of developing arthritis of right hip. He has further stated that, the Petitioner has not informed him about the Hospitalisation in CRPF Hospital from 29.01.2014 to 28.05.2014 and at the time of assessment of disability, the Petitioner has not submitted the medical records relating to CRPF Hospital and as per Ex.P.12 Inpatient Record and in Discharge Summary, it is mentioned that, delayed union right tibia and fibula fracture and he has mentioned in his affidavit that, the fracture eventually united. He has further stated that, the Petitioner has not shown any documents to him that, he has suffered a cut in his salary and he has missed his promotion and is likely to use promotion and as told by the Petitioner, still he is working in CRPF. He has further stated that, even though he is not a treated Doctor, he has not taken concurrence from the treated Doctor in respect of clinical notes relating to assessment of disability of the Petitioner.
33. But, it no way affect to consider the evidence stated by the P.W.3 in respect of the disability of the Petitioner, as, the P.W.3 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that, he has assessed the disability of the Petitioner with the assistant of his colleagues, who has operated the Petitioner, i.e., Dr.Rajshekar, Dr.Niranjan, Dr.Vijaygirish, Dr.Swaminathan and Dr.Thomas Chandi, who were treated the Petitioner. He has further clearly stated that, because 50 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) fracture is dislocation of the right hip, he has mentioned his affidavit that, the Petitioner has a chance of developing arthritis of the right hip in future and as per the standard orthopedic Book, he has a chance 20% of developing arthritis of right hip and he cannot do very strenuous activities and he can do normal activities. He has further clearly stated that, since, the bone did not united, infection of bones caused and as such, it is mentioned in test report available in Ex.P.11 Outpatient Record that, chronic non-tuberculosis Osteomyelits-tibia. He has further clearly stated that, as per the reference made by the said Doctors, he has assessed the disability of the Petitioner, even though he is not treated him. He has further clearly stated that, he has only discussed with the treated Doctor. Further the P.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, now also he is working as Head Constable in CRPF, Manipur and Nagaland and after the accident, on 01.12.2014, he again joined the duty, he has received the salary from 18.01.2014 to 30.11.2014. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the P.W.4 has stated that, now the Petitioner is working, but, he has been fit for light duty without arms and ammunition. From the said evidence, it is made crystal clear that, though the Petitioner has rejoined the duty after treatment, but, only light duty without any arms and ammunition is entrusted by his employer as he has suffering form permanent physical and functional disability due to the said accidental injuries. Therefore, the said extent of disability of 20% to the whole 51 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) body as stated by the P.W.4 is believed and accept, which caused to the Petitioner both physically and functionally.
34. As this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the permanent physical and functional disability of the Petitioner is of 20%. This would certainly come in the way of the future life of the Petitioner. However, as admitted by the Petitioner, after the accident, he continues the same job with light duty and receiving same salary. Hence, the future income of the Petitioner cannot be reduced due to the said permanent physical and functional disability of 20%. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for compensation towards future loss of income arising out of the permanent physical and functional disability of 20%. As admitted by the Petitioner in his evidence as well as stated by the P.W.4 during the course of treatment, the Petitioner received the salary and as such, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards laid up period. But, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under other heads, which are discussed and considered as follows.
35. As per Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate and evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries. The Petitioner was in the Hospital as an inpatient from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014, i.e., for 11 days, from 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days and from 29.01.2014 to 28.05.2014, i.e., for 120 days, totally for 135 52 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) days. Due to the said injuries, the Petitioner could have definitely suffered a lot of pain and agony. Considering the said aspects, it is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 75,000/- towards pain and suffering.
36. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner was 44 years at the time of accident. He has to lead remaining his entire life with 20% permanent physical and functional disability, which comes in the way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just and proper to award a sum of Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of amenities of life to the Petitioner.
37. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has spent a sum of Rupees 4,50,000/- towards treatment, medicines, conveyance, nourishing food and attendants charges, etc., In this regard, the Petitioner has only produced Ex.P.9 Medical Bills 66 in numbers, which is amounting of Rupees 3,93,016/-. The said medical bills are relating to Hosmat Hospital. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that, since free medical facility is given to him in the CRPF Hospital, he has not produced any medical bills relating to the said Hospital for the treatment taken by him in the said Hospital by admitting as an inpatient for 4 months. The Petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient at Hosmat Hospital from 18.01.2014 to 28.01.2014, i.e., for 11 days, from 16.04.2014 to 19.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days and also from 53 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) 29.01.2014 to 28.05.2014, i.e., for 120 days, when he was admitted as an inpatient at CRPF Hospital, totally for 135 days. Considering the nature of the injuries and line of treatment given to him, the possibility of spending the said amount for the medicines can not be doubted. Therefore, it is necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees 3,93,016/- to the Petitioner.
38. The P.W.1 has stated that, on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident, he could not attend the work up to 01.12.2014 and the salary is paid during the laid up period as he has agreed for deducting the same every month from January 2015 with a particular amount, which amount is not yet decided as on date. The P.W.4 has stated that, due to the accident, the Petitioner could not attend the work from 18.01.2014 to 27.11.2014, i.e., for a period of 314 days and during the said period, he was paid salary, but, he is not entitled for Ration Money/Washing Allowance and Risk Allowance of Rupees 77,493/- and for that, from March 2015 onwards recovery is starting in his salary at the rate of Rupees 5,417/- per month to be recovered in 16 installments. He has further clearly stated that, the 32 Battalion has provided Rupees 2,00,000/- as loan on his request for medical treatment and Rupees 2,00,000/- was credited to his account on 21.01.2014 and being recovered from his salary from the month of September 2014 onwards. To consider his evidence, the P.W.4 has produced Ex.P.16 Office Order of 54 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) February 2015, Ex.P.17 Loan Deduction Letter of Rupees 30,000/- from the salary of Petitioner from September 2014 to December 2014 and Ex.P.18 Letter regarding deduction of ration money, washing allowance and risk allowance from March 2015 at the rate of Rupees 5,417/- per month. On perusal of the said material evidence, it clearly goes to show that, when the Petitioner was on leave, which availed for the treatment to the accidental injuries, the Petitioner has received the salary, but, he has not entitled for ration money, washing allowance and risk allowance of Rupees 77,493/- and as such, as ordered for recovery of the said amount of Rupees 77,493/- in installments at the rate of Rupees 5,417/- from the salary of the Petitioner in 16 installments. Therefore, in view of the said accident and accidental injuries, the Petitioner had lost the said Ration money/Washing Allowance and Risk Allowance of Rupees 77,493/- and as such, he is entitled for the said amount of Rupees 77,493/-.
39. No doubt, the said oral version of P.W.4 and the contents of Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.17 clearly disclosed that, the Petitioner has borrowed a loan of Rupees 2,00,000/- from 32 Battalion on 21.01.2014 in respect of his medical treatment and its expenses. The Petitioner is not entitled for the said amount of Rupees 2,00,000/-, as, this Tribunal has already ordered and awarded a sum of Rupees 3,93,016/- towards actual medical expenses to the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for said amount of Rupees 55 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) 2,00,000/- in respect of loan borrowed from 32 Battalion. The Petitioner is only entitled for Rupees 77,493/- towards ration money/washing allowance and risk allowance.
40. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has to spent huge amount towards his further treatment. The P.W.3 has stated that, the Petitioner will need implant removal, which will cost him Rupees 50,000/- and the Petitioner has a chance of developing arthritis of the right hip in future as he has a fracture dislocation of his right hip and in the event of that, happening, he will require total hip replacement, which will cost Rupees 2.5 Lakhs. Neither the Petitioner nor P.W.3 produced the estimation for the future medical treatment and its expenses. Furthermore, while discussing above, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, after recovery of the accidental injuries, the Petitioner has joined the same post by drawing increased salary. Further, admittedly, the Petitioner is a Central Government Employee. Hence, the Petitioner is having medical reimbursement facility from his employer. In this regard, the P.W.1 in his cross- examination has clearly stated that, their Department is also having medical reimbursement facility, which is the Central Government Service. Therefore, if any amount is incurred by the Petitioner to take future medical treatment, it has to be reimbursed from his employer. Further more, in CRPF Hospital, a free treatment is given as per the say of the Petitioner himself. In this regard, the P.W.1 has clearly stated 56 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) in his cross-examination that, free medical facility is given from the CRPF Hospital. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards future medical expenses.
41. As the Petitioner was taken treatment as an inpatient for 135 days, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rupees 10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rupees 15,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet charges etc.,
42. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following amount of compensation:-
Sl. No. Compensation heads Compensation amount
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000-00
2. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000-00 Ration money/washing
3. allowance and Risk Rs. 77,493-00 allowance
4. Actual medical expenses Rs. 3,93,016-00
5. Conveyance Rs. 10,000-00
6. Attendant Charges Rs. 10,000-00 Food, Nourishment &
7. Rs. 15,000-00 Diet charges TOTAL Rs. 6,05,509-00
43. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rupees 6,05,509/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of petition till payment.
57 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7)
44. The P.W.1 has stated that, the Respondent No.1 being the R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 b3eing the Insurer of Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK- 8356 and the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of the accident and hence, both the Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to him.
45. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion that, the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 as well as its driver are very much involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner had sustained three grievous injuries. The Petitioner in the cause title of the petition has mentioned that, the Respondent No.1 is a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 is an insurer of the offending Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 and its policy number is OG-13-9906-1801-00041530, valid from 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014. The Respondent No.1 has stated in his written statement that, as on the date of the said alleged accident, the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 was sufficiently insured by the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company under Insurance Policy No.OG-13-9906-1801-00041530 dated 05.03.2013, which is valid from 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014 (midnight). The Respondent No.2 in its written statement has clearly stated that, the Insurance Policy issued by it favour of the insured 58 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) bearing No.OG-13-9906-1801-00041530 for the period from 05.03.2013 to 04.03.2014, is in the possession of the insured. The said period of insurance policy includes the date of accident. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the Respondent No.1 was a R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 was an Insurer of the Mahindra Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-MK-8356 and its Insurance Policy was valid, which covers the date of accident. In support of the same, the Respondent No.2 has also produced Ex.R.1 Insurance Policy relating to the offending vehicle. There is no allegation leveled as against the driver of the offending Car in Ex.P.5 Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending Car, such class of vehicle. The violation of the terms and conditions of the admitted Insurance Policy by the Respondent No.1 is not proved by the Respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, the Respondent No.1 being the R.C. Owner and the Respondent No.2 being the Insurer of the offending Mahindra Car, are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to the Petitioner. Since the Respondent No.2 is an insurer, it shall indemnify the Respondent No.1. In view of the above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner are aptly applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. In view of the above said reasons and findings on Issues, the principles enunciated in the decisions cited by 59 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.
46. ISSUE NO.3 :- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rupees 6,05,509/-
with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.2.
The Respondent No.2 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this Order.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest, 85% shall be released in the name of the 60 MVC No.2812-2014 (SCCH-7) Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification.
Remaining 15% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 2nd day of December, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONER :-
P.W.1 : Sri. Balappa.H.
P.W.2 : Radhey Shyam
P.W.3 : Dr.Krishna Prasad
P.W.4 : N.Satheesh Kumar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONER :-
61 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7) Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Panchanama Ex.P.4 : True copy of MVI Report Ex.P.5 : True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P.6 : True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.7 : Notarised xerox copy of Form of Driving Licence relating to Balappa. H. Ex.P.8 : Notarised xerox copy of Identity Card relating to Balappa. H. Ex.P.9 : Medical Bills (66 in nos.) Ex.P.10 : Case Sheet Ex.P.11 : Outpatient Record Ex.P.12 : Inpatient Records (2 in nos.) Ex.P.13 : X-ray films with Reports (15 in nos.) Ex.P.14 : Authorisation Letter dated 03.06.2015 Ex.P.15 : Attested copies of Pay Slips relating to Balappa. H. for the months of September 2014 to December 2014 Ex.P.16 : Attested copy of Office Order of February 2015 Ex.P.17 : Attested copy of Loan Deduction Letter of Rupees 30,000/- from the salary of Balappa. H. from September 2014 to December 2014 Ex.P.18 : Attested copy of Letter regarding deduction of ration money, washing allowance and risk allowance from March 2015 at the rate of Rupees 5,417/- per month Ex.P.19 : Notarised xerox copy of Service Register relating to Balappa. H. (Compared with original, tallied and returned)
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
R.W.1 : Prathibha. S.
R.W.2 : H.K.S. Prasanna
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
62 MVC No.2812-2014(SCCH-7) Ex.R.1 : True copy of Insurance Policy Ex.R.2 : Office copy of Letter dated
05.08.2014 Ex.R.3 : Postal Receipt Ex.R.4 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.R.5 : Investigation Report dated 12.01.2015 Ex.R.6 : True copy of Accident and Trauma Chart Ex.R.7 : True copy of Discharge Summary (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.