Bangalore District Court
In 1. Smt.Suguna vs In 1) Sri.N.Nagaraj on 20 February, 2020
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH11).
DATED THIS 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020
PRESENT: SMT. B.S.RAYANNAWAR, B.A., L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
M.V.C NO.3263 & 3264/2011
PETITIONERS IN 1. Smt.Suguna,
MVC:3263/11 W/o.Late Veerabhadra
@ Veerabhadrappa
Aged about 27 years,
2. Master. Anil.V.,
S/o. Late Veerabhadra
@ Veerabhadrappa
aged about 08 years,
3. Master.Sunil.V,
S/o. Late Veerabhadra
@ Veerabhadrappa
aged about 06 years,
4. Sri.Venkatappa,
S/o.Late Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 60 years,
5. Smt.Chowdamma,
W/o.Venkatappa,
Aged about 55 years,
The petitioners No.2 & 3 are since
Minors represented by natural
guardian and their mother 1st
petitioner.
All are residing at
Chowdadenahalli Village,
Doddavallabbi Post, Kolar Taluk,
(By pleader Sri.N.Manjunath)
SCCH - 11 2 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
PETITIONER IN Sri.Venkatesh,
MVC:3264/11 S/o.muniraj,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at
No.11868A,
Nethaji Nagar,
Kelemangalam,
Denkanikottai,
Krishnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu.
(By pleader Sri.N.Manjunath)
V/S
RESPONDENTS IN 1) Sri.N.Nagaraj,
BOTH THE CASES S/o. Late Nagappa,
Major by age,
R/at Byrandahalli Village,
Vemgal Post,
Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri.B.V.S. Advocate)
2) The Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Company Limited,
No.31, TBR Tower, 1st Cross,
New Mission Road,
Next to Bangalore Stock Exchange,
J.C. Road, Bangalore - 02.
(By Sri.R.S.S. Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are came to be filed by the petitioners under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of
SCCH - 11 3 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
Rs.25,00,000/ and Rs.10,00,000/ respectively with interest from
the date of accident till the date of realization on account of the
death of her husband Veerabjadra @ Veerabjadrappa in MVC
3263/2011 and personal injury sustained by the petitioner in MVC
3264/2011 in the Motor accident that took place on 20.02.2011.
2) Since these two petitions are arisen out of one accident,
they are clubbed together and common evidence was recorded in
MVC 3263/2011.
The brief facts of the petitioners case are as follows:
That on 20.02.2011 the deceased in MVC 3263/2011 and the P in
MVC 3264/2011 were going towards their village Chowdadenahalli
from Kadadanahalli, by riding TVS Apache motorcycle bearing
Reg.No.KA03EY9475 as a rider and pillion rider slowly and
cautiously on correct side of the road. On the way at about 6.00 pm
near S.V.B Bricks factory, on Malur - Narasapura Road, one
Mahindra Xylo Car bearing Reg.No.KA07M3091 came from
opposite direction i.e., Narasapura side, driven by its driver at high
speed in a rash and negligent manner went to the wrong side of the
SCCH - 11 4 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
road and dashed violently against the motorcycle. Due to impact
both occupants, the said motorcycle were knocked down and the
sustained grievous injuries.
3) Immediately deceased Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa (In
MVC 3263/2011) was taken to R.L Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. After
first aid he was referred to NIMHANS hospital, Bangalore. In turn he
was taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore in the hospital in course of
treatment he succumbed to the injuries on 21.02.2011 at about 4.30
a.m.,
4) The deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 30
years at the time of accidental death. He was a Mason Supervisor by
profession and he was earning about Rs.9,000/ per month. The
Petitioners were entirely depending upon the earnings of the
deceased. After his death the Petitioners do not have any other
source of income for their livelihood. Due to untimely death of the
deceased, the Petitioners are put lot of mental agony and untold
misery. The Petitioners have spent about Rs.50,000/ towards
SCCH - 11 5 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
transportation of dead body and funeral obsequies.
5) Immediately Petitioner in MVC 3264/2011 Venkatesh was
taken to R.L Jalappa Hospital, Kolar. In the hospital Xrays were
taken and clinical examination was done. Closed fracture mid shaft
of left tibial with anterolateral displacement was noticed and he was
treated with conservative line of treatment as an inpatent and he
was discharged form the hospital on 09.03.2011. There after till
today the Petitioner as an outpatient.
6) The Petitioner was a Mason by profession and he was
earing Rs.9,000/ per month. After the accident the Petitioner was
bed ridden for about three months and lost his income leave
benefits. In future the Petitioner may not work as earlier due to
disability and impediment. So far the Petitioner has spent
Rs.50,000/ towards treatment, medicine, conveyance etc.,
7) The 1st Respondent being the RC owner and the 2 nd
Respondent being the insurer of the offending Mahindra Xylo Car are
SCCH - 11 6 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioners.
Hence they prayed for allowing the petition.
8) After service of notice, Respondents have appeared
through their respective advocate and contested the claim of the
petitioners by filing separate written statements, wherein they denied
the allegations made in the petition as false and frivolous. They have
further disputed the manner of the accident, age of the injured and
deceased and quantum of the compensation claimed under different
heads. They have further contended that, the alleged accident
occurred not due to the negligent act of the offending vehicle. The
deceased contributor more negligence for occurrence of this accident
of deceased drove the motor cycle at high speed and suddenly went
to the wrong side of the road and dashed to the car which was
proceeding left side of the road. Hence petitioners are not entitled for
any compensation. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
9) On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the following
issues have been framed:
SCCH - 11 7 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
ISSUES IN MVC 3263/2011
1. Whether petitioner proves that on 20.02.2011 at
about 6.00 p.m., near SVB Bricks Factory, on
MalurNarasapura Road, Kolar Taluk & District,
the driver of the vehicle, bearing Regn.No.KA07
M3091 drove the said vehicle in a rash or
negligent manner so as to endanger human life
and dashed the vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA03
EY9475, ridden by Veerabhadra @
Veerabhadrappa causing him grievous injuries
and later he succumbed to the said injuries?
2) Whether the petitioners are the dependants of the
deceased Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa ?
3) Whether the petitioner is entitled to for
compensation? If so, what amount and from
whom ?
4) What Order ?
ISSUES IN MVC 3264/2011
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 20.02.2011 at
about 6.00 p.m., near SVB Bricks Factory, on
MalurNarasapura Road, Kolar Taluk & District,
petitioner being pillion rider of the vehicle
bearing Regn.No.kA03EY9475 had met with an
accident due to rash or negligent driving of the
vehicle bearing Regn.No.KA07M3091 by its
driver and sustained injuries as averred ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to for
compensation? If so, what amount and from
SCCH - 11 8 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
whom ?
3) What Order?
10) During the course of trial, in order to prove the petitioners
case, petitioner No.1 in MVC 3263/2011 Smt.Suguna examined as
PW.1 and produced 18 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.18. The
Petitioner in MVC3264/2011 examined himself as PW.2 and produced
Exs.P.19 to P.55. Dr.Imran Hussain in MVC 3264/2011 examined as
PW.3 and produced Exs.P.56 to P.59. On the other hand 1 st Respondent
examined himself as RW.1 and produced Exs.R.1 to R.3. The 2 nd
Respondent examined Mr.Krishna Sheernali - Asst. Manager as RW.2 and
produced Exs.R.4 to R.11.
11) Inspite of sufficient opportunity petitioner not submitted
arguments hence argument taken as nil. Heard arguments by
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
12) My findings to the above issues are as follows:
[
SCCH - 11 9 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
IN BOTH CASES
Issue No.1 & 2 In the Affirmative;
in both cases:
Issue No.2 &3 Partly in the Affirmative.
in both cases:
Issue No.3 & 4 As per final order, for the following:
in both cases:
REASONS
13) Issue No. 1 in MVC No.3264/2011 & Issue No.2 MVC
No.3263/2011: Since the claim petition is filed U/s.166 of M.V. Act, it is
for the petitioners to prove the said accident was caused by driver of
Mahindra Xylo Car bearing Reg.No.KA07M3091 by the actionable
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending Vehicle. In order to
prove their case, the petitioners entered witness box as Pws.1 & 2 by filing
their affidavit as examinationinchief, in which they reiterated the
averments made in the claim petition.
14) Further the petitioners relied in all 55 documents out of
which, Ex.P1 is the copy of FIR, Ex.P2 is the Complaint registered at Malur
PS at Cri.No.34/2011, based on which the Malur police registered crime
No.34/2011 against driver of the said offending vehicle for the offenses
SCCH - 11 10 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
punishable U/s. 279, 337 of IPC, Ex.P.3 is requistion filed by police to
insert section 304(A) of IPC, Ex.P.4 is Complaint, Ex.P.5 Spot Mahajar,
Ex.P.6 is Rough Sketch, Ex.P7 is the IMV Report, Ex.P.8 Inquest Report,
Exs.P9 to 11 is the copy of Statements, Ex.P12 is PM report, Ex.P.13
charge sheet, Ex.P14 death certificate, Ex.p.15 and Ex.P.16 Notarized copy
of Ration Cards, Ex.P.17 and Ex.p.18 Voter I.D Card, Ex.p.19 Wound
Certificate, Ex.P.20 is Discharge Summary, Ex.p.21 to Ex.P.55 are
medical bills.
15) From Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 it is clear that immediately after the said
accident crime was registered against the driver of Mahindra Xylo Car
bearing Reg.No.KA07M3091. FIR is registered against the driver of the
offending vehicle, after the investigation police filed charge sheet against
the driver of Mahindra Xylo Car. From all the above documents reveals
that, the there is an accident in which Veerabhadra died and Venkatesh
sustained injury. During cross examination it is denied suggestion that,
accident is not caused to any negligence on the part of car driver. Further
deposed that, someone informed her about the accident and she had been
to hospital. It is denied suggestion that, her sisters husband has informed
at Jalappa hospital that the accident is occurred due to skid of the motor
cycle. It is denied suggestion that, her deceased husband was himself
SCCH - 11 11 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
riding the motr cycle with high speed and lost his control over the vehicle
and he himself caused tot he accident. They have managed to file false
complaint against the driver of car. No accident is caused with the
respondent no.1s car to her husband.
16) PW.2 who is the injured/pillion rider as well as eye witness to
the accident filed his affidavit by reiterating the contents of the petition
averments. During cross examination admitted that the road on which the
accident is caused there was no heavy traffic. It is denied suggestion that
deceased Veerabhadrappa riding the motorcycle with high speed and lost
his control towards the motorcycle and himself caused the accident. It is
denied suggestion that he informed to the hospital that the accident is
caused due to skid and fall from motorcycle. Moreover in MFA
No.6378/2014 C/W MFA No.6377/2014 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
held - on perusal of the said documents it would clearly indicate that even
in the complaint which has been given by th injured claimant Venkatesh,
it has been stated that the Mahindra Xylo Car bearing No.KA07/M3091
was indeed involved in the accident.
17) Further Rws.1 & 2 have letin their evidence in the matter.
RW.1 is the owner of the vehicle who examined himself in the matter, but
SCCH - 11 12 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
has not been crossexamined himself in the matter, but has not been
crossexamined by the insurance company. More significantly, the officer
of the insurance company RW.2 was examined and crossexamined by the
claimants. In the crossexamination, RW.2 has clearly admitted the own
damage claimed by the owner of the vehicle, and that it was satisfied by
the insurance company. Of course, in this regard, the contention of the
learned counsel for the insurance company is for the purpose of satisfying
the owndamage claim, the question whether the vehicle was involved in
an accident or whether there was negligence on the part of the driver of the
vehicle are irrelevant, but the fact remains that the vehicle had sustained
damage and the own damage claim made by the owner of the vehicle was
satisfied by the insurance company. There is no material on record
produced by the insurance company to state that the damage sustained by
the offending vehicle was not on account of the accident which occurred on
20.02.2011 or that it was due to some other cause. The absence of any
categorical evidence on the part of the insurance company so as to
disprove the case of the claimant would indicate that the insurance
company had only sought to escape its liability in the matter by
contending that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. The tribunal
however, has been swayed by the stand taken by the insurance company
and has totally discarded the claim made by the claimants that the
SCCH - 11 13 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
Mahindra Xylo car was involved in the accident. Hence, the impugned
judgment and awards of the tribunal are set aside and the matter is
remanded to the tribunal for consideration of the case of the claimants
only with regard to the issue of quantum of compensation to be awarded in
the matter. Consequently, point No.1 is answered in favor of the claimants
and against the respondent/insurance company.
18) In the present case no doubt that the counsels for the
respondent No.1 and 2 though crossexamined PW1 and PW.2, in the
crossexamination nothing has been elicited in their cross examination to
disbelieve their case. Hence by perusal of evidence it shows that, accident
occurred due to negligence by the driver of offending vehicle.
19) Besides, as stated above, the jurisdictional police have
investigated the accident in question and filed the a charge sheet wherein
the police have made specific allegation that the accident in question had
taken place because of the actionable negligence of the driver of the
offending vehicle. Besides, the respondent has not produced anything to
show that they have challenged the correctness of the A charge sheet filed
by the jurisdictional police hence, it is sufficient to conclude that the
materials available on record are sufficient to conclude that the accident in
SCCH - 11 14 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
question had taken place because of the actionable negligence of the driver
of the offending vehicle and rider of motor cycle also.
20) The next question would be, whether the petitioner in MVC
No.3264/2011 was sustained grievous injuries and Veerabhadra @
Veerabhadrappa in MVC No.3263/200 died in the accident. It is relevant
to note that the petitioners have produced the wound certificate, Discharge
summary, medical bills, PM Report of Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa,
Inquest panchanama, Therefore, after considering all the police documents
and evidence of PWs1 and 2, in my opinion, the petitioner has proved
that the said accident was only because of actionable negligence on the
part of the driver of offending vehicle and rider of motor cycle was died and
the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. With these observations, I
have answered issue No.1 in MVC 3264/2011 and MVC 3263/2011 as in
the Affirmative.
21) Issue No.2 in MVC No.3264/2011: It is the contention of
petitioner that, in the said accident he sustained grievous injury,
immediately after the accident he was shifted to R.L.Jalappa Hospital,
Kolar. In the hospital Xrays were taken and clinical examination was
SCCH - 11 15 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
done. Closed fracture mid shaft of left tibial with anterolateral
displacement was noticed. In the hospital he underwent surgery i.e.,
closed reduction and internal fixation with X1 tibial nail with interlocking
bolt and he was treated as an inpatient and he was discharged from the
hospital on 09.03.2011. There after he was taking treatment as an out
patient till today. Despite of best available treatment he has not come to
normal position. He cannot walk, sit, squat, climb the stairs, cannot carry
or bear any weight on his left lower limb, cannot use Indian type of toilet.
There is a severe pain at fracture site.
22) In support of his contention PW.2 produced Ex.P.19 wound
certificate reveals that the petitioner has sustained cut lacerated wound
over mid 1/3rd of left leg, left testicle exposed outside through scrotal
laceration doctor opined that the injuries are grievous in nature.
Petitioner produced Ex.P.20 Discharge Summary reveals that, petitioner
took treatment as inpatient from 20.02.2011 to 09.03.2011 that is for 17
days.
23) Petitioner examined the doctor as PW.2 who filed his Affidavit
in lieu of his examination in chief and produced Ex.P.56 OPD card,
Ex.P.57 Disability evaluation and calculation statement, Ex.P.58 Inpatient
SCCH - 11 16 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
Case sheet and Ex.P.59 Xray. PW.2 deposed that, he treated
Sri.Venkatesh who sustained closed fracture mid shaft of left tibial with
anterolateral displacement was noticed. He under went surgery I,e, closed
reduction and internal fixation with IMIL Nail for left tibia on 21.02.2011
and discharged from the hospital on 09.03.2011 with advice of regular
follow up on OPD basis for which he used to attend regularly. Recently on
15.09.2012 he examined him clinically and with Xrays, for assessment of
permanent Residual Physical Disability. He complains of pain in the left
knee and ankle on doing strenuous activities, difficulty in climbing stairs,
squatting, sitting cross leg and using Indian type of toilet. On examination
he has surgical scar mark over left leg with decreased sensation, range of
motion of left knee and ankle joint reduced by 20% muscle strength
reduced by 20% loss of stability factor by 10%. Xray of left leg shows
united tibia fracture with reduced knee joint space with implants in situ.
The disability for left lower limb is 30% and whole body is 15%. PW.2
further deposed that, the patient being mason by occupation finds
difficulty in performing his previous above said occupation. Petitioner
requires one more surgery for the removal of implants costing of
Rs.15,000/ to Rs.20,000/. During cross examination PW.2 deposed that,
he advised the petitioner for physiotherapy treatment and now petitioner
walking without any support. Admitted that now the fractures are united.
SCCH - 11 17 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
As per Ex.P.19 petitioner is aged about 30 years. Considering all these
aspects, I am inclined to award a compensation of Rs.20,000/ under the
head of injury, pain and sufferings.
24) The petitioner has produced medical bills. The total 35
medical bills are marked as Ex.P21 to P.55. The total sum of admissible
medical bill is Rs.19,048/. Therefore, petitioner entitled for compensation
of Rs.19,048/ which is round of Rs.19,050/ under the head of medical
expenses.
25) The petitioner has examined PW.3 who entered into witness
box and specifically stated that the way in which he has assessed the
disability of the petitioner to the extent of 30%, 15% of whole body, total
30% of whole body in respect of lower limb. Though the counsel for the
respondent No.2 Insurance company subjected PW2 to cross
examination, but I do not find any reasons to disbelieve his evidence,
hence considering the age nature of injury it is just and proper to take
disability 8%.
26) The petitioner though contended that prior to accident he was
SCCH - 11 18 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
hale and healthy and working as Mason and earning Rs.9,000/ per
month, but, in order to substantiate the same petitioner not produced any
document. The petitioner has failed to prove his income. Under these
circumstances, this tribunal has to assess the notional income of the
petitioner by taking into consideration his age, year of the accident etc.
Justice would be met with if the notional income of the petitioner is taken
as Rs.6,000/ p.m. It is not much in dispute that as on the date of
accident the petitioner was in between the age group of 2630 years.
Therefore, proper multiplier applicable to the age group of 2630 is '17'.
Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.97,920/
( Rs.6,000/ x 12 x 17 x 8 /100) under head of loss of future income
due to permanent physical disability.
27) Further considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
the possibility of spending amount towards food and nourishment,
conveyance and attendance cannot be ruled out. Therefore, considering
the facts and circumstances of this case, as per discharge summary
petitioner took treatment as inpatient for 17 days hence it is just and
proper to award a compensation of Rs.5,100/ under head food and
nourishment and conveyance charges.
SCCH - 11 19 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
28) As per Ex.P19 wound certificate the petitioner's age is around
30 years as on the date of accident and he has to spend his remaining part
of life with deformity of left lower limb and has to depend either on others
to do day today activities. Keeping in mind all these future consequences
because of the said accidental injuries, I am inclined to award a
compensation of Rs.10,000/ under the head of loss of amenities.
Therefore, I am inclined to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/ under
the head of loss of amenities.
29) On perusal of injury sustained by the petitioner and on
perusal of medial document shows that, petitioner took treatment as
inpatient for 17 days, hence petitioner may have taken two months rest
hence considering the same, as notional monthly income of petitioner
taken as Rs.6,000/ hence it is proper to award compensation of
Rs.12,000/ under the head of loss of income under laid up period.
30) It is the contention of petitioner that, he has to undergo one
more surgery for removal of implants and it cost Rs.15,000/ to
Rs.20,000/. But PW.3 not produced any estimation of cost to removal of
SCCH - 11 20 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
implants, hence petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/
under the head of future medical expenses. Therefore, on all possible
heads, the petitioner is entitled a reasonable compensation of
Rs.1,74,070/. The headwise compensation is as under:
SL.NO. HEADS AMOUNT
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/
2 Medical expenses Rs. 19,050/
3 Towards conveyance, attendant Rs. 5,100/
charges, food and nourished
food
4 Loss of earning capacity Rs. 97,920/
5 Loss of income during laid up Rs. 12,000/
period
6 Loss of amenities Rs. 10,000/
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 10,000/
TOTAL Rs.1,74,070/
31) ISSUE Nos.2 and 3 IN MVC.No.3263/2011: It is the
contention of petitioners that, petitioner No.1 is wife, Petitioner
Nos.2 & 3 are the children and the Petitioenr Nos.4 & 5 are
parents of the deceased Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa. To
SCCH - 11 21 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
prove that, first petitioner have produced Ration Card and
election identity Cards are marked as Exs.P.15 to P.18. Hence
by perusal of this reveals that, the petitioners are legal heirs of
deceased.
32) It is the contention of petitioners that, at the time of
accident deceased was aged about 30 years, he was a Mason
Supervisor and was earning a sum of Rs.9,000/ per month.
After the death of her husband they do not have any other
source of income for their livelihood. They were entirely
depending upon the earnings of the deceased. They are put to
lot of mental agony and untold misery due to untimely death of
Sri.Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa. But the petitioner not
produced any document in support of avocation and income of
deceased. Hence in absence of documentary evidence it is
proper to take notional income as Rs.6,000/p.m. Petitioner
Nos.1 to 5 are legal heirs of deceased. Totally there are 5
SCCH - 11 22 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
dependents. As per Ex.P.12 PM report the deceased was aged
about 30 years at the time of accident, h ence, the age of deceased
is considered as 30 years to assess loss of dependency, the proper
multiplier would be 17 as per Sarla Verma Case. Petitioner No.1 lost
her husband, Petitioner No.2 & 3 have lost their father, Petitioner
Nos.4 and 5 have lost their son at their older age. Hence, petitioner
No.1 to 5 are considered as legal heirs of deceased. Under the
circumstances as per the Decision reported in Supreme court of
India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25590 of 2014, (National
Insurance Company Limited V/s Pranay Sethi and Others), it is just
and reasonable to award Rs.15,000/, Rs.40,000/ and
Rs.15,000/ under the heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium
and funeral expenses respectively.
33) accident took place in the year 2011 petitioner not
produced any document in support of avocation and income of
deceased, hence it is just and proper to take Income of the deceased
as Rs.6,000/ per month. If 40% is added then it comes to
SCCH - 11 23 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
Rs.8,400/. As the Petitioner Nos.1 to 5 are the Dependants of the
deceased Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa. Hence, if 1/4th is
deducted out of Rs.8,400/ (Rs.8,400/ RS.2,100/) then it would
comes to Rs.6,300/. Since the deceased was aged about 30 years,
the proper multiplier would be 17 as per the ruling reported in: 2009
ACJ 1298 Sarala Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation. So, the
loss of dependency would be Rs.6,300/ x 12 X 17 =
Rs.12,85,200/.
34) Hence, the Petitioners are entitled for total compensation
under different heads as below:
1. For loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/
2 For loss of Consortium Rs. 40,000/
3 For funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/
4 For Loss of Dependency Rs.12,85,200/
Total Rs.13,55,200/
35) While discussing above, I have already come to the
conclusion that, accident occurred due to the rash and negligent
SCCH - 11 24 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
driving by the driver of the Mahindra Xylo Car bearing Reg.No.KA
07M3091. Hence Respondent Nos.1 & 2 being the owner and
insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
Petitioners along with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of petition till
complete realization. Accordingly, I answer issue Nos.2 in
Affirmative & 3 is partly in the affirmative.
36) ISSUE Nos.3 & 4: In view of answers to issues No.1, 2 &3
in both cases, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act are hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.13,55,200/ and Rs.1,74,070/ is awarded to the petitioner in MVC 3263/2011 and MVC 3264/2011 respectively as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of realization from respondents.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount in both cases within a period of 30 days from this day. SCCH - 11 25 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount in MVC 3263/2011, Rs.5,55,200/ shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner No.1, Rs.3,00,000/ each shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and Rs.1,00,000/ each shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5.
Out of compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1, 25% shall be deposited in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years and 75% shall be released in favor of the Petitioner No.1 through epayment on proper identification.
The amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 who are the minors hence the entire amount shall be deposited in any N/S bank till they attains the age of majority. 1 St Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest.
The amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5, entire amount shall be re released in the name of of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 through epayment on proper identification.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount in MVC 3264/2011, Rs.1,74,070/ in favor of the Petitioner, 25% shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of petitioner through epayment on SCCH - 11 26 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
Office to draw award accordingly.
(Original copy of Judgment shall be kept in MVC 3263/2011 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC 3264/2011) (Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 20th day of February 2020.) (B.S.RAYANNAWAR) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONERS:
PW.1 Suguna, PW.2 Venkatesh PW.3 Dr.Imran Hussain
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS:
Ex.P.1 CC of FIR Ex.P.2 CC of complaint Ex.P.3 CC of statement SCCH - 11 27 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 Ex.P.4 CC of statement Ex.P.5 CC of Panchanama Ex.P.6 Copy of sketch Ex.P.7 CC of IMV report Ex.P.8 Inquest Report
Ex.P.911 Witness statement Ex.P.12 P.M report Ex.P.13 CC of charge sheet Ex.P.14 Death certificate.
Ex.P.15 Ration card Ex.P.16 Ration card Ex.P.15 Medical bills Ex.P.17&18 Electoral Identity Card Ex.P.19 Wound certificate Ex.P.20 Discharge summary Ex.P.2155 Hospital bills Ex.P.56 Recent OPD Card Ex.P.57 Disability revaluation card Ex.P.58 Inpatient record Ex.P.59 Xrays SCCH - 11 28 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 N.Nagaraj RW.2 Krishna Sheernali
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS :
Ex.R.1 Driving licence Ex.R.2 RC Ex.R.3 Insurance Policy Ex.R.4 Insurance Policy Exs.R.5 & R.6 - Accident register extracts Ex.R.7 Sketch Exs.R.8 to R.10 Photos Ex.R.11 CD
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM. SCCH - 11 29 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 (Judgment pronounced in open court.) ORDER Petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act are hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.13,55,200/ and Rs.1,74,070/ is awarded to the petitioner in MVC 3263/2011 and MVC 3264/2011 respectively as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of realization from respondents.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount in both cases within a period of 30 days from this day.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount in MVC 3263/2011, Rs.5,55,200/ shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner No.1, Rs.3,00,000/ each shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and Rs.1,00,000/ each shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5.
Out of compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1, 25% shall be deposited in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years and 75% shall be released in favor of the Petitioner No.1 through epayment on proper identification.
The amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner Nos.2 SCCH - 11 30 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 & 3 who are the minors hence the entire amount shall be deposited in any N/S bank till they attains the age of majority. 1St Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest.
The amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5, entire amount shall be re released in the name of of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 through epayment on proper identification.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount in MVC 3264/2011, Rs.1,74,070/ in favor of the Petitioner, 25% shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of petitioner through epayment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
Office to draw award accordingly.
(Original copy of Judgment shall be kept in MVC 3263/2011 and copy of the same shall be kept in MVC 3264/2011) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE SCCH - 11 31 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C NO.3263/2011 PETITIONERS IN 1. Smt.Suguna, MVC:3263/11 W/o.Late Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa Aged about 27 years,
2. Master. Anil.V., S/o. Late Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa aged about 08 years,
3. Master.Sunil.V, S/o. Late Veerabhadra @ Veerabhadrappa aged about 06 years,
4. Sri.Venkatappa, S/o.Late Munivenkatappa, Aged about 60 years,
5. Smt.Chowdamma, W/o.Venkatappa, Aged about 55 years, The petitioners No.2 & 3 are since Minors represented by natural guardian and their mother 1st petitioner.
All are residing at Chowdadenahalli Village, Doddavallabbi Post, Kolar Taluk, (By pleader Sri.N.Manjunath) SCCH - 11 32 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 V/S RESPONDENTS IN 1) Sri.N.Nagaraj, BOTH THE CASES S/o. Late Nagappa, Major by age, R/at Byrandahalli Village, Vemgal Post, Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri.B.V.S. Advocate)
2) The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, No.31, TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Next to Bangalore Stock Exchange, J.C. Road, Bangalore - 02.
(By Sri.R.S.S. Advocate) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt. B.S.Rayannawar, I Addl. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER Petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle SCCH - 11 33 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.13,55,200/ is awarded to the petitioner in MVC 3263/2011 as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of realization from respondents.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount in both cases within a period of 30 days from this day.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount in MVC 3263/2011, Rs.5,55,200/ shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner No.1, Rs.3,00,000/ each shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and Rs.1,00,000/ each shall be apportioned in the name of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5.
Out of compensation amount apportioned in favour of petitioner No.1, 25% shall be deposited in any N/S bank for a period of 3 years and 75% shall be released in favor of the Petitioner No.1 through epayment on proper identification.
The amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner Nos.2 & 3 who are the minors hence the entire amount shall be deposited in any N/S bank till they attains the age of majority. 1St Petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest.
The amount apportioned in favor of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5, entire amount shall be re released in the name of of the Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 through epayment on proper identification. SCCH - 11 34 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2020.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0100 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs.
_____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH - 11 35 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 SCCH - 11 36 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 SCCH - 11 37 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY M.V.C NO. 3264/2011 PETITIONER IN Sri.Venkatesh, MVC:3264/11 S/o.muniraj, Aged about 30 years, Residing at No.11868A, Nethaji Nagar, Kelemangalam, Denkanikottai, Krishnagiri District, Tamil Nadu.
(By pleader Sri.N.Manjunath) V/S RESPONDENTS IN 1) Sri.N.Nagaraj, BOTH THE CASES S/o. Late Nagappa, Major by age, R/at Byrandahalli Village, Vemgal Post, Kolar Taluk.
(By Sri.B.V.S. Advocate)
2) The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, No.31, TBR Tower, 1st Cross, New Mission Road, Next to Bangalore Stock Exchange, J.C. Road, Bangalore - 02.
(By Sri.R.S.S. Advocate) SCCH - 11 38 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt. B.S.Rayannawar, I Addl. Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri./Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER Petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,74,070/ is awarded to the petitioner in MVC 3264/2011 respectively as compensation with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petitions till the date of realization from respondents.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount in both cases within a period of 30 days from this day.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount in MVC 3264/2011, Rs.1,74,070/ in favor of the Petitioner, 25% shall be deposited in the name of petitioner for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the SCCH - 11 39 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 remaining 75% shall be released in favour of petitioner through epayment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2020.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0100 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs.
_____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH - 11 40 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011 SCCH - 11 41 MVC 3263 & 3264/2011