Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

S.R. Shamanth vs Muniraju .V on 5 April, 2024

SCCH-14                       1                        MVC.2643/2020

KABC020127322020




BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
                       BANGALORE CITY.

                          SCCH­14

              Dated : This the 5th day of April 2024

          Present : SRI. YATHISHA.R.
                                      B.A.L.,L.L.B.,
                     MEMBER, MACT,
                     XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
                     COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
                     BENGALURU.

                      MVC No.2643/2020

Petitioner:               R.Shamanth,
                          S/o S.K.Rajanna,
                          Aged about 25 years,
                          R/at Sadahalli, Devanahalli Taluk,
                          Bangalore Rural District.

                          (By Sri.Krishna Murthy.S.G,Adv)

                            Vs
Respondents :             1.Muniraju.V.
                          S/o Venkatappa,
                          No.204­2, Sadahalli,
                          Devanahalli Taluk,
                          Bangalore Rural District.
 SCCH-14                       2                      MVC.2643/2020

                             (Exparte)

                           2.The Manager,
                           Iffco Tokio General Ins.Co.Ltd.,
                           Office at No.2262, 7th B Main,
                           3rd Stage, Near Yelanka New Town,
                           Bangalore - 560 0106.

                             (By Sri.B.Anjaneyalu,Adv)

                      :JUDGMENT:

This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.50,00,000/­ for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic accident.

2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:

That on 02­11­2019 at about 8.30 p.m., the Petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.KA­50­X­7687 on Sadarahalli road, near Jed Garden, Devanahalli, Bangalore. At that time, a motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194 ridden by its rider came from same direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against petitioner's motor cycle. Due to the impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after SCCH-14 3 MVC.2643/2020 the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to NRV hospital for first aid treatment and thereafter he was shifted to Astra CMI hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient.
Prior to the accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and he was studying computer engineer and preparing to UPSC exams and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/­ p.m. Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries causing permanent disablement.
The Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and the Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending motor cycle and therefore, both Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.

3. In pursuance of service of notice to the Respondents, Respondent No.1 remained absent, hence placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared before the court through its counsel and filed objections to the main petition.

In the Objection Statement of Respondent No.2, it denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied SCCH-14 4 MVC.2643/2020 the accident caused by the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by its rider. Further it has denied the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in the accident and the expenses incurred for the medical treatment. Further it contended that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent riding of motor cycle by petitioner himself and he was not wearing helmet at the time of accident. It is further contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Hence, among these and other grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following Issues.

ISSUES

1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 02.11.2019 at about 8.30 p.m. near Sadarahalli road near Jed Garden, Devanahalli, Bangalore, due to the rash SCCH-14 5 MVC.2643/2020 and negligent riding of rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If yes, what is the quantum and who is liable to pay?

3. What Order or Award?

5. In order to substantiate the case of the Petitioner, the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 16 documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.16. He also got examined two witnesses as P.W.2 and PW.3 and got marked documents as per Ex.P­17 and 18 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, the Respondents have not chosen to adduce any evidence.

6. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2, upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited and materials available on record, my answer to the above Issues are as under:

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No. 2 : Partly in the Affirmative SCCH-14 6 MVC.2643/2020 Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order for the following :

REASONS

7. Issue No. 1 : It is the case of the Petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic accident that occurred on 02­11­2019 at about 8.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent riding of rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­ 7194.

8. On the other hand, the Respondent No.2 has denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194.

9. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, he got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 16 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P­16. P.W.1 has re­iterated the Petition averments in his chief­affidavit. Ex.P­1 to Ex.P­7 are the True copies of FIR along with complaint, Spot panchanama, notice u/s 133 of MV Act, copy of reply to the said notice, Wound certificate, IMV report and charge sheet. Ex.P.8 and 9 are the Discharge summaries, Ex.P.10 is the Medical bills. Ex.P.11 is SCCH-14 7 MVC.2643/2020 the outpatient records. Ex.P.12 is the Prescriptions. Ex.P.13 is advance receipts. Ex.P.14 is Engineering certificate. Ex.P.15 is copy of Driving licence and Ex. P.16 is Aadhar card.

10. Upon going through Ex.P­1 ie., FIR with Complaint, same is evident that on the complaint lodged before BIAL Traffic Police station, the HC of the concerned Police Station has registered the case against the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194 for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC. The document Ex.P.7 i.e., charge sheet discloses the fact that after thorough investigation IO has charge sheeted the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194 for the offences punishable under Secs.279, 338 of IPC. The documents Ex. P.3, P.4 and P.6 would justify the fact of involvement of vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA­43­V­7194 in the accident. The document Ex.P.4 and P.7 would establish the fact that the offending vehicle in question was ridden by one Mr.Manjunatha S/o Venkateshappa against whom the IO has submitted charge sheet for the offences alleged punishable u/s 279,338 of IPC.

SCCH-14 8 MVC.2643/2020

11. Further, P.W.1 examined Dr.Nagaraj.B.N as P.W.2 and got marked clinical report and X­ray at Ex.P.17 and 18.

12. Further, P.W.1 examined Dr.Ravindra Battu as P.W.3. He also re­iterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA.

13. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1, the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 cross examined the P.W.1. In the cross­ examination P.W.1 has denied the suggestions of the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the contentions of the Petitioner.

14. Further, the Respondent No.2 has not adduced any evidence to rebut the evidence of petitioner. In addition to this, the IO after thorough investigation filed a charge sheet against the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194. The said charge sheet admittedly remained unchallenged till date. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition and documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is occurred by the SCCH-14 9 MVC.2643/2020 rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194 and in the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 1 in the 'Affirmative'.

15. Issue No. 2 : As the petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.

16. In the petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 24 years. He has produced Aadhar card at Ex.P.16 to prove his age. As per Aadhar card, date of birth of the petitioner was 08­ 08­1994. The accident has taken place on 02.11.2019. Hence, the age of the Petitioner, as on the date of accident was taken as 25 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.

17. Further, the petitioner has averred that he had completed his Computer Science Engineering, preparing for UPSC exam and was also working and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/­p.m. In this regard, he has not produced any SCCH-14 10 MVC.2643/2020 documents to substantiate the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e., Rs.14,500/­p.m. as the accident has been occurred in the year of 2020, for the purpose of assessment of compensation.

18. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :

I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:

19. The petitioner has deposed that as per wound certificate at Ex. P.5, he has sustained following injuries.

1. Lacerated wound of 5 x 4 x 3 cms. over the right eyebrow bleeding from the nose and oral cavity.

2. CT scan of brain and facio maxillary region and other injuries.

Further the doctor has opined injuries are grievous in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the SCCH-14 11 MVC.2643/2020 Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/­ under this head would be just and reasonable.

II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES :

20. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/­ under this head would be just and reasonable.

III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:

21. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 02.11.2019 to 11.11.2019 and again from 15.10.2020 to 17.10.2020. Further, P.W.2 Dr.Nagaraj.B.N and PW.3 Ravindra Battu have also reiterated the same in their evidence. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 13 days.
22. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the laid up period may SCCH-14 12 MVC.2643/2020 be considered as two months. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.28,000/­ under this head (@ Rs.14,000/­ per month).

IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :

23. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for her conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/­ towards attendants charges, Rs.5,000/­ towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.5,000/­ towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/­ under this head.

V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENCES :

24. The Petitioner has deposed that he spent Rs.8,00,000/­ towards medical expenses. The petitioner has SCCH-14 13 MVC.2643/2020 produced 69 medical bills at Ex.P.10 amounting to Rs.4,76,388/­. I have perused the same carefully. Careful perusal of Ex.P.10 justifies the fact that petitioner has spent Rs.4,76,388/­. Moreover, the medical bills are not disputed by the respondent No.2. They appears to be acceptable. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.4,76,388/­ which is rounded off to Rs.4,76,400/­ as a compensation under this head.

VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT DISABILITY :

25. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and due to the injury to the right kidney, right kidney was removed. He is still suffering from pain in the face, mouth head, eye, right leg and deep mental agony, cannot do work as earlier and cannot do regular activities. Even during his examination in chief he has deposed the same. However, SCCH-14 14 MVC.2643/2020 during his cross examination dated 19.01.2024 PW.1 categorically admitted that now he is working as Diploma Engineer in Delight Company. Such being the case, there appears no loss of future earnings suffered by the petitioner as a result of RTA. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled for any compensation under this head.

TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:

26. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 50,000/­
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/­
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 15,000/­ diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs.4,76,400/­
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 28,000/­ laid up period
6. Loss of Future income ­­­­­ Total Rs.5,89,400/­ Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.5,89,400/­ with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization. SCCH-14 15 MVC.2643/2020
27. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA­43­V­7194. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of motor cycle. The Policy is valid and in force at the time of accident. There is no dispute about the validity of the policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
28. ISSUE No. 3 : In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 and 2 U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of Rs.5,89,400/­ along with SCCH-14 16 MVC.2643/2020 interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.
The Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, 50% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E­ payment after proper identification and the remaining 50% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years of his choice.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/­. Draw Award accordingly.
SCCH-14 17 MVC.2643/2020
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on the computer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 5th day of April 2024) [[ (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Shamanth P.W.2 : Dr.Nagaraj.B.N P.W.3 : Ravindra Bhattu Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners : 
 Ex.P.1             : True Copy of FIR along with
                      complaint
 Ex.P.2             : True Copy of Spot Panchanama
 Ex.P.3               True Copy of notice u/s 133 of
                      MV Act
 Ex.P.4             : True Copy of reply to notice
 Ex.P.5             : True Copy of Wound certificate
 Ex.P.6             : True Copy of IMV report
 Ex.P.7             : True Copy of Charge sheet
 Ex. P.8            : Discharge summary
 Ex. P.9            : Discharge summary
 Ex. P.10           : Medical bills (69 in nos.) along
 SCCH-14                            18                 MVC.2643/2020

                       with patient bill
 Ex. P.11           : Out patient records (13 in nos.)
 Ex. P.12           : Prescriptions (9 in nos.)
 Ex. P.13           : Advance receipts (5 in nos.)
 Ex. P.14           : Notarized copy of Engineering
                      Certificate
 Ex. P.15           : Notarized copy of DL
 Ex. P.16           : Notarized copy of Aadhar card
 Ex. P.17           : Clinical report
 Ex. P.18           : X­ray
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents : ­ NIL ­ Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents : ­ NIL ­ (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, Digitally signed by YATHISHA BENGALURU.
R
YATHISHA Date: 
    R          2024.04.19
               12:42:17
               +0530