Bangalore District Court
Manjunathswamy vs The Managing Director on 15 December, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH-11)
DATED THIS 15th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015
PRESENT: SRI. GANAPATI GURUSIDDA BADAMI, B.A,LL.B(SPL).
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM
M.V.C No.5938/2009
PETITIONER: Manjunathswamy,
S/o. Nanjundappa,
Aged about 25 Years,
Residing at S-95, 1st Cross,
13th Main, 2nd Stage,
B.E.L. Layout,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore.
(By Pleader Sri.N.Anjanamurthy)
- V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1. The Managing Director,
BMTC, Depot,
K.H. Road, Shanthinagar,
Bangalore-560 027.
(R.C. Owner of BMTC Bus No.KA-01-F-
3540)
(By Pleader Sri.Jagadeesh.G.S)
2. United India Insurance Company
Limited,
Chikpet Branch, Lakshmi Complex,
SCCH- 11 2 MVC No.5938/2009
K.R.Road, Opp. Vani Vilas Hospital,
Bangalore.
(By Pleader Sri.G.V.Jagadeesha)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has filed this petition under section 166 of M.V.Act against the respondent claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in RTA.
2) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:
On 17.02.2009 at about 2:10pm, petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn. No.KA-04-ER-5166 on the extreme left side of the road at the junction of Hegganahalli Road, Doddanna Vidya Samsthe by observing traffic rules and regulations slowly and cautiously. At that time, the driver of B.M.T.C. Bus bearing Regn. No.KA-01-F-3540 came from behind in rash and negligent manner endangering human life, without observing any traffic rules and regulations and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner and caused the SCCH- 11 3 MVC No.5938/2009 accident. Due to the said impact, petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Jai Maruthi Hospital, Hegganahalli, Bangalore, wherein first aid treatment was given. Due to severe injuries sustained by the petitioner, he was referred to PANACEA Hospital, Bangalore for further management, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 17.02.2009 to 21.02.2009 and during the course of treatment, X-rays were taken and multiple fractured injuries were confirmed. The petitioner underwent two surgeries i.e., right hand dorsum skin loss from 1/3 right fore arm to the Meta Carpo phalangeal joints and discharged with an advice for follow-up treatment, restricted fracture movements and for complete bed rest and due to the persistent pain, petitioner was again admitted to the said hospital from 12.03.2009 to 15.03.2009 and he again underwent surgery i.e., flag division and in soil and SSG over right hand forearm and abdomen on 12.03.2009 and after discharge, again he has taken treatment in the said hospital as inpatient from 13.06.2009 to SCCH- 11 4 MVC No.5938/2009 14.03.2009 and he underwent Carpo phalangeal joints of index finger, middle finger, right finger, little finger and debleting of flap over hand and forearm done under brachial black and after better and treatment, he was discharged with an advice for follow-up treatment, restricted fracture movements and for complete bed rest. The petitioner is still continuing follow-up treatment by engaging taxi and so far, he has spent more than Rs.3,50,000/- towards medical, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. The doctors have advised to the petitioner to undergo operations in near future incurring huge expenses. The fractures sustained by the petitioner are not united and he is completely bed ridden and on the ground of the injuries, he cannot walk, stand, sit, squat on the floor, unable to use Indian toilet, cannot lift or carry weight, cannot drive or ride any vehicle, cannot move without anybody support and undergoing deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and injuries have caused permanent disability.
SCCH- 11 5 MVC No.5938/2009
3) Prior to the accident, petitioner was hale and healthy and he was working as Sales Engineer at M/s. Fair Child India Private Limited and he was earning Rs.27,000/- per month and he was maintaining his family members. The petitioner was only earning member in the family. Due to the accidental injuries and complete bed rest, he is unable to attend job and he has sustained loss of earning and earning capacity and he has been put to great financial hardship. The accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and Peenya Traffic police have filed registered the case in Crime No.13/2009 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
4) The respondent No.1 filed written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that, as per the information received by the respondent No.1, there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus SCCH- 11 6 MVC No.5938/2009 bearing No.KA-01-F-3540 and on the contrary, petitioner himself was responsible for the alleged accident as he was not diligent in driving the vehicle and due to his negligence, accident has taken place. The petitioner has filed this petition on the basis of assumptions and presumptions, which is speculative in nature. As per the information received by the respondent No.1, the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-ER.-5166 was ridden by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the BMTC bus and there is negligence on the part of the petitioner. Petitioner has not impleaded owner and insurer of motor cycle bearing No.KA- 04-ER-5166 and petition is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. At the time of accident, the BMTC bus was driven by qualified person to ride the bus and insurance policy No.12066 which was valid from 30.12.2008 to 29.12.2009. The respondent No.2 is solely responsible to pay the compensation. The contents of the claim petition are created story only with an intention to establish by illegal means based upon irrelevant false hood and unrelated facts.
SCCH- 11 7 MVC No.5938/2009 There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the BMTC Bus and respondent No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.1 may be permitted to file additional written statement. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
5) The respondent No.2 has filed written statement and denied the contents of the claim petition. It is contended that, if the respondent No.1 fails to appear and contest the claim petition, the respondent No.2 may be permitted to take all the defences available under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner was driving his motor vehicle in rash and negligent manner and he is solely responsible for the alleged accident and contributory negligence cannot be ruled out. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, arbitrary and without any rational basis. The liability of the respondent No.2 if any is subject to valid fitness certificate as on the date of accident. The respondent No.1 has deliberately, intentionally and knowingly entrusted SCCH- 11 8 MVC No.5938/2009 its vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident. Therefore, it is prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
6) Petitioner herself examined as PW.1 and also examined Dr. Arun H.S. S/o H.S. Shanthappa Naik as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.22 and also examined Dr. Ravi Ramachandra S/o T. Ramachandra Setty as PW.3 and closed the evidence. The respondent No.1 examined Sri. T.R. Chandru S/o D. Ramadasaiah, Smt. Kusuma .K. W/o Sri. Puttaswamy and Basavaraju S/o Basavaiah as RW.1 to 3 and got marked Ex.R.1 to 4 and closed the evidence.
7) Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for both parties and perused the evidence on record.
8) From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed:
SCCH- 11 9 MVC No.5938/2009
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, on 17.02.2009, at 2:10pm, at the junction of Hegganahalli main road Doddanna Vidya Samsthe, Bangalore, the petitioner being the rider of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No. No.KA-04-ER-5166 had met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the BMTC bus, bearing Regn. No.KA-01-F-3540 and sustained injuries in the accident as alleged?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that he is entitled to for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?
3. What order?
-:ADDITIONAL ISSUES:-
1. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
9) My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Affirmative;
Addl.issue No.1 : Negative;
Issue No.2 : Partly Affirmative; the petitioner is
entitled to compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation, from SCCH- 11 10 MVC No.5938/2009 respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the following :
REASONS
10) ISSUE NO.1: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, on 17.2.2009 at about 2:10 pm., he was riding his motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-ER-5166 on extreme left side of Hegganahalli main road-Doddanna Vidya Samsthe, Bangalore by observing traffic rules and regulations. He has also stated that, at that time, the driver of BMTC bus bearing Regn.KA-
01-F-3540 has driven the said vehicle in rash and negligence manner and came behind the motor cycle and dashed to the motor cycle and caused the accident. He has stated that, in the said accident, he has sustained grievous injuries and accident has taken place due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus and Peenya Traffic Police have registered the case in crime No.13/2009 and filed the chargesheet against him.
SCCH- 11 11 MVC No.5938/2009
11) The learned counsel for petitioner has contended in his arguments that, the negligence has been already proved and this court has given finding in the earlier judgment that, the rash or negligent act has been proved. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted in his arguments that, petitioner has not examined the doctor and this court awarded the global compensation and petitioner preferred an appeal before Hon'ble High Court and in the appeal, the BMTC was absent and Hon'ble High Court directed to decide the quantum and after remand, the BMTC appeared and filed written statement and contested the matter. He has also submitted that, after acceptance of written statement, there are changed circumstances and there is violation of order of Hon'ble High Court not only quantum, there is negligence of the petitioner is to be considered. He has also contended that, PW.1 has stated that he fell down and sustained injury and only plastic surgeon has given treatment and treated doctor is not examined by the petitioner and RW.1 has produced records of Panacea hospital in which the history of SCCH- 11 12 MVC No.5938/2009 accident is mentioned as skid and fall. He has also submitted that if the complaint is perused, it discloses that, petitioner and his friends were going on two wheeler by talking with each other and there is accident due to skid and fall and there is negligence on the part of the petitioner and his friends. He has submitted that, there is contributory negligence which is due to the self falling of the petitioner. He has also contended that, petitioner is still working and his salary is more than the date of accident and he is not entitled for future loss of income. He has also contended that, fat will be growing which will not be removed. He has also submitted that, compensation of Rs.60,000/-may be awarded as there is no loss of amenities and no compensation shall be awarded under head of conveyance and petitioner is still attending his work and there cannot be any disability. He has also contended that, petitioner has not examined the treated doctor and he has not summoned treated doctor and he has not proved the disability.
SCCH- 11 13 MVC No.5938/2009
12) In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has stated
that, accident has taken place in two way road and there is no road divider and he does not know the width of the road. He has stated that, businessmen were doing their business on both sides of road and he does not know that, whether there is parking facility or not and accident taken place. He has stated that, offending bus came behind his vehicle and dashed to the hind portion of his vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that, since he dashed his motor cycle to the bus, the front portion damages have been caused to his motor cycle and he has colluded with the police and got filed false complaint.
13) In the cross-examination by learned counsel for respondent No.1, he has stated that, he was going alone on his motor cycle and his friend was coming on another motor cycle. He has denied the suggestion that, accident has taken place due to negligence of himself and his friends as they SCCH- 11 14 MVC No.5938/2009 were going on the road by talking with each other. In the further cross-examination of PW.1 by respondent No.2, he has admitted that, his friend was coming with him on another vehicle. He has denied the suggestion that, since he fell down and the driver of the bus could not control the bus and passed on his right hand. He has stated that, he has not filed complaint to the police and it is filed by his friends by name Harish Kumar.
14) The petitioner has produced certified copy of FIR and complaint which are marked at Ex.P.1 and 2 and as per the said documents, on 17.2.2009, the petitioner and his friends came to Triveni factory at Peenya and when they were going towards Sunkadakatte on their motor cycles, the petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn.KA-04-ER- 5166 and when they came near Hegganahalli Main Road, 2nd Stage Peenya, at that time, driver of BMTC bus bearing Regn.KA-01-F-3540 has driven the same in rash or negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle of the petitioner. On SCCH- 11 15 MVC No.5938/2009 the basis of complaint filed by the friend of the petitioner by name Harish Kumar, police have registered the case in crime No.13/2009. The accident has taken place on 17.2.2009 at about 2:10pm and FIR registered on the same day at about 4:30pm and there is no delay in lodging the complaint. The petitioner has produced certified copy of panchanama and hand sketch map which are marked at Ex.P.3 and 4 and as per said documents, petitioner was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Regn. KA-04-ER-5166 from north to south direction and BMTC bus bearing Regn.KA-01-F-3540 was also proceeding in the same direction and when both vehicles came near the junction, driver of the bus dashed to the motor cycle and caused the accident. The petitioner has also produced certified copy of chargesheet which is marked at Ex.P.5 and as per the said document, police have filed chargesheet against the driver of offending vehicle for the offences 279, 338 of IPC. The petitioner has also produced true copy of statements of the N.Govindaraju, N.Manjunath, H.V.Raghavendra, Venkatesh who have also stated in their SCCH- 11 16 MVC No.5938/2009 statements about rash or negligent driving by the driver of offending bus. The petitioner has produced certified copy of IMV report and as per the said document, damages to front left side crash guard, head light and mirror fresh rub marks are caused to the vehicle bearing No.KA-04-ER-5166 and no fresh visible damages were found on the offending bus and remaining parts of vehicles were in order. The petitioner has produced wound certificate and as per the said documents, he sustained grievous injuries. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, though the respondents have taken contention taken regarding skid and fall by the petitioner, on perusal of the wound certificate, it disclose that, when petitioner fall down due to skid while riding two wheeler vehicle, BMTC bus ran over on his forehand and caused the accident. The driver of the BMTC bus would have stopped and avoided the accident. Even on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it disclose that, the accident has been taken place due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of BMTC bus. Even independent witnesses have stated SCCH- 11 17 MVC No.5938/2009 in their statements that, the driver of the bus came from back side and dashed to the motor cycle. So, I hold that, the accident taken place due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the BMTC bus. The contention regarding the contributory negligence will be discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. The petitioner has proved the rash or negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle. So, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
15) ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.1:- The respondent has taken contention that, the petitioner has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-ER- 5166 in the claim petition and claim petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. But, this contention of the respondent is not acceptable. Because, the jurisdictional police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle and after investigation, they have filed chargesheet against him and there are no materials on record to show that, petitioner was negligent in riding the motor SCCH- 11 18 MVC No.5938/2009 cycle. In the absence of any materials to that affect, the contention taken by the respondent is not at all acceptable. So, I answer Addl.Issue No.1 in the Negative.
16) ISSUE NO.2: PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, after the accident, he was shifted to the Jai Maruthi Hospital, Hegganahalli, Bangalore wherein he took first aid treatment and he was referred to Panacea Hospital, Bangalore wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 17.2.2009 to 21.2.2009. He has stated that, after discharge from the Hospital, he was again admitted to the same Hospital as inpatient from 12.3.2009 to 15.3.2009 and X-rays were taken and he again underwent surgery i.e., flag division and in soil and SSG over right hand forearm and abdomen on 12.3.2009. He has also stated that, again, he took treatment in the same Hospital as inpatient from 13.6.2009 to 14.6.2009 and again underwent surgery on 13.6.2009 i.e. Carpo phalangeal joints of Index finger, middle finger, right finger, little finger of debletting of flap over hand and forearm done under brachial black and SCCH- 11 19 MVC No.5938/2009 after better and necessary treatment, he was discharged with an advice for follow up treatment, restricted fracture movements and for complete bed rest. He has stated that, by engaging taxi, he spent some amount towards medical and other incidental charges. The petitioner has produced medical bills which are marked as Ex.P.11 for having taken treatment in Panacea Hospital and as per the said document, he has spent Rs.2,58,150.74 ps. towards treatment. So, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- under the head of medical expenses. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- under the head of Medical expenses.
17) The petitioner has produced discharge summary issued by Panacea Hospital and as per the said document, he was admitted from 17.2.2009 to 21.2.2009. He has also produced another discharge summary and as per the said document, he was admitted in the Hospital from 12.3.2009 to 15.3.2009. He has also produced one more discharge SCCH- 11 20 MVC No.5938/2009 summary which is marked at Ex.P.10 and as per the said document, he was admitted in the said hospital from 13.6.2009 to 14.6.2009. The petitioner was admitted in the said Hospital for 11 days and during the period of hospitalization, he would have spent some amount towards food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Considering the period of hospitalisation, cost of living and expenses, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of food, nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges.
18) The petitioner was admitted in Panacea hospital from 17.2.2009 to 21.2.2009, 12.3.2009 to 15.3.2009 and from 13.6.2009 to 14.6.2009. During the period of hospitalisation, petitioner would have lost some income and his family members who attended him would have also lost SCCH- 11 21 MVC No.5938/2009 their income. Considering the period of hospitalization, avocation and income of the petitioner, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for Rs.15,000/- as compensation under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.15,000/- under the head of loss of income during the period of treatment.
19) As per the evidence of PW.1, he was admitted in the panacea Hospital from 17.2.2009 to 21.2.2009 and during the court of treatment, X-ray were taken and multiple fractured injuries were confirmed. Petitioner has examined the Dr.Arun.H.S who has stated that, petitioner has sustained major wound over the right forearm and hand with skin loss from lower 1/3 of forearm to meta carpo phalangeal joint dorsally, second and third metacarpal exposed alone with wrist joint dorsally, all extensor tendon were lacerated and ragged except abductor pollicis longs and extensor pollicis brevis and abrasion over both knees and left great toe. Petitioner has underwent wound debridement and repair of SCCH- 11 22 MVC No.5938/2009 all extensor tendons under brachial block on 17.2.2009 and Groin and siep flap cover was done under GA on 19.2.2009. As per the evidence of petitioner, he has undergone open areas under GA and he was again admitted and underwent capsulotomy of metacarpi phalangeal joint of index middle and ring finger and debunking of the flap under brachial block. As per his evidence, he examined the petitioner on 25.3.20015 and petitioner has pain in his right hand on lifting more than 1kg weight, no sensation over the flap area, difficulty to clean his face and eat food through his right hand, difficulty to button and un button shirts, difficulty to write, difficulty to assist in Indian ablution and he is unable to touch his nose and, there is restriction of wrist DF-PF range by 60 degree Abd-Adduction restriction by 30 degree and he cannot lift the objects with right hand. He has also stated that, middle finger of right hand cannot be flexed. Due to the accidental injuries, petitioner has to undergo deep pain and agony and he is unable to carryout some routine activities and he has to depend upon others for his activities.
SCCH- 11 23 MVC No.5938/2009 The petitioner is unable to enjoy the amenities in life as earlier. Considering this fact, I hold that, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life. Hence, the petitioner is awarded the compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities in life.
20) As per the medical evidence of PW.3, he has difficulty in his right hand on lifting more than 1kg weight, no sensation over the flap area, difficulty to clean his face and eat food from his right hand, difficulty to button and un button shirts, difficulty to write, difficulty to assist in Indian ablution and he is unable to touch his nose and there is restriction of wrist DF-PF range by 60 degree Abd-Adduction restriction by 30 degree and he cannot lift the objects with right hand. He has also stated that, middle finger of right hand cannot be flexed. On perusal of the medical evidence of PW.3, the deformity of right middle finger cannot be corrected completely as there are chances of re-accumulation of fat.
SCCH- 11 24 MVC No.5938/2009 The petitioner has to undergo pain and agony and he has to suffer throughout his life. He has also produced 8 photographs which are marked at Ex.P.13 and on perusal of the photographs, it is clear that, there is accumulation of fat and right hand cannot be flexed and he has to suffer pain and agony through out his life. Considering all these facts, I hold that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and agony. Hence, the petitioner is awarded for compensation of Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and agony.
21) PW.1 has stated in his evidence that, the petitioner was hale and healthy and he was working as Sales Engineer at M/s. Fair Child India Pvt. Ltd., and earning Rs.27,000/- per month and out of said earnings, he was maintaining his family and due to the accidental injuries, he is unable to attend his work and he has lost his earnings and he is facing financial hardship. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he has admitted that, presently, he was working as SCCH- 11 25 MVC No.5938/2009 Senior Sales Engineer. He has admitted that, he has not produced any documents to show that, he was working at M/s. Fair Child India Pvt. Ltd., and he was getting salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. He had admitted that, presently he was working in the same company. He has also admitted that, presently he is getting salary of Rs.45,000/- per month and earlier he was getting salary of Rs.27,000/- per month. This goes to show that, due to the accidental injuries, there is no loss of income to the petitioner and still he is attending his work and accidental disability will not come in the way of his work and it has not resulted in any loss of income. So, medical evidence of PW.2 and 3 is not considerable. So, I hold that, he is not entitled for compensation under the head of future loss of income.
22) PW.3 has stated in his evidence that, petitioner requires treatment of extensor tendon release/tendon reconstruction/tendon lengthening of the right middle finger and also he needs flap debulking by surgical excision of SCCH- 11 26 MVC No.5938/2009 subcutaneous fact/liposuction. He has also stated that, inspite of the treatment, there are chances of re-accumulation of fat and the deformity of the right of middle finger cannot be corrected completely. He has also stated that, after the surgical management, the patient needs repeated physiotherapy consultation and in the event, if re- accumulation of fat, patient needs repeated debulking procedure. As per his evidence, the cost of present procedure is Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/-. In the cross-examination of PW.3, he has stated that, Dr.Priyadarshan of Panacea Hospital has not advised further surgery to the petitioner and the petitioner has not given the consultation records to Dr.Priyadarshan for the period from date of discharge till his recent examination. He has admitted that, the qualification of Dr.Priyadarshan and his qualification are same. He has stated that, Dr.Priyadarshan is more experienced than him. He has stated that, there is no defect in the earlier surgery conducted by Dr.Priyadarshan to the petitioner. He has admitted that, even after de-bulking, it will re-accumulate SCCH- 11 27 MVC No.5938/2009 and there is no relief for the de-bulking and there is no permanent cure, even after repeated surgery. He has also stated that, food dieting will not help for reducing the fat and he has not advised to the petitioner for food diet. Even he has also admitted that, fat accumulation is natural process which cannot be controlled. However, if he undergoes surgery, to some extent, fat accumulation will be reduced for some period and he has to undergo repeated de-bulking procedure. Because, if he fails to undergo the be-bulking procedure, it may affect his regular activities and he requires surgery. However, the cost of de-bulking procedure is on higher side. Considering the nature of surgery, I feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs.75,000/- under the head of future medical expenses. Because inspite of repeated de-bulking, there will be re-accumulation of fat. So, I hold that, petitioner is only entitled for compensation of Rs.75,000/- under the head of future medical expenses.
SCCH- 11 28 MVC No.5938/2009
23) The Calculation table stands as follows:
1) Towards Medical expenses Rs. 2,58,000/-
2) Towards Food, nourishment, Rs. 15,000/-
Conveyance and attendant charges
3) Towards loss of income during Rs. 15,000/-
the period of hospitalization
4) Towards loss of amenities in life Rs. 50,000/-
3) Towards Pain and sufferings Rs. 60,000/-
Future medical expenses Rs. 75,000/-
Total Rs.4,73,000/-
24) Respondent No.1 is owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer and as on the date of accident, the policy was in force. So, the respondent No.2 is liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.2 in partly affirmative.
SCCH- 11 29 MVC No.5938/2009
25) ISSUE No.3: In view of answers to issues No.1 & 2
and Addl. Issue, I proceeding to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.4,73,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till complete realisation from respondent No.2.
The respondent No.2 is hereby directed to deposit the entire amount with accrued interest, within one month, from the date of this award.
In case of deposit of the awarded compensation by the respondent No.2, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in F.D in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for the period of 5 years, failing to furnish the particulars, the same shall be deposited in Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court Branch, Bangalore SCCH- 11 30 MVC No.5938/2009 Remaining amount Rs.3,73,000/- along with accrued interest shall be released to the petitioner through account payee crossed cheque, on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 15th day of Decemberr, 2015.) (GANAPATHI GURUSIDDA BADAMI) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PETITIONER:
PW.1 - Manjunathaswamy
PW.2 - Dr. Arun H.S.
PW.3 - Dr. Ravi Ramachandra
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONER:
Ex.P.1 - CC of FIR
SCCH- 11 31 MVC No.5938/2009
Ex.P.2 - CC of Complaint
Ex.P.3 - CC of Panchanama
Ex.P.4 - CC of Hand sketch map
Ex.P.5 - CC of Charge sheet
Ex.P.6 - CC of IMV report
Ex.P.7 - CC of Wound certificate
Ex.P.8-10 - CC of discharge summaries
Ex.P.11 - Medical bills
Ex.P.12 - Medical prescriptions
Ex.P.13 - 8 photograpsh
Ex.P.14 - 2 CD
Ex.P.15 - Disability certificate
Ex.P.16-18- 3 case sheet
Ex.P.19&20 2 old X-rays
Ex.P.21- Further treatment report
Ex.P.22- One recent X-ray
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW.1 - T.R. Chandru
RW.2 - Kusuma.K
RW.3 - Basavaraju
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS:
Ex.R.1 - Certified copy of judgment in CC.3205/09
SCCH- 11 32 MVC No.5938/2009
Ex.R.2 - MLC register extract
Ex.R.3 - Authorisation letter
Ex.R.4 - MLC register extract
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXVII ACMM