Bangalore District Court
Working As Coolie-Suffering vs No on 11 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND ADDL.
MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-7)
Dated this, the 11th day of June, 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.2290/2014
C/w. M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and 2292/2014
Pavan Kumar, N., ..... PETITIONER IN
S/o Nagaraju. N., M.V.C.No.2290/2014
Aged 22 years.
Presently residing at: .
No.263/14, PWD Quarters,
Near Government Primary School,
Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore-560 064.
(By Sri.R. Shivakumar, Adv.,)
Sharath Kumar. S., .....PETITIONER IN
M.V.C.No.2291/2014
S/o Shankar. M.,
Presently residing at:
No.263/8, PWD Qrts,
Near Shankar Nagh Park,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-560 064.
(By Sri.R. Shivakumar, Adv.,)
2 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
1. Rama Reddy. K., .....PETITIONERS IN
S/o Late Chikkanarayana Reddy, M.V.C.No.2292/2014
Aged 47 years.
2.Smt.Parvathamma,
W/o Ramareddy. K.,
Aged 41 years.
Residing at No. 101, 3rd Cross,
Someshwara Nagar,
Yelahanka Upanagar And New Town,
Bangalore-560 064.
V/s
1.The Branch Manager, .... RESPONDENTS
National Insurance Company Limited, IN ALL THE THREE
1st Floor, Swathi 32 C, 2nd Main, CASES
Amarjyothi Layout,
Sanjayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 094.
(Policy No.60390031136165002986
Valid from 28.02.201 to 27.02.2015)
2. Mr.Narasimha Murthy S.N.,
S/o S. Narayanappa,
No.1529, Sanjeevini Nagar,
Sahakar Nagar Post,
Bengaluru-560 092.
(R-1 By Sri. Suneel S. Narayan, Adv.,)
(Exparte)
COMMON JUDGMENT
As per the Order dated 18.12.2014 passed on Memo in
M.V.C.No.2290/2014, M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2292/2014 are clubbed with the M.V.C.No.2290/2014
3 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
and the common evidence is recorded in the said case. Hence,
M.V.C.No.2290/2014, M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2292/2014 are pending for consideration and disposal by
passing a common judgment.
2. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 has filed the said
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/-, including all heads of damages with costs
and interest.
3. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C.No.2290/2014 are as follows;
a) On 19.04.2014 at about early morning 01.30 a.m., he
was going in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 on
Chitradurga NH-4 Road, when he reached near Sugar Factory
Quarters, Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4, Road, Hiriyur Town, at
that time, all of a sudden, the driver of the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-04-ME -9703, drove the vehicle recklessly and mindlessly at
high speed in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life, neglecting all the traffic rules and the regulations lost control
of his Car and dashed against the road side wall of flyover. Due to
tremendous impact, the Car is turtle and fell into road side ditch.
Hence, he sustained multiple severe injuries on his head, legs,
hands, face, back region and other pars of the body.
4 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
b) Immediately, he was shifted to Hiriyur Government
Hospital for first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to
Mallige Hospital, Bangalore for treatment and admitted as an
inpatient from 19.04.2014 to 22.01.20124. During the
Hospitalization after all relevant investigations found the injuries,
i.e., compound comminuted fracture tibia middle and lower 1/3rd
left haematoma lumbar region. During the course of treatment,
ORIF with LIC plate and screws with bone grafting left tibia done on
19.04.2014. He took operative and inpatient treatment for the
accidental injuries in the said Hospital. Even today, he is taking
treatment for the accidental injuries in the said Hospital as per the
Doctor advice. He spent Rupees 90,000/- towards treatment,
medicines, nourishment and conveyance.
c) At the time of accident, he was a MBA Student-cum-
part time worker and earning a sum of Rupees 9,500/- per month.
Due to the accidental injuries, he was not able to do any work. So,
he lost that income.
d) The accident in question is due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-
9703 and hence, the Respondents 1 and 2 being the insurer and
the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable for the
payment of compensation. Hence, this Petition.
4. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
5 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
dated 19.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by
the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
5. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 06.08.2014.
6. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290/2014, has further contended as
follows;
a) The claim petition as presented against him is not
maintainable in law, facts and circumstances of the case.
b) The quantum of compensation as claimed in the claim
petition to an extent of Rupees 10,00,000/- is without any basis
and the said claim is highly disproportionate and exorbitant to the
facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the Petitioner is
not entitled to claim any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed.
c) The Petitioner in collusion with the Police Authorities
and the owner of the said Car bearing No.KA-04-ME-9703 has
foisted a false case to grab compensation alleging that, the injuries
were sustained out or road traffic accident involving the Car
bearing No.KA-04-ME-9703.
d) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, as, the driver of the Car bearing
6 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 was not possessing a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the Car as on the date of the
alleged accident. In view of the above, he is not liable to indemnify
the owner of the Motor Cycle.
e) The Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 did
not possess FC and permit at the time of alleged accident, if any.
f) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, since the owner of the vehicle, i.e., 2nd
Respondent failed to inform regarding the occurrence of the
accident and also furnish the particulars of the driver of the owner
vehicle and his driving licence, which amount to breach of terms
and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, he is not liable to
pay any compensation.
g) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, since the concerned jurisdictional Police
Station failed to forward all the related documents to him within 30
days from the date of information of the alleged accident. Hence, it
is not liable to pay any compensation.
h) The policy of insurance with respect to the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME 9703 is not admitted at preset. In the
event of its confirmation, he may be permitted to admit the same.
i) It may be permitted to urge all the grounds as provided
under Section 170 of the M.V. Act at a later date.
7 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
j) The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the fact that, he
has not received any compensation from the owner of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME 9703 before any competent
Authority.
k) The Petitioner is put to strict proof of his age,
avocation, extent of injuries caused and expenditures incurred for
treatment.
l) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Petitioner to
file an affidavit stating that, he has not filed any other case in any
Court of law on the same accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition, with exemplary costs.
7. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014 has filed the said
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/-, including all heads of damages with costs
and interest.
8. The brief averments of the Petitioner's case in
M.V.C.No.2291/2014 are as follows;
a) On 19.04.2014 at about early morning 01.30 a.m., he
was going in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 on
Chitradurga NH-4 Road, when he reached near Sugar Factory
Quarters, Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4 Road, Hiriyur Town, at that
time, all of a sudden, the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.
KA-04-ME-9703, drove the vehicle recklessly and mindlessly at
8 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
high speed in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human
life, neglecting all the traffic rules and the regulations, lost control
of his Car and dashed against the road side wall of flyover. Due to
tremendous impact, the Car is turtle and fell into road side ditch.
Hence, he sustained multiple severe injuries on his head region,
legs, hands, face, back region and other pars of the body.
b) Immediately, he was shifted to Hiriyur Government
Hospital for first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to
Mallige Hospital, Bangalore for treatment and admitted as an
inpatient from 19.04.2014 to 26.04.20124. During the
Hospitalization after all relevant investigations, found the injuries,
i.e., conclusive head injury, bilateral ling contusion with
penumothorax. He took conservative and inpatient treatment for
the accidental injuries in the said Hospital. Even today, he is taking
treatment for the accidental injuries in the said Hospital as per the
Doctor advice. He spent Rupees 1,00,000/- towards treatment,
medicines, nourishment and conveyance.
c) At the time of accident, he was working as a driver and
was earning a sum of Rupees 12,000/- per month. Due to the
accidental injuries, he was not able to do any work. So he lost that
income.
d) The accident in question is due to rash and negligent
driving of driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703
and hence, the Respondents 1 and 2 being the insurer and the
owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable for the payment
of compensation. Hence, this Petition.
9 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
9. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 19.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by
the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
10. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 06.08.2014.
11. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014, has further contended as
follows;
a) The claim petition as presented against him is not
maintainable in law, facts and circumstances of the case.
b) The quantum of compensation as claimed in the claim
petition to an extent of Rupees 10,00,000/- is without any basis
and the said claim is highly disproportionate and exorbitant to the
facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the Petitioner is
not entitled to claim any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed.
c) The Petitioner in collusion with the Police Authorities
and the owner of the said Car bearing No.KA-04-ME-9703 has
foisted a false case to grab compensation alleging that, the injuries
10 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
were sustained out or road traffic accident involving the Car
bearing No.KA-04-ME-9703.
d) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, as, the driver of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 was not possessing a valid and
effective driving licence to drive the Car as on the date of the
alleged accident. In view of the above, he is not liable to indemnify
the owner of the Motor Cycle.
e) The Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 did
not possess FC and permit at the time of alleged accident, if any.
f) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, since the owner of the vehicle, i.e., 2nd
Respondent failed to inform regarding the occurrence of the
accident and also furnish the particulars of the driver of the owner
vehicle and his driving licence, which amount to breach of terms
and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, he is not liable to
pay any compensation.
g) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, since the concerned jurisdictional Police
Station failed to forward all the related documents to him within 30
days from the date of information of the alleged accident. Hence, it
is not liable to pay any compensation.
11 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
h) The policy of insurance with respect to the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME 9703 is not admitted at preset. In the
event of its confirmation, he may be permitted to admit the same.
i) It may be permitted to urge all the grounds as provided
under Section 170 of the M.V. Act at a later date.
j) The Petitioner is put to strict proof of the fact that, he
has not received any compensation from the owner of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME 9703 before any competent
Authority.
k) The Petitioner is put to strict proof of his age,
avocation, extent of injuries caused and expenditures incurred for
treatment.
l) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Petitioner to
file an affidavit stating that, he has not filed any other case in any
Court of law on the same accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
petition, with exemplary costs.
12. The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 has filed the said
petition as against the Respondents No.1 and 2 under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 praying to award compensation of
Rupees 30,00,000/- including all heads of damages with costs and
interest.
13. The brief averments of the Petitioners' case in
M.V.C.No.2292/2014 are as follows;
12 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
a) On 19.04.2014 at about early morning 01.30 a.m., the
deceased was going in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-
9703 on Chitradurga NH-4 Road, when he reached near Sugar
Factory Quarters, Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4 Road, Hiriyur
Town, at that time, all of a sudden, the driver of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME -9703, drove the vehicle recklessly and
mindlessly at high speed in a rash and negligent manner,
endangering to human life, neglecting all the traffic rules and the
regulations and lost control of his Car and dashed against the road
side wall of flyover. Due to tremendous impact, the Car is turtle
and fell into road side ditch. Hence, the deceased sustained
multiple severe injuries on his head, legs, hands, face, back region
and other parts of the body.
b) Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Hiriyur
Government Hospital for first treatment. During the course of
treatment, he succumbed to the accidental injuries and died in the
Hospital. Post-mortem was done and the body was handed over to
them and relatives.
c) At the time of accident, the deceased was hale and
healthy and he was a BBM student-cum-part time worker and
earning a sum of Rupees 9,500/ per month. Due to his sudden
death, they have been deprived of loss of their son very bright and
intelligent. The deceased father had spent a total sum of Rupees
50,000/-. The deceased father had spent a total sum of Rupees
50,000 towards treatment, conveyance, transportation, obsequies
and other religious ceremonies by borrowing loan from relatives
and friends.
13 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
d) The accident in question is due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-
9703 and hence, the Respondents 1 and 2 being the insurer and
the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable for the
payment of compensation. Hence, this Petition.
14. In response to the notice, the Respondent No.1 has
appeared before this Tribunal through his Learned Counsel. But,
initially, inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, the Respondent
No.1 had not filed the written statement. Later, as per the Order
dated 19.11.2014 passed on I.A.No.I, the written statement filed by
the Respondent No.1 is taken on file.
15. Though the notice was duly served on the Respondent
No.2, he was remained absent and hence, he is placed as exparte
on 06.08.2014.
16. The Respondent No.1 inter-alia denying the entire case
of the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2292/2014, has further contended as
follows;
a) The claim petition as presented against him is not
maintainable in law, facts and circumstances of the case.
b) The quantum of compensation as claimed in the claim
petition to an extent of Rupees 30,00,000/- is without any basis
and the said claim is highly disproportionate and exorbitant to the
facts and circumstances of the case and hence, the Petitioners are
14 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
not entitled to claim any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed.
c) The Petitioners in collusion with the Police Authorities
and the owner of the said Car bearing No.KA-04-ME-9703 have
foisted a false case to grab compensation alleging that, the injuries
were sustained to the deceased out of road traffic accident involving
the Car bearing No.KA-04-ME-9703.
d) The driver of the owner vehicle, i.e., Tempo bearing
No.KA-04-ME-9703 was not possessing a valid and effective driving
license to drive the Tempo as on the date of the accident. In view of
the same, he is not liable to indemnify the owner of the Bus.
e) It is not liable to pay any compensation, much less, the
compensation claimed, since the owner of the vehicle, i.e., 2nd
Respondent failed to inform regarding the occurrence of the
accident and also furnish the particulars of the driver of the owner
vehicle and his driving licence, which amount to breach of terms
and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Hence, he is not liable to
pay any compensation.
f) The TempoCar bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703
did not possess FC and permit at the time of alleged accident, if
any.
g) The policy of insurance with respect to the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME 9703 is not admitted at preset. In the
event of its confirmation, he may be permitted to admit the same.
15 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
h) It may be permitted to urge all the grounds as provided
under Section 170 of the M.V. Act.
i) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Petitioners
to file an affidavit stating that, they have not filed any other case in
any Court of law on the same accident. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the petition, with exemplary costs.
17. Based on the above said pleadings, I have framed the
following Issues;
ISSUES
In M.V.C.No.2290/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 by its
driver and in the said accident, he
sustained injuries?
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.2291/2014
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that, the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the Car bearing Registration
No.KA-04-ME-9703 by its driver and in the
said accident, he sustained injuries?
16 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
3. What Order?
In M.V.C.No.2292/2014
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that, they
are the dependents or legal representatives
of deceased SRI RAVICHANDRAN. R.?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that, the
accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 by its
driver and Sri. Ravichandran. R. died due
to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Whether the Petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from
whom?
4. What Order?
18. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2290/2014 himself has been examined as P.W.1 and
has also examined one witness as P.W.4 by filing the affidavits as
their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.16, Ex.P.34 and Ex.P.35 and the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2291/2014 himself has been examined as P.W.2 and
has also examined one witness as P.W.5 by filing the affidavits as
their examination-in-chief and has placed reliance upon Ex.P.17
to Ex.P.24, Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.38 and the Petitioners in
17 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
M.V.C.No.2292/2014 have examined the Petitioner No.1 as P.W.3
by filing an affidavit as his examination-in-chief and have placed
reliance upon Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.33. On the other hand, the
Respondent No.1 has not adduced any evidence on his behalf.
19. Heard the arguments.
20. In support of the submission, the Learned Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner Sri. R. Shivakumar has placed reliance
upon the decisions reported in,
i) 2014 ACJ 2613 High Court of Andhra Pradesh (N.
Surender Rao and Others V/s B. Swamy and Another), wherein,
it is observed that,
Quantum-Fatal accident -Principles of
assessment-Multiplier-Choice of-Deceased
a bachelor-Claimants; parents and sister-
Whether multiplier based on the age of the
deceased be applied-held; yes (2012 ACJ
2002 (SC) followed).
ii) 2015 ACJ 183 High Court of Judicature at Madras
(Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd V/s K.Murugesan and
Another), wherein, it is observed that,
Quantum-Fatal accident Deceased aged 21,
an engineering graduate-Claimants
parents-Tribunal taking into consideration
that, deceased was offered appointment by
a leading IT company assessed income at
Rupees 20,000/- p.m.,-deducted 50% of
income for personal expenses, adopted
18 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
multiplier of 15 and awarded Rupees
18,55,000-Appellate court assessed income
at -Principles of assessment-Multiplier of
18 and awarded Rupees 32,40,000 plus
Rupees 2,00,000/- for loss of love and
affection and Rupees 25,000 for funeral
expenses-Award of Rupees 18,55,000 and
enhanced to Rupees 34,65,000/-.
iii) 2015 ACJ 684 High Court of Andhra Pradesh (N.
Surender Rao and Others V/s Hazra Begum and Others),
wherein, it is observed that,
Quantum-Fatal accident-Principles of
assessment-Determination of income-
Deceased aged 26, qualified engineer,
pursuing final year of MBA-Tribunal
assessed income at Rs.25,000 p.m. and
awarded compensation- Contention that
Tribunal erred in calculating income of the
deceased as Rs. 25,000 p.m. despite failure
of claimants to prove that deceased was
employed and earning - Held: while
awarding compensation the earning
capacity of the deceased has to be assessed
on the basis of educational qualification;
deceased after completing his MBA would
have earned between Rs.3,00,000 and
Rs.4,00,000 p.a. or more , therefore
assessment of income of deceased as Rs.
25,000 p.m. by Tribunal held to be proper.
iv) 2014 ACJ 2684, Supreme Court of India, (Ashvinbhai
Jayantilal V/s Ramkaran Ramchandra Sharma and Another), wherein,
it is observed that,
Negligence- Contributory negligence -
Hitting from behind -Truck hit a two-
wheeler from behind, dragged it to a
19 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
distance of 20-25 ft and rider of two-
wheeler sustained fatal injuries -impact on
two-wheeler shows that truck must have
been traveling at high speed and its driver
did not have sufficient control over his
vehicle -Truck driver was driving a heavy
motor vehicle and should have taken
sufficient caution-No direct evidence
showing negligence of the deceased that led
to the accident -Tribunal found that two-
wheeler contributed to the accident to the
extent of 20 per cent and it was affirmed by
High Court-Apex Court set aside the
finding of contributory negligence and held
that truck driver was solely responsible for
the accident.[2013SACJ 2141 (SC)followed].
Quantum-Fatal accident -Deceased aged
19, a medical student-Claimants: parents -
Tribunal assessed future income at Rs.18,
000p.m., deduced 1/3rd for personal
expenses of the deceased, adopted
multiplier of 16, assessed Rs.23,24,000,
made deduction of 20 per cent of
contributory negligence of the deceased
and awarded Rs.18,59,200- High Court
deducted ½ for personal expenses, adopted
multiplier of 13 and reduced the award to
Rs .11,39,200- Apex Court set aside the
finding of contributory negligence, assessed
future income at Rs.25,000 p.m., deducted
1/3rd for personal expenses , adopted and
affection and Rs.25,000 for funeral
expenses- Awarded of Rs.11,39,200
enhanced to Rs.27,25,000.
v) 2015 ACJ 243, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh (Purnima Thapa and Another v/s Mamta Kalra and Others),
wherein, it is observed that,
20 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Quantum-Fatal accident-Principles of
assessment-multiplier - Choice of -
Deceased a bachelor aged 30- Claimants:
parents aged 50 and 52- Tribunal adopted
multiplier of 11 and awarded compensation
-Contention that as per the age of the
deceased multiplier of 16 should have been
applied -Held: age of the deceased as well
as the age group of the claimants is
required to be taken into consideration;
multiplier enhanced from 11 to 13. (1198
ACJ 175 (P & H relied).
vi) 2013 ACJ 1403, Supreme Court of India, (Rajesh and
others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), wherein, it is observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 1368(1)-
Just compensation- Whether
Tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of
the amount claimed, to award a just, fair
and responsible compensation- Held: yes
Judicial precedent -Ratio of decision of
Apex Court on a legal issue is s precedent -
But an observation made, mainly to
achieve uniformity and consistency on a
socio-economic issue, through a precedent,
can be, and in fact ought to be, periodically
revisited.
Quantum-Fatal accident -Principles of
assessment-Future prospects -Whether
formula for increase of income for future
prospects adopted for persons with
permanent jobs in Sarala Verma's case,
2009 ACJ 1298(SC),may also be applied to
persons who were self-employed or were
engaged on fixed wages-Held:yes;50 per
cent of actual income(after deduction of
tax) for persons below 40 years; 30 per cent
21 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
for age group of 40 to 50 years ;15 per cent
for age group of 50 to 60 years; but no
addition thereafter.
vii) 2012 ACJ 1428, Supreme Court of India New Delhi,
(Santosh Devi v/s National Insurance Co.Ltd and Others), wherein, it is
observed that,
Quantum-Fatal accident-principles of
assessments-Department -major son-
Testimony of mother that all five members
were dependent on the deceased -Whether
sons of the deceased who are major can be
defined compensation for the death of their
father without any evidence to the contrary
about their dependency -Held: no.
Quantum-Fatal accident -Principles of
assessments -Future prospects-Whether
formula for increase of income for future
prospects adopted for persons with
permanent jobs in Sarala Verma's case,
2009 ACJ 1298(SC) may also be applied to
persons who were self-employed or were
engaged on fixed wages-Held: yes.
vii) 2013 ACJ 1253, Supreme Court of India, (Reshma
Kumari and Others V/s Madan Mohan and Another), wherein, it is
observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act; 1988, Sections 166 and
168- Claim application -Just compensation
- Multiplier-Choice of -Whether in claim for
death under section 166 where age of
deceased is above 15 years, claims
Tribunal should seek guidance or place
reliance on second Schedule for selecting
multiplier -Held: no; Claims Tribunal shall
22 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
select the multiplier as indicated in column
(4) of Table prepared in Sarala Verma's
case, 2009 ACJ 1298(SC).
IX) 2015 ACJ 627, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd V/s Manju Devi and Others), wherein,
it is observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act,1988, Sections 147 and
185- Motor insurance -policy-Drunken
driving-Liability of insurance company -
insurance company disputes its liability on
the ground that driver of offending car was
in inebriated state at the time of accident,
lost control over the vehicle on account of
his intoxication, which was more than the
permissible limit under section185, thereby
caused the accident killing a traffic
constable on duty-policy exempts
insurance company from liability towards
owner or driver in case of drunk and drive
under personal accident cover but
deceased was a third party- policy contains
clauses regarding eligibility to drive the
vehicle by the driver but fit state of mind
was not included in the eligibility clause-
Consciousness and senses of the driver in
inebriated state was impaired, he became
unfit to drive but insurance company is
not entitled to be exonerated from payment
of compensation -Inebriated state of driver
was not within the knowledge of the
insured -Whether drunk and driving is a
ground to exonerate insurance company
from liability -Held :no.
x) 2009 ACJ 1298, Supreme Court of India, (Sarala Verma
and Others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and Another), wherein, it
is observed that,
23 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A
read with second Schedule- Structured
formula -Compensation -Second Schedule
contains a Table prescribing compensation
to be awarded with reference to income and
age of the deceased-Table does not specify
quantum of compensation for annual
income more than Rs.40,000-It is possible
to calculate compensation on structured
formula basis where income is more than
Rs.40,000p.a.2/3rd of annual income
multiplied by multiplier applicable to the
age of the deceased would be the
compensation -Discrepancies/erors in
multiplier scale given in Second Schedule
pointed out.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 163-A
read with second Schedule -Structured
formula -Compensation-Anomalous
position-Apex Court observed that
compensation will be higher where
deceased was idle and not having any
income than where the deceased was
honestly earning income between Rs.3,000
and Rs.12,000 p.a.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,Section 166(1)(C)
-Claim application -Legal representative -
Father -Deceased is unmarried and he is
survived by parents and siblings -Whether
mother alone to be considered as a
dependent -Held: yes; father may have his
own income and will not be considered as a
dependent.
Quantum -Fatal accident -Principles of
assessments -Income-Determination of-
Income tax -Deduction of -Whether the
amount of income tax is deductible while
determining ,income of he deceased for
purpose computation of dependency -Held:
24 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
yes; where the annual income of the
deceased is in taxable range, the words
'actual salary' should be read as 'actual
salary less tax'.
Quantum-Fatal accident -Principles of
assessment -Future prospectus -Whether
future increase in income of the deceased
be taken into consideration while assessing
dependency of the claimants -Held: yes;
and whether average of actual income at
the time of death and prospective income at
the time of judgment in appeal can be
taken into consideration even if actual
figures are available -Held: no; in view of
imponderables and uncertainties and to
maintain uniformity, the Apex Court issued
a rule of thumb.
xi) 2012 ACJ 191, Supreme Court of India At New Delhi
(Laxman V/s Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and Another), wherein, it is
observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act,1988, Section 169(1)-
Claims Tribunal -Duty of- Proactive
approach -Personal suffering of survivors of
road accidents who are disabled are
manifold-Cost of medical treatment and
care is very high-large number of victims of
accidents are pedestrians , children,
women and illiterate persons and majority
of them cannot, due to ignorance, poverty
and other disabilities, engage complete
lawyers for providing negligence of the
wrongdoer in adequate measure-Insurance
companies with which offending vehicles
are insured usually have battery of lawyers
to contest claim petitions by raising all
possible technical objections for ensuring
that their clients are either completely
25 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
absolved or their liabilities minimized-Delay
and litigation expenses make the awards of
Tribunal meaningless -Tribunal should
adopt a proactive approach and ensure
that claims are disposed of urgently and
compensation award in adequate measure
including pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damages.
xii) M.F.A.NO.7180 OF 2008 (MV), High Court of Karnataka
(The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Sri Anand and Another) wherein it is
observed that,
The Division Bench of this court in the case
of Basavaraj Vs. Shekar reported in ILR
1987 (2) 1399 has laid down the principles
of law to be followed to assess
compensation in case of personal injuries
and also stated various heads under which
compensation has to be granted.
xiii) AIR 1988 KARNATAKA 105 (Basavaraj V/s
Shekhar and Others) wherein it is observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act (4 of 1939),Ss. 110-B
and 110- Compensation for personal
injuries -Victim has to be compensated
under five different heads Claimant-
Suffering number of fractures following an
accident - Compensation of Rs.6,000/-
awarded by Tribunal , held, was too
mearge-Award enhanced by High Court in
appeal to the tune of Rs.40,000/-
spreading the same under different heads.
It is Trite law that in granting
compensation for personal injuries the
victim has to be compensated (1) for pain
and Suffering (2) for loss of amenities (3)
26 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
shortened expectation of life if any (4) loss
of earnings o loss of earning capacity or in
some cases both: and (5) medical treatment
and other special damages. The Tribunal is
required to spread the compensation
awardable over these distinct heads which
are now recognized in the field of Torts as
in inevitable para-meters affording the
basis on which and the extent to which an
accident Victim is liable to be compensated
in an action for personal injuries.
xiv) 2011 AIR SCW 2609 (Nagarajappa V/s Oriental
Insurance Co.Ltd), wherein it is observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988), S,168-
Compensation- loss of future income -
Claimant working as coolie-Suffering
permanent gross deformity of his left
forearm wrist and hand and shorting of left
upper limb -Deformity severely affecting his
ability to perform his work as coolie or do
any other manual work and also his ability
to find work-For computing loss to future
income -Disability assessed by doctor of
left arm ought to be considered -And not
disability assessed of whole body.
xv) 2005 ACJ 644, High Court of Karnataka Bangalore (M.V.
Chowdappa V/s Mohan Breweries and Distillers Ltd and Another),
wherein, it is observed that,
Quantum- Injury-Principles of assessment
-Permanent disability-Medical evidence
that injured suffered 90 per cent
permanent disability to whole body -
Whether the Tribunal was justified in
assessing permanent disability at 40 per
cent ignoring evidence -Held:no,
27 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Quantum -Injury -Leg-Comminuted
segmental fracture of both bones or right
leg and compound comminuted fracture of
both bones of left leg- Injured suffered 90
per cent permanent disability to whole body
but his functional disability is 100 per cent
as injuries have shattered and battered the
physical frame of the injured- Injured aged-
28,agriculturist and milk vender, earning
Rs.5,500 p.m. -Tribunal awarded Rs.
2,94,100-Appellate court allowed Rs.
5,18,400for loss of earning
capacity,Rs.18,000 for loss of income
,Rs.25,000 for pain and suffering ,Rs.
10,000 for transportation charges, Rs.
10,000 for special food and nutrition, Rs.
50,000 for loss of amenities of life and loss
of marriage prospects, Rs. 80,000 for
medical expenses, Rs. 18,000 for attendant
charges and Rs. 10,000 for future medical
expenses Award of Rs. 2,34,100 enhanced
in appeal to Rs. 7,39,400.
xvi) 2015 ACJ 708, Supreme Court of India, (Jitendra
Khimshankar Trivedi and Others V/s Kasam Daud Kumbhar and
Others), wherein, it is observed that,
Constitution of India, Article 142 and Motor
Vehicles Act,1988,Section 168 (1)-Just
compensation -Obligation of
courts/Tribunals to award just, fair and
reasonable compensation acceptable to
legal Standards -Whether it would be
appropriate for the Apex Court, in exercise
of its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 142, to award compensation more
than the amount claimed have not field any
appeal against the award-Held: yes.
28 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
xvii) 2010 ACJ 2161, Supreme Court of India New Delhi,
(Arun Kumar Agarwal and Another V/s National Insurance Co.Ltd. And
Others), wherein, it is observed that,
Motor Vehicles Act,1988,Sections 166 (1)
and section 163-A read with Second
Schedule -Just compensation -Claim for
compensation for death of wife/mother field
by husband and child under section 166-
Contention that criteria laid down in section
163-A cannot be invoked for awarding higher
compensation to claimants-Whether in the
absence of any other definite criteria for
determination of compensation payable to
the dependents of non-earning
housewife/mother, it would be reasonable to
relay upon clause (6) of Second Schedule
and then apply appropriate multiplier
keeping in view the decisions in Susamma
Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), Trilok
Chandra,1996 ACJ 831 (SC) and Sarla
Verma,2009 (SC)- Held: yes.
xviii) MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2340 OF 2012
(MV), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (K.S.R.T.C V/s Sri.Venkatesh),
wherein it is observed that,
The evidence of PW2 and PW3 - the doctors
and the medical reports confirm that the
nature of injuries suffered are grievous in
nature. The photographs placed before this
court fortifies the nature of injuries .PW3
has deposed that the injured has suffered
20% disability to the whole body.
Considering the same, I feel, the
compensation awarded under the heads
'pain and suffering', 'loss of amenities' and
other related heads is just and proper and
requires no enhancement.
29 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Considering the year of accident, place of
residence, cost of living ,price index and
other relevant factors, propose to take the
income of the claimant at Rs. 250/- per day,
which comes to Rs. 7500/- per month.
Hence, the calculation of compensation
under the head 'loss of future earnings'
would be (7500 X15%) 1125 X 12 X 14 =
1,89,000. The same is awarded as against
Rs. 1, 00,800/- awarded by the Tribunal.
The compensation awarded under the head
'loss of income during laid up period' also
requires to be enhanced accordingly. Taking
the rest period as 4 months, Rs. 30,000/- is
awarded under the head 'loss of income
during laid up period'. The compensation
awarded under the head 'food, nourishment,
and conveyance charges' is also enhanced by
another Rs.15,000/-.
xix) 2009 ACJ 1298, Supreme Court of India, (Sarla Verma
and Others V/s Delhi Transport Corporation and Another), wherein, it is
observed that,
Motors Vehicles Act,1988, Section 163-A
read with Second Schedule contains a Table
prescribing compensation to be awarded
with reference to income and age of the
deceased -Table does not specify quantum of
compensation for annual income more than
Rs. 40,000- It is possible to calculate
compensation on structured formula basis
where income is more than Rs. 40,000 p.a.-
2/3rd of annual income multiplied by
multiplier applicable to the age of the
deceased would be the compensation -
Discrepancies/errors in multiplier scale
given in Second Schedule pointed out.
30 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Motor Vehicles Act,1988,Section 163-A read
with Second Schedule Structured formula -
Compensation -Anomalous position -Apex
Court observed that compensation will be
higher where deceased was idle and not
having any income than where the deceased
was honestly earning income between Rs.
3,000 and Rs. 12,000 p.a.
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166(1) (C)
Claim application -Legal representative -
Father -Deceased is unmarried and he is
survived by parents and siblings -whether
mother alone to be considered as a
dependent - Held: yes; father may have is
own income and will not be considered as a
dependent.
Quantum -Fatal accident -Principles of
assessments -Income -Determination of -
Income tax -Deduction of -Whether the
amount of income tax is deductible while
determining income of the deceased for
purpose compensation and dependency -
Held: yes; where the annual income of the
deceased is in Taxable range, the words
'actual salary' should be read as 'actual
salary less tax'.
Quantum -Fatal accident -Principles of
assessment -future prospects -Whether
future increase in income of the deceased be
taken into consideration while assessing
dependency of the claimants - Held: yes; and
whether average of actual income at the time
of death and prospective income at the time
of judgment in appeal can be taken into
consideration even if actual figure are
available - Held: no; in view of
imponderables and uncertainties and to
maintain uniformity, the Apex Court issued
a rule of thumb.
31 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
21. My answers to the above said Issues are as follows;
In M.V.C.No.2290/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is entitled
for a sum of Rupees
2,62,380/- as
compensation with interest
at the rate of 6% p.a.
(excluding future medical
expenses of Rupees
10,000/-) from the date of
the petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
In M.V.C.No.2291/2014
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
The Petitioner is
entitled for a sum of
Rupees 2,49,044/- as
compensation with
interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.3 : As per the final Order,
32 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
In M.V.C.No.2292/2014
Issue No.1 : Partly in the
Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : Partly in the
Affirmative,
The Petitioners are
entitled for a sum of
Rupees 6,95,000/- as
compensation with
interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. from the date of the
petition till the date of
payment, from the
Respondent No.1.
Issue No.4 : As per the final Order,
for the following;
REASONS
22. ISSUE NO.1 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 :- The P.W.3
who is the Petitioner No.3 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that, he is the father and the Petitioner No.2
is his wife and his son deceased Ravichandran.R. met with a road
traffic accident on 19.04.2014 at about early morning 1.30 a.m.,
when he was going in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-
9703 as an inmate on Chitradurga NH-4 Road and when he
reached near Sugar Factory Quarters, Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4
Road, Hiriyur Town, at that time, all of a sudden, the driver of the
33 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
said Car drove it recklessly and mindlessly at high speed, in a rash
and negligent manner and he lost control of the Car and dashed
against the road side fly over wall and due to the tremendous
impact, the Car turtled and fell in the road side ditch and hence,
his son sustained multiple severe injuries on his head, legs, hands,
face and all over the body and he was shifted to Hiriyur
Government Hospital for treatment and during the course of
treatment, his son succumbed to the accidental injuries. In this
regard, the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 have produced
Ex.P.25 Complaint, Ex.P.26 Post Mortem Report, Ex.P.27 Inquest,
Ex.P.29 Ration Card, Ex.P.30 Election Identity Card, Ex.P.31
College Identity Card, Ex.P.32 II PUC Marks Card and Ex.P.33 IInd
Semester BBM Marks Card relating to Ravichandran.R. From the
contents of the said material documents, it prima-facie appears
that, the Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a
mother of Ravichandran.R. S/o Ramareddy.K., who died in the
Hiriyur Government Hospital during the course of treatment due to
the accidental injuries, which caused to him in the road traffic
accident, which was taken place on 19.04.2014 at 1.30 a.m., near
Sugar Factory Quarters, Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4 Road,
Hiriyur Town. The relationship of the Petitioners No.1 and 2 with
the deceased Ravichandran.R. is not disputed by the Respondent
No.1 while cross-examining the P.W.3. Even the Respondent No.1
has not disputed about the contents of Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.27 and
Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.33. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the
Petitioner No.1 is a father and the Petitioner No.2 is a mother of
deceased Ravichandran.R and they being the parents of the said
deceased are the legal representatives of the said deceased.
34 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
23. But, based on the same, it cannot be said that, both the
Petitioners No.1and 2 were the dependents of the said deceased as
the Petitioner No.1 is a father of the deceased, who cannot be
considered as dependent. Further, the P.W.3 in his cross-
examination has clearly stated that, he is working. From the said
evidence of P.W.3, it clearly goes to show that, the father of the
deceased never depended on the deceased. The Petitioner No.2
being a mother of the said deceased can alone be considered as
dependent of the deceased. Hence, it can be safely held that, the
Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of the deceased, was only the
dependent of deceased Ravichandran.R. Accordingly, I answered
Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 partly in the Affirmative.
24. ISSUE NO.1 in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and ISSUE No.2 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014
:- The P.W.1, who is the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290 has stated in
his examination-in-chief that, he met with a road traffic accident on
19.04.2014 at about early morning at 1.30 a.m., when he was
going in a Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 as an
inmate on Chitradurga NH-4 Road and when he reached near
Sugar Factory Quarters, Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4 Road,
Hiriyur Town, at that time, all of a sudden the driver of the Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 drove the vehicle
recklessly and mindlessly at high speed, in a rash and negligent
manner, endangering to human life, neglecting all the traffic rules
and regulations and lost control of his Car and dashed against the
road side wall of flyover. He has further stated that, due to the
tremendous impact, the Car is turtle and fell into road side ditch
35 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
and hence, he sustained multiple severe injuries over head, legs,
hands, face and all the other parts of the body. He has further
stated that, he was shifted to Hiriyur Government Hospital for first
aid treatment and thereafter, he was shifted to Mallige Hospital,
Bangalore for better treatment and admitted as an inpatient from
19.04.2014 to 22.04.2014. He has further stated that, during the
Hospitalization, after all relevant investigations, it is found that, he
had sustained injuries, i.e., compound communited fracture tibia
middle and lower 1/3rd left and haematoma lumbar region. He has
further stated that, after the accident, the Hiriyur Traffic Police,
Hiriyur Circle, Chitradurga have registered a case under Crime
No.97/2014 under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC and
charge sheeted against the driver of Car bearing Registration
No.KA-04-ME-9703. He has further stated that, the said accident
was occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of the Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME -9703.
25. To corroborate the oral version of P.W.1, who is the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290/2014, has produced Ex.P.1 FIR,
Ex.P.2 Complaint, Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama, Ex.P.4 MVI Report,
Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate, Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet, Ex.P.7 Discharge
Summary, Ex.P.12 Photographs 2 in numbers, Ex.P.13 C.D relating
to Ex.P.12 Photographs and Ex.P.16 X-ray Films.
26. The P.W.2, who is the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2291/2014, has also stated the same evidence of P.W.1,
in his examination-in-chief, in respect of the alleged road traffic
accident. He has further clearly stated that, he sustained multiple
severe injuries over head region, legs, hands, face, back region and
36 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
all other parts of the body and he was shifted to Hiriyur
Government Hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter, he was
shifted to Mallige Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment and
admitted as an inpatient from 19.04.2014 to 26.04.2014. He has
further stated that, during Hospitalization, after all relevant
investigations, it is found that, he has sustained injuries, i.e.,
conclusive head injury, bilateral lung contusion with
pneumothorax, lacerated wound over frontal region 1 X 1 bone
deep, abrasion over left hand between index and middle finger.
27. In support of his oral version, the P.W.2, who is the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014, has produced Ex.P.17 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary, Ex.P.23 X-ray Films 8 in
numbers and Ex.P.24 C.T.Scan Films 8 in numbers.
28. The P.W.3, who is a father of deceased Ravichandran.R.,
who was also one of the inmate of the said offending Car, has also
stated the same evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, in respect of the
alleged road traffic accident as well as the very involvement of the
offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 as well as
its driver in the said road traffic accident. He has further stated
that, his son sustained multiple severe injuries on his head, legs,
hands, face and all other parts of the body and his son was shifted
to Hiriyur Government Hospital for treatment and during the
course of treatment, his son was succumbed to the accidental
injuries and he died in the Hospital and the post mortem was done.
37 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
29. To corroborate the oral version of P.W.3, the Petitioners
in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 have produced Ex.P.25 Complaint, Ex.P.26
Post Mortem Report and Ex.P.27 Inquest.
30. The P.W.1 in his cross-examination has further clearly
stated that, the Car, in which, he was proceeding is owned by his
friend Chetan and he was also in the Car at the time of accident
and they were 5 persons in the said Car and the said Car was
driven by Chandrakanth and he was sitting in the middle back
seat. He has further stated that, the said Car was about 80 km
speed and there are street lights on the highway road and hence,
he could see the things, which were in front of their Car and the
said Car was proceeding by the side of road divider. He has further
stated that, the driver of their Car is dead and he was conscious
after the accident and initially he was shifted to the Government
Hospital and later, shifted to Mallige Hospital, Bangalore and he
was also conscious, when he was shifted to Mallige Hospital.
31. The same evidence of P.W.1, is also stated by the P.W.2,
in his cross-examination. He has further stated that, he was
unconscious after the accident and he was admitted as an
inpatient in Mallige Hospital for 7 days.
32. The P.W.3, who is the father of deceased Ravi
Chandran.R has also stated in his cross-examination that, the
Police have informed about the accident and how the accident was
occurred known to him through nearby villagers and he had seen
his son in the Hospital.
38 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
33. From the above said oral version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 as
well as the contents of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, Ex.P.12, Ex.P.13, Ex.P.16,
Ex.P.17, Ex.P.18, Ex.P.23, Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.28, it
clearly goes to show that, the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2292/2014
and M.V.C.No.2291/2014 as well as deceased Ravichandran.R.
were the inmates of the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-
04-ME-9703 and the said offending Car met with an accident due
to the negligence on the part of the driver of the said Car, who is
their friend on 19.04.2014 at 1.30 a.m., near Sugar Factory
Quarters, NH-4 Road, Hiriyur Town and the in the said accident,
the said Petitioners and deceased had sustained grievous injuries
and deceased Ravichandran.R. succumbed to the injuries during
the course of treatment.
34. It is further clear from the contents of Ex.P.1 FIR and
Ex.P.2 Complaint that, the entire negligence is on the part of the
driver of the said offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-
9703, namely, Chandrakanth, who committed the road traffic
accident on 19.04.2014 at 1.30 a.m., near Sugar Factory Quarters,
Chitradurga-Bangalore NH-4 Road, Hiriyur Town and as such, the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 had lodged Ex.P.2 Complaint as
against the driver of the offending Car before the Hiriyur Traffic
Police and based on the said Ex.P.2 Complaint, the said Police have
registered a Criminal case as against the driver of the said
offending Car for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337
and 304(A) of IPC.
35. The contents of Ex.P.3 Spot Panchanama and Ex.P.4
MVI Report further clearly disclosed about the very involvement of
39 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 as well
as its driver in the said road traffic accident. The damages caused
to the said offending Car are clearly shown in Ex.P.4 MVI Report,
which implies the terrific impact of the said road traffic 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 offending Car.
36. The contents of Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.7
Discharge Summary issued by Mallige Medical Centre clearly
disclosed that, with a history of road traffic accident, the Petitioner
in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 was admitted in the said Hospital, which
was taken place on 19.04.2014 at 1.00 a.m. and on examination, it
is found that, he has sustained left tibia communited fracture lower
1/3 and haematoma lumber region, which are grievous in nature,
i.e., two grievous injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from
19.04.2014 to 22.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days, he took treatment to the
said injuries in the said Hospital.
37. The contents of Ex.P.17 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.18
Discharge Summary clearly disclosed that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014 had sustained
conclusive head injury, bilateral lung contusion with
pneumothorax, lacerated wound over frontal region 1 X 1 bone
deep, abrasion over left hand between index and middle finger, i.e.,
2 grievous injuries and 2 simple injuries, which was taken place on
19.04.2014 at 1.00 a.m., with a history of road traffic accident, the
said Petitioner was admitted in Mallige Medical Centre and took
40 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
treatment to the said injuries by admitting as an inpatient from
19.04.2014 to 26.04.2014, i.e., for 8 days.
38. The contents of Ex.P.25 Complaint, Ex.P.26 Post
Mortem Report and Ex.P.27 Inquest further clearly disclosed that,
in the said road traffic accident, deceased Ravichandran.R. had
sustained severe grievous injuries and during the course of
treatment, he succumbed to the injuries in the Government
Hospital, Hiriyur and his death was occurred due to haemorrhage
shock in superior of vital centre of brain as result of injuries
sustained.
39. The contents of Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet clearly disclosed
that, since during the course of investigation, it is found that, due
to high speed, rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending
Car bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 by its driver, the road
traffic accident was taken place on 19.04.2014 at about 1.30.a.m.,
near Sugar Factory Quarters, Poona-Bangalore N.H-4 Road and the
entire negligence is on the part of the driver of the offending Car,
who dashed the said Car to the fly over wall and in the said
accident, the Car was fully damaged and the Petitioners in
M.V.C.No.2290/2014 and M.V.C.No.2291/2014, who were inmates
of the said Car had sustained grievous injuries and deceased Ravi
Chandran.R, who was also inmate of the said Car had sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries during the course
of treatment and the driver of the said Car, namely, Chandrakanth
had also died due to the accidental injuries and as such, after
thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed an abated
Charge Sheet as against the deceased Chandrakantha S/o
41 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Ramamurthy for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337,
338 and 304 (A) of IPC.
40. The above said oral version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 as well as
the contents of the above said Police and Medical documents are
clearly corroborated with the case made out by the Petitioners in all
the cases. From this material evidence, it is made crystal clear that,
due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Car
bearing Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703, the said road traffic
accident was taken place, wherein, the Petitioners in M.V.C
No.2290/2014 had sustained two grievous injuries and
M.V.C.No.2291/14 had sustained two grievous injuries and two
simple injuries and deceased Ravichandran.R had also sustained
grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, he
succumbed to the accidental injuries. Accordingly, I answered
Issue No.1 in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 and M.V.C.No.2291/2014
and Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 in the Affirmative.
41. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.No.2290/2014 AND
M.V.C.No.2291/2014 AND ISSUE NO.3 IN M.V.C.No.2292/2014
:-
ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.No.2290/2014 :- The Petitioner has
produced Ex.P.11 College Certificate, wherein, his date of birth is
shown as 21.09.1991. The date of accident is 19.04.2014. From
this, it appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was 23
years old. Hence, the age of the Petitioner is considered as 23 years
at the time of accident.
42 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
42. The P.W.1 has stated that, at the time of accident, he
was MBA student-cum-part time worker and apart from MBA
student, he was working as a part time worker at Surveyor and
Loss Assessor Officer and earning pocket money of Rupees 9,500/-
per month (Rupees 7,000/- basic salary + other incentive and
benefits). In this regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.10
College Identity Card, Ex.P.11 College Certificate and Ex.P.8 Letter
dated 03.05.2008. From the contents of the said documents, it
appears that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was working as
part time employee and he was earning Rupees 7,000/- per month.
But, only based on the said oral version of P.W.1 and the contents
of Ex.P.8, it cannot be believed and accept that, at the time of
accident, the Petitioner was earning Rupees 9,500/- per month as
the sum of Rupees 9,500/- is not shown in Ex.P.8 Letter and the
Petitioner has not examined the author of Ex.P.8 Letter, i.e.,
employer. Further, the Petitioner has not produced his Bank
statement or any pay slips or pay register to show his actual salary
at the time of accident. In the absence of the same and by
considering the age of the Petitioner and his educational status,
this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to consider
the notional income of the Petitioner is of Rupees 5,000/- per
month. Hence, the notional income of the Petitioner is considered
as Rupees 5,000/- per month at the time of accident.
43. Based on Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.7
Discharge Summary, this Tribunal has already come to the
conclusion that, in the said road traffic accident, the Petitioner had
sustained 2 grievous injuries and he took treatment to the said
43 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
injuries by admitting as an inpatient from 19.04.2014 to
22.04.2014, i.e., for 4 days at Mallige Hospital.
44. The P.W.1 has stated that, during the course of
treatment, ORIF LC plate and screw with bone grafting of left tibia
done on 19.04.2014. The contents of Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary
clearly disclosed about the said line of treatment to the Petitioner at
Mallige Hospital. From this, it is made crystal clear that, the
Petitioner is having implants in situ to the accidental injuries.
Hence, he was very much required the follow-up treatment and as
such, he took follow-up treatment to the said accidental injuries.
45. The P.W.1 has stated that, inspite of best available
treatment taken, he has suffered disabilities, he cannot walk for
long distance, cannot claim stairs ups and down, cannot sit and
squat on the floor, cannot stand for long period, cannot sleep
normal and sound sleep, frequently suffering from severe ill health
problems. He has further stated that, due to the accidental injuries
and often get pain in his entire left leg and back region and he
cannot be able to do any normal regular activities. He has further
stated that, he was not able to attend the college from 19.04.2014
to 01.09.2014 and whole one Semester examination is lost due to
the accidental injuries and also not able to do his work of part time
job and hence, he lost his monthly/pocket/personnel income.
46. The Petitioner has also examined the Doctor as P.W.4,
who has stated in his examination-in-chief that, due to the injuries
sustained by the Petitioner in the road traffic accident as well as
the line of treatment, which are clearly corroborated with the
44 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
contents of Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary. He has further
stated that, he has examined the Petitioner recently on 09.01.2014
for disability assessment and the Petitioner complains of pain in
left ankle, difficulty to squatting, climbing upstairs, stand on
affected limb and difficult to do routine work. He has further stated
that, on clinical examination, he found the disabilities, i.e.,
tenderness over left ankle, restriction of joints movement of left
ankle, platar dorsiflexion 10 degree, normal 0-7- degree, difficult to
squat on floor, climb upstairs, walk on slope stand on affected
limb. He has further stated that, the radiological examination
showed fracture of united with implants in situ. He opined that, the
Petitioner suffered a permanent residual physical disability of 25%
of left lower limb which is 12.5% whole body.
47. But, based on the above said oral version of P.W.1 and
P.W.4, it cannot be believed and accept, due to the accidental
injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from permanent residual
physical disability of 15% of left lower limb, which is 12.5% to the
whole body, as the P.W.4 is not a treated Doctor, which has been
clearly admitted by him in his cross-examination. The P.W.4 has
only assessed the disability of the Petitioner and he has only seen
the copies of Discharge Summary before the assessment of
disability. It is pertinent to note here that, it is clearly mentioned in
Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary that, at the time of discharge, the
condition of Petitioner was satisfactory. Further, the P.W.4 has
clearly admitted that, the fractures are united and the said extent
of disability no way affect to the study of Petitioner. Even, the P.W.4
does not know the avocation of the Petitioner. Further, the clinical
45 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
notes is not properly stated and mentioned by the P.W.4 in his
affidavit in respect of assessment of such extent of disability of the
Petitioner due to the accidental injuries. Further, the P.W.4 has
stated that, the Petitioner needs one more surgery for removal of
implants. He has further stated that, fracture is united with
implants in situ. From this, it appears that, if the implants are
removed, the Petitioner will not be suffering such extent of
disability. More so, the age of the Petitioner is 23 years, i.e., tender
age and he is a student. In this regard, the P.W.1 has clearly stated
in his examination-in-chief that, now he is studying MBA final year
in MVIT College and his college time is from morning to evening.
Further, the Petitioner has not proved his employment by
examining his employer. More so, neither the Petitioner nor the
P.W.4 produced disability certificate. However, by considering the
age of the Petitioner, nature of injuries and line of treatment, this
Tribunal feels that, due to the said accidental injuries, the
Petitioner is suffering from permanent residual physical disability
of 8% to the whole body, which is considerable and acceptable one.
Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled for future loss of income arising
out of the permanent physical and functional disability of 8%.
48. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the age of
the Petitioner was 23 years at the time of accident. The multiplier
corresponding to the said age as per Sarala Varma's case is 18.
Therefore, the loss arising out of the said 8% disability for monthly
income of Rupees 5,000/- by applying multiplier 18 comes to
Rupees 86,400/-, i.e., (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 8%). Hence, the
46 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rupees 86,400/- towards loss of
future income arising out of 8% disability.
49. As the Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries in
the said road traffic accident and by admitting as an inpatient for 4
days, he took treatment to the said accidental injuries, he could
have definitely suffered a lot of pain during the course of treatment,
this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and necessary to award a
sum of Rupees 30,000/- towards pain and suffering.
50. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner
was 23 years. Hence, the Petitioner has to lead remaining his entire
life with 8% permanent residual 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 10,000/- towards loss of
amenities of life to the Petitioner.
51. The Petitioner had suffered 2 grievous injuries and he
was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 4 days and he could not do
any work at least for 3 months and thereby, he deprived the
income. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees 5,000/- per month, a sum
of Rupees 15,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 3) is awarded towards loss of
income during the laid up period.
52. The P.W.1 has stated that, he has spent a sum of
Rupees 89,980-83 towards his medical treatment, medicines,
conveyance, nourishment and diet charges. The Petitioner has
produced Ex.P.14 Medical Bills 28 in numbers, which is amounting
to Rupees 89,980-83 and Ex.P.15 Medical Prescriptions 16 in
47 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
numbers. Considering the nature of the injuries and line of
treatment given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending the
said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is
necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees
89,980-83 to the Petitioner, which is rounded of Rupees 89,980/-.
53. The P.W.4 has stated that, the Petitioner needs one
more surgery for removal of implant. The P.W.1 has not stated
anything about the future medical expenses. Neither the Petitioner
nor P.W.4 produced estimation in respect of future treatment. But,
Ex.P.7 Discharge Summary clearly disclosed that, ORIF with LC
Plate and Screws with bone grafting left tibia was done under S.A
on 19.04.2014 tot he Petitioner. From this, it appears that, the
Petitioner is having implants in situ. Hence, the said implants
required to be removed and as such, the Petitioner requires future
medical assistance. Hence, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper
and necessary to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards future
medical expenses.
54. The P.W.1 has stated that, he was not able to attend the
college from 19.04.2014 to 01.09.2014 and hence, he was not able
to attend to whole one Semester Examination due to accidental
injuries. Based on Ex.P.11, this Tribunal has already observed
that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was studying in IIIrd
Semester of MBA. It is clearly noted in Ex.P.11 that, the Petitioner
was not attended the college from 19.04.2014 to 01.09.2014 due to
accidental injury. From this, it appears that, after the accident, the
Petitioner was not attended the college nearly 5 months. When the
Petitioner was not attended the college nearly 5 months, he lost his
48 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
continuous education. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for a sum of
Rupees 10,000/- towards loss of education.
55. The P.W.1 has stated that, he used to go by an
Autorickshaw for the follow-up treatment by paying Rupees 250/-
per trip. By considering the same and as the Petitioner was
admitted as an inpatient for 4 days in the Hospital to take
treatment, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 3,000/-
towards conveyance charges, Rupees 3,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,
56. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl.
Compensation heads Compensation amount
No.
1. Loss of future income Rs. 86,400-00
arising out of 8% Disability
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 30,000-00
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000-00
4. Loss of income during laid Rs. 15,000-00
up period
5. Actual medical expenses Rs. 89,980-00
6. Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000-00
7. Loss of education Rs. 10,000-00
8. Conveyance Rs. 3,000-00
9. Attendant Charges Rs. 3,000-00
10. Food, Nourishment & Rs. 5,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 2,62,380-00
49 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
57. In all, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 is entitled
for total compensation of Rupees 2,62,380/-with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum (excluding future
medical expenses of Rupees 10,000/-) from the date of Petition till
payment.
58. ISSUE No.2 IN M.V.C.No.2291/2014 :- The
Petitioner has produced Ex.P.19 Driving Licence relating to him,
which disclosed that, his date of birth is 06.04.1992. The date of
accident is 19.04.2014. From this, it appears that, at the time of
accident, the Petitioner was 22 years old. Hence, the age of the
Petitioner is considered as 22 years at the time of accident.
59. The P.W.2 has stated that, at the time of accident, he
was working as Personal Driver at M/s. Southern Cargo Carriers
(India) and earning a sum of Rupees 12,000/- per month. In this
regard, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.20 Salary/Termination
Certificate dated 15.10.2014. No doubt, it is mentioned in Ex.P.20
Salary/Termination Certificate dated 15.10.2014 that, the
Petitioner was working as a Personal Car Driver in M/s. Southern
Cargo Carriers (India) Organization and as such, drawn salary of
Rupees 12,000/- per month. But, only based on the contents of
Ex.P.20 and oral version of P.W.2, it cannot be come to the
conclusion that, at the time of accident, the Petitioner was earning
Rupees 12,000/- per month as a driver, as, the Petitioner has not
examined his employer to prove the contents of Ex.P.20. Further, at
the time of accident, the Petitioner was 22 years old and to consider
his avocation and income, he did not care to produce his Bank
statement, salary register or salary slips. Therefore, the earning of
50 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
Rupees 12,000/- per month as stated by the P.W.2 at the time of
accident cannot be believed and accept. However, at the time of
accident, the Petitioner was 22 years old and he is having Ex.P.19
Driving Licence, which is valid. This Tribunal feels that, it is just,
proper and necessary to consider the notional income of the
Petitioner is of Rupees 5,000/- per month at the time of accident.
Therefore, the notional income of the Petitioner is considered as
Rupees 5,000/- per month at the time of accident.
60. While discussing above, based on Ex.P.17 Wound
Certificate and Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary, this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, in the said road traffic
accident, the Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries and 2
simple injuries and by admitting as an inpatient from 19.04.2014
to 26.04.2014, i.e., for 8 days, at Mallige Hospital, he took
treatment to the said accidental injuries. The line of treatment is
clearly mentioned in Ex.P.18.
61. The P.W.2 has stated that, inspite of best available
treatment taken, he has suffered disabilities and he cannot walk for
long distance under sunlight, cannot stand for long period,
suffering from severe headache and giddiness, cannot digest hard
food, cannot drive four wheeler for long period, cannot sleep normal
and sound sleep, cannot lift any article in his left hand, frequently
suffering from severe ill health problems due to accidental injury
and often get pain in his entire head, left hand and abdomen
region, cannot be able to do any normal regular activities. He has
further stated that, due to the accidental injuries, he is not able to
51 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
do the work and hence, he was terminated from the job and lost
that salary income.
62. The Petitioner has examined the Doctor as P.W.5, who
has stated the contents of Ex.P.17 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.8
Discharge Summary in his examination-in-chief, in respect of the
nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the road traffic
accident and the line of treatment given to him at Mallige Hospital.
He has further stated that, on 06.03.2015, he examined the
Petitioner and on examination, he has 2 scars of ICD on B/s of
chest and based on the age of the Petitioner, nature of injuries and
period of treatment and as per his examination and clinical
examination and records, he opined that, the Petitioner is suffers
from 10% of disability to whole body, with this, he is unable to
continue as a driver because of giddiness. He has produced Ex.P.36
OPD Card, Ex.P.37 X-ray films relating to chest and skull (2 in
numbers) and Ex.P.39 USG of abdomen and pelvis.
63. But, only based on the above said oral version of P.W.2
and P.W.5 coupled with the contents of Ex.P.17, Ex.P.18 and
Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.38, it cannot be believed and accept that, due to
the accidental injuries, the Petitioner is suffering from physical
disability of 10% to the whole body, as, the P.W.5 admittedly is not
a treated Doctor and he has only treated the Petitioner in respect of
follow-up treatment and the same has been clearly admitted by him
in his cross-examination. Further, admittedly, the Petitioner was
not underwent any surgery or operation in respect of the accidental
injuries and it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.18 Discharge Summary
that, at the time of discharge, the condition of the Petitioner was
52 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
stable. Further, it is clearly mentioned in Ex.P.18 Discharge
Summary that, there is no blood clot in respect of head injury
relating to the Petitioner. Further, the P.W.2 in his cross-
examination has clearly stated that, during the course of
treatment, he was not underwent any operation. It is pertinent to
note here that, the Petitioner has produced Ex.P.19 Driving Licence
relating to him, which disclosed that, he is a driver. According to
the Petitioner, he was working as a driver at the time of accident.
Still the Petitioner is having Ex.P.19 Driving Licence. The Petitioner
has not surrender the said driving licence to the concerned RTO.
The same has been admitted by the P.W.2 in his cross-
examination. The very Ex.P.19 Driving Licence with the Petitioner
clearly implies that, now also, the Petitioner is doing a driving
work. If really, due to the accidental injuries, the Petitioner is not in
a position to dive the vehicle, he could have been definitely
surrendered his driving licence to the concerned RTO. But,
admittedly, the Petitioner has not surrendered his driving licence to
the concerned RTO till today. It implies that, whatever stated by the
P.W.2 and P.W.5 that, the Petitioner is unable to continue as a
driver because of giddiness, which caused due to the accidental
injuries, is false and far away from truth. More so, neither the
Petitioner nor the P.W.5 produced disability certificate. Even, no
clinical notes are specifically stated by the P.W.5 in his
examination-in-chief. However, at the time of accident, the
Petitioner was 22 years old and in the said road traffic accident, the
Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries and 2 simple injuries
and by considering the line of treatment to the said accidental
injuries and the avocation of the Petitioner, this Tribunal feels, it is
53 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
just, proper and necessary to consider the permanent disability of
the Petitioner is of 5% to the whole body, which is reasonable and
believable one. Hence, the permanent disability of the Petitioner is
considered as 5% to the whole body. Therefore, the Petitioner is
entitled for future loss of income arising out of the permanent
physical and functional disability of 5%.
64. As this Tribunal has already observed that, the age of
the Petitioner was 22 years at the time of accident. The multiplier
corresponding to the said age as per Sarala Varma's case is 18.
Therefore, the loss arising out of the said 5% disability for monthly
income of Rupees 5,000/- by applying multiplier 18 comes to
Rupees 54,000/-, i.e., (Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 18 x 5%). Hence, the
Petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rupees 54,000/- towards loss of
future income arising out of 5% disability.
65. As the Petitioner had sustained 2 grievous injuries and
2 simple injuries in the said road traffic accident and by admitting
as an inpatient for 8 days, he took treatment to the said accidental
injuries, he could have definitely suffered a lot of pain during the
course of treatment, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to award a sum of Rupees 40,000/- towards pain and
suffering.
66. As it is already observed that, the age of the Petitioner
was 22 years. Hence, the Petitioner has to lead remaining his entire
life with 5% permanent physical and functional disability, which
comes in the way of enjoyment of life. Therefore, it is just and
54 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
proper to award a sum of Rupees 10,000/- towards loss of
amenities of life to the Petitioner.
67. The Petitioner had suffered 2 grievous injuries and 2
simple injuries and he was in the Hospital as an inpatient for 8
days and he could not do any work at least for 3 months and
thereby, he deprived the income. Therefore, at the rate of Rupees
5,000/- per month, a sum of Rupees 15,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 3) is
awarded towards loss of income during the laid up period.
68. The P.W.2 has stated that, he has spent a sum of
Rupees 1,15,043-35 towards his medical treatment, medicines,
conveyance, nourishment and diet charges. The Petitioner has
produced Ex.P.21 Medical Bills 29 in numbers, which is amounting
to Rupees 1,15,043-35 and Ex.P.22 Medical Prescriptions 26 in
numbers. Considering the nature of the injuries and line of
treatment given to the Petitioner, the possibility of spending the
said amount for the medicines cannot be doubted. Therefore, it is
necessary to award the said actual medical expenses of Rupees
1,15,043-35 to the Petitioner, which is rounded of Rupees
1,15,044/-.
69. Neither the P.W.2 nor the P.W.5 stated anything about
the future medical assistance and its expenses in their evidence.
Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards
future medical expenses.
70. The P.W.1 has stated that, he used to go by an
Autorickshaw for the follow-up treatment by paying Rupees 250/-
55 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
per trip. By considering the same and as the Petitioner was
admitted as an inpatient for 8 days in the Hospital to take
treatment, it is necessary to award a sum of Rupees 5,000/-
towards conveyance charges, Rupees 5,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rupees 5,000/- towards food, nourishment and diet
charges etc.,
71. In this way, the Petitioner is entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl.
Compensation heads Compensation amount
No.
1. Loss of future income Rs. 54,000-00
arising out of 5% Disability
2. Pain and sufferings Rs. 40,000-00
3. Loss of amenities of life Rs. 10,000-00
4. Loss of income during laid Rs. 15,000-00
up period
5. Actual medical expenses Rs. 1,15,044-00
6. Conveyance Rs. 5,000-00
7. Attendant Charges Rs. 5,000-00
8. Food, Nourishment & Rs. 5,000-00
Diet charges
TOTAL Rs. 2,49,044-00
72. In all, the Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014 is entitled
for total compensation of Rupees 2,49,044/-with interest at the
rate of 6% per annum on the above said sum from the date of
Petition till payment.
73. ISSUE No.3 IN M.V.C.No.2292/2014 :- While
discussing above, this Tribunal has already come to the conclusion
based on Ex.P.25 to Ex.P.27 that, in the said road traffic accident,
56 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
the deceased Ravichandran R. had sustained multiple grievous
injuries and during the course of treatment, he succumbed to the
injuries in Hiriyur Government Hospital.
74. The P.W.3 has stated that, at the time of accident, his
deceased son Ravichandran R. was hale and healthy and he was a
BBM Student-cum part time worker and he was a brilliant and
intelligent student from the beginning and he was studying 2nd
Semester at NTTE, Dr.Nitesh Shankiara Adyanthaya Memorial 1st
Grade College. The Petitioners have produced Ex.P.31 College
Identity Card, Ex.P.32 IInd PUC Marks Card and Ex.P.33 II
Semester BBM Marks Card relating to the deceased
Ravichandran.R. Except the said documents, no other academic
documents produced by the Petitioners, to show that, the deceased
was a brilliant and intelligent student from the beginning. From the
contents of the said material documents, it is only seen that, at the
time of accident, the deceased was studying in 2nd Semester of
BBM. From this, it is made crystal clear that, at the time of
accident, the deceased Ravichandran.R was a college student.
75. The P.W.3 has stated that, his deceased son was
working as a part time Accountant at M/s Sri.Ram Builders and
Contractors and earning a sum of Rupees 9,500/- per month for
his pocket personal expenses. In this regard, the Petitioners have
produced Ex.P.28 Salary Certificate dated 03.12.2014, which
disclosed that, at the time of accident, the deceased was working as
a part time Accountant in M/s Sri.Ram Builders and Contractors
and his last drawn salary was Rupees 9,500/- per month. But, only
based on the contents of Ex.P.28 and oral version of P.W.3, it
57 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
cannot be believed and accept that, the deceased was working as a
part time Accountant at M/s Sri.Ram Builders and Contractors
apart from his study and earning a sum of Rupees 9,500/- per
month, as, as per Ex.P.31 College Identity Card, the date of birth of
deceased is 24.05.1994, which clarifies the fact that, at the time of
accident, the deceased was 20 years old. Further, the Petitioners
have not examined the author of Ex.P.28 Salary Certificate dated
03.12.2014. Further, the Petitioners have not produced any Bank
statement, pay slips or salary register relating to the deceased to
show that, the deceased was earning Rupees 9,500/- per month at
the time of accident. Further more, the P.W.3 in his cross-
examination has clearly shown his ignorance about the place of
working of the deceased by saying that, he does not know that,
where his deceased son was working. Further, though the P.W.3
has stated in his cross-examination that, he has no hurdle to
examine the author of Ex.P.28, he has not examined the author of
Ex.P.28, which is very much fatal to consider the income of the
deceased as stated by the P.W.3. Therefore, the income of the
deceased was Rupees 9,500/- per month at the time of accident as
stated by the P.W.3 and as mentioned in Ex.P.28 Salary Certificate
cannot be believed and accept. However, at the time of accident,
the deceased was 20 years old and he was a BBM student, by
considering the same, this Tribunal feels that, it is just, proper and
necessary to consider the notional income of the deceased is of
Rupees 5,000/- per month, which is reasonable and believable one.
Hence, the notional income of the deceased is considered as
Rupees 5,000/- per month at the time of accident.
58 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
76. The P.W.3 has stated that, due to sudden death of his
son, they have been deprived of their bright and intelligent son.
77. As per the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh
and Others V/s Rajbir Singh and Others), having regard to the
age of the deceased, 50% of the actual income has to be added
towards future prospects. Therefore, by adding Rupees 2,500/-
(50% of Rupees 5,000/-), the income per month comes to Rupees
7,500/- p.m. (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.2,500/-).
78. As per the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 739
(BMTC Central Office V/s B.N. Nagesh and Another), the age of
younger parent has to be taken for applying multiplier. As per the
decision reported in Reshma Kumari's Case rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the father cannot be considered as
dependent of the deceased. The Petitioner No.2, who is a mother of
the deceased Ravichandran.R, is a younger parent. The age of the
Petitioner No.2 as per Ex.P.29 Ration Card is 38 years as on
22.11.2010 and as per the cause title of the petition, the age of the
Petitioner No.2 is 41 years. The date of accident is on 19.04.2014.
From this, it appears that, the age of the Petitioner No.2 is 42 years
as on the date of the accident. The corresponding multiplier
applicable to the age of the Petitioner No.2 is 14 as per Sarala
Varma's Case.
79. While answering Issue No.1, this Tribunal has already
come to the conclusion that, the Petitioner No.1, who is a father
can not be considered as dependent of the deceased and the
Petitioner No.2, who is the mother of the deceased, can only be
59 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
considered as dependent of the deceased. Therefore, the said
deceased Ravichandran.R left behind only one dependant. Hence,
50% of the income of the deceased has to be deducted towards his
personal expenses as per Sarala Varma's Case. Therefore, if out of
Rupees 7,500/-, 50% is deducted, the loss of dependency comes to
Rupees 3,750/- p.m. (50% of Rs.7,500/-). The loss of dependency
comes to Rupees 6,30,000/- (Rupees 3,750/- x 12 x 14). Hence,
the petitioners are entitled for the said sum of Rupees 6,30,000/-
towards loss of dependency.
80. The P.W.3 has stated that, he has spent a total sum of
Rupees 60,000/- towards transportation, conveyance, obsequies
and other religious ceremonies by borrowing loan from the relatives
and friends. In this regard, except the oral version of the P.W.3, the
Petitioners have not produced any documents. But, as per the
decision reported in 2013 ACJ 1403 (Rajesh and Others V/s
Rajbir Singh and Others), loss of love and affection has to be
compensated by awarding Rupees 25,000/- and funeral expenses
of Rupees 25,000/-. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of
Rupees 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rupees
25,000/- towards funeral expenses.
81. It is just, proper and necessary to award a sum of
Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of the dead body
and Rupees 10,000/- towards loss of estate. Hence, the petitioners
are entitled for Rupees 5,000/- towards transportation expenses of
the dead body and Rupees 10,000/- towards loss of estate.
60 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
82. In this way, the Petitioners are entitled for the following
amount of compensation:-
Sl.
Compensation heads Compensation amount
No.
1. Loss of Dependency Rs. 6,30,000-00
2. Loss of love and affection Rs. 25,000-00
3. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000-00
4. Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000-00
of
dead body
5. Loss of Estate Rs. 10,000-00
TOTAL Rs. 6,95,000-00
83. In view of the above said reasons, the petitioners are
entitled for total compensation of Rupees 6,95,000/-. The
Petitioners are also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on the
said amount of compensation from the date of petition till payment.
84. While answering the above said Issues, this Tribunal has
already come to the conclusion that, the offending Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 as well as its driver are very much
involved in the said road traffic accident, wherein, the Petitioner in
M.V.C.No.2290/2014 had sustained 2 grievous injuries and the
Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014 had sustained 2 grievous
injuries and 2 simple injuries and deceased Ravichandran.R are
succumbed to the injuries in the said road traffic accident, during
the course of treatment. From the cause title of the petition, it
appears that, the Respondents No.1 is the insurer and the
Respondent No.2 is an owner of the offending Car bearing
Registration No.KA-04-ME-9703 at the time of accident. The
Respondent No.1 has produced the true copy of Insurance Policy
61 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
relating to the said offending Car, which clearly disclosed that, at
the time of accident, the offending Car bearing Registration No.KA-
04-ME-9703 was having a valid insurance policy and the
Respondent No.2 is a registered owner of the said offending Car
and the period of insurance cover the date of accident. From this,
it is made crystal clear that, at the time of accident, the
Respondent No.2 was a registered owner and the Respondent No.1
was an insurer of the said offending Car at the time of accident. To
deny or to discard the same, nothing is available on record on
behalf of Respondent No.2. There is no allegation leveled as
against the deceased driver of the said offending Car in Ex.P.6
Charge Sheet that, at the time of accident, he was not having a
valid and effective driving licence to drive such class of vehicle. The
violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not
proved by the Respondents No.1. Under such circumstances, the
Respondent No.2 being a registered owner and the Respondent
No.1 being an insurer of the said offending Car, are jointly and
severally liable to pay the above said compensation and interest to
the Petitioners. Hence, the petition filed by the Petitioners as
against the Respondents No.1 and 2 are liable to be partly allowed.
Hence, Issue No.2 in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and Issue No.3 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014
are answered accordingly.
85. ISSUE NO.3 in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 and
M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and Issue No.4 in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 :-
For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following,
62 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w
M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7)
ORDER
The petition filed by the Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2290/2014, M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and M.V.C.No.2292/2014 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, are hereby partly allowed with costs.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 2,62,380/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses of Rupees 10,000/-) from the date of the petition till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Petitioner in M.V.C.No.2291/2014 is entitled for compensation of Rupees 2,49,044/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition, till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 are entitled for
compensation of Rupees 6,95,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition, till the date of payment, from the Respondent No.1.
The Petitioners in M.V.C.No.2292/2014 shall share the
compensation and interest in the ratio of 30:70.
The Respondent No.1 shall deposit the said compensation and interest in this Tribunal, within one month from the date of this order, in all the cases.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest in M.V.C.No.2290/2014, 50% shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on 63 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7) proper identification and remaining 50% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest in M.V.C.No.2291/2014, 80% shall be released in the name of the Petitioner through account payee cheque, on proper identification and remaining 20% shall be kept in FD in the name of the Petitioner, in any nationalized Bank of his choice, for a period of 3 years.
In the event of deposit of compensation and interest in M.V.C.No.2292/2014, 50% each share shall be released in the names of the Petitioners through account payee cheque, on proper identification and remaining 50% each share shall be kept in FD in their respective names, in any nationalized Bank of their choice, for a period of 3 years.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rupees 1,000/- in each case.
Original copy of the Judgment shall be kept in M.V.C.No.2290/2014 and the copy of the same shall be kept in M.V.C.No.2291/2014 and M.V.C.No.2292/2014.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then, pronounced by me in the open Court on this, the 11th day of June, 2015.) (INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.
64 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/wM.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7) ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
P.W.1 : Pavan Kumar
P.W.2 : Sharath Kumar.S.
P.W.3 : Ramareddy.K.
P.W.4 : Dr.B.Ramesh
P.W.5 : Dr.V.S.Shankaregowda
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE PETITIONERS :-
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 Wound Certificate
Ex.P.6 : True copy Charge Sheet
Ex.P.7 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P.8 : Letter dt.3.5.2014
Ex.P.9 : Notarized xerox copy of Aadhar Card
relating to Pavan Kumar.N
Ex.P.10 : Notarized xerox copy of Collede Identity Card relating to Pavan Kumar.N Ex.P.11 : College Certificate Ex.P.12 : Photograph ( 2 in nos) Ex.P.13 : C.D.relating to Ex.P.12 Photographs Ex.P.14 : Medical Bills (28 in nos) Ex.P.15 : Medical Prescriptions (16 in nos) Ex.P.16 : X-ray Film Ex.P.17 : True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P.18 : Discharge Summary Ex.P.19 : Notarized xerox copy of driving licence relating to Sharath Kumar.S. Ex.P.20 : Salary/Termination Certificate Dt.15.10.2014 Ex.P.21 : Medical Bills (29 in nos) Ex.P.22 : Medical Prescriptions (26 in nos) Ex.P.23 : X-ray films ( 8 in nos) Ex.P.24 : C.T.Scan Films ( 8 in nos) 65 M.V.C.No.2290/2014 c/w M.V.C No.2291 & 2292/2014 (SCCH-7) Ex.P.25 : True Copy of Complaint Ex.P.26 : True copy of Post Mortem Report Ex.P.27 : True copy of Inquest Ex.P.28 : Salary Certificate dt.3.12.2014. Ex.P.29 : Notarized xerox copy of ration Card Ex.P.30 : Notarized xerox copy of Election Identity Card relating to Ravichandran.R. Ex.P.31 : Notarized xerox copy of College Identity Card relating to Ravichandran.R. Ex.P.32 : Notarized xerox copy of II PUC Marks Card relating to Ravichandran.R. Ex.P.33 : Notarized xerox copy of II Semister BBM Marks Card relating to Ravichandran.R. Ex.P.34 : OPD Card Ex.P.35 : X-ray films Ex.P.36 : OPC Card Ex.P.37 : X-ray Films relating to chest and skull ( 2 in nos) Ex.P.38 : USG of Abdomen and Pelvis
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED BY THE RESPONDENTS :-
-NIL-
(INDIRA MAILSWAMY CHETTIYAR) IX Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-7, Bangalore.