Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.4633/2014 Suresh S.B vs In Both The Cases 1. Ameer Shahul on 16 June, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE. SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.4633/2014 and 4634/2014
Dated this the 16th day of June 2016.
Petitioner in MVC No.4633/2014 Suresh S.B.
S/o Basavegowda
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.67,
Yadavanahalli Village
Chikka Arasanahere hobli,
Maddur Taluk, Mandya District.
Presently R/at No.167/1, 8th cross
Balaji layout, Bangalore-560 062.
(By pleader Sri RGC)
Petitioner in MVC No.4634/2014 Shivaraj.K
S/o Krishnegowda,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at Channipuradadoddi
(Sathegala) Kollegala Taluk
Chamarajanagara District.
Presently R/at No.167/1, 8th cross
Bajaji layout, Bangalore-560062
(By pleader Sri RGC)
V/s
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
Respondents in both the cases 1. Ameer Shahul
S/o Shahul Hameed,
No.104, Laa Residency,
Thimmareddy colony
Jeevan Beem Nagara
Bengaluru-560075
2.HDFC Ergo General Insurance
Co.Ltd.
No.14, 1st floor, H.M.Geneva
House, Cunningham Road,
Bangalore -52.
(R1- By pleader Sri ASG
R2- By pleader Sri RSS )
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MaCT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act
by the claimants for compensation for the injuries sustained by
them in a road traffic accident. Since, both the petitions are arising
out of same accident, they are clubbed together for common trial
and disposal by a common Judgment.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 26.10.2014 at about 07.45 p.m., the petitioners were
proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-04-EZ-8825 as rider and
pillion rider from Bangalore towards Kanakapura side, very slowly
and cautiously and extreme left side road of Bangalore -
Kanakapura main road. When they reached near NICE fly over,
Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore south, Bangalore, at that time,
Renault Duster car bearing No.KA-03-MT-1221 driven by its driver
from Kanakapura towards Bangalore side without observing any
traffic rules and regulations and in rash and negligent manner and
endangering to human life and without giving any signals and
suddenly turned the car and drove it to his extreme right side
towards NICE road, Bannergatta side and dashed against the
petitioners' motorcycle. Due to the accident, the petitioners fell
down and sustained severe fracture injuries all over the body.
Immediately, they were shifted to Sri Sai Ram hospital, Bangalore
wherein they took treatment as inpatients.
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
The petitioner Suresh sustained fracture of ulna of right
forearm and fracture of left navicular bone. He was admitted in the
hospital from 26.10.2014 to 28.10.2014. He underwent surgeries
and as per the advice of the doctors, he is still on follow up
treatment and bed rest. He spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards medicine
and nourishment charges etc., Due to the accidental injuries, he is
getting unbearable pain often and can not walk or sit, squat or
carry any weight and can not do his routine work. Prior to the
accident, he was hale and healthy and was aged 28 years and was
earning 15,000/- pm., as sweet maker, milk and paper vendor at
SLV sweets, Bangalore. Due to the accidental injuries, he can not
attend his work as a result loss of earning and earning capacity.
He is put to great financial hardship and untold misery and
depressed.
The petitioner Shivaraj sustained right femur shaft fracture,
concussive head injury, right parietal scalp laceration. He was
admitted in the hospital from 26.10.2014 to 30.10.2014 and as per
the advice of the doctors, he is still on follow up treatment and bed
rest. He spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards medicine and nourishment
charges etc., Due to the accidental injuries, he is getting
unbearable pain often and can not walk or sit, squat or carry any
weight and can not do his routine work. Prior to the accident, he
was hale and healthy and was aged 21 years and was earning
12,000/- pm., as electrician. Due to the accidental injuries, he can
not attend his work as a result loss of earning and earning
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
capacity. He is put to great financial hardship and untold misery
and depressed.
Thalagattapura police have registered Cr.No.589/2014
against the driver of the Renault Duster car bearing No.KA-03-MT-
1221 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 of IPC. The
respondents are the owner and insurer of said vehicle and are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the
petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- and
Rs.20,00,000/- respectively with cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notices, the respondents have
appeared before the court through their respective counsel and
filed objection statements separately in both the cases. The
respondents have denied the averments of the petitions as false
and contended that the petitions are not maintainable either in law
or on facts. The respondent No.1 has admitted that he is the owner
of Renault Duster car bearing No.KA-03-MT-1221 and contended
that his car was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy
was in force on the date of accident, that his driver was holding
valid driving license on the date of accident, that his driver was
driving the car slowly, cautiously and by observing traffic rules and
regulations and he took turn by putting indicator, but the
petitioner was riding the motorcycle without observing the
movement of vehicles, in rash and negligent manner without
putting headlights on and he came and dashed against his car,
that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
it has no basis, that if court comes to conclusion that the
petitioners are entitled for compensation, then the respondent No.2
shall be made liable to pay the same. Hence, he has sought for
dismissal of the petitions as against him.
The respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy in
favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of Renault Duster car
bearing No.KA-03-MT-1221, but he has contended that the
respondent No.1 and concerned police have not complied their
mandatory duties, that the driver of insured vehicle was not
holding a valid and effective driving license and as such the
respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the
policy, that there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the
driver of insured vehicle and the accident has occurred due to sole
negligence of the petitioner, that the petitioners have exaggerated
their injuries to get more compensation, that the compensation
claimed by them is highly excessive, exaggerated, arbitrary and
speculative. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petitions
with costs as against him.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following common
issues were framed:
COMMON ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has
sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in
Column No.11, in a road traffic accident on
26.10.2014 at about 7:45 p.m., near nice fly
over bridge, Kanakapura-Bangalore road,
Utrrahalli hobli, Bangalore South, Bangalore,
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Renault Duster Car bearing
registration No.KA-03-MT-1221 ?
2.Whether petitioner is entitled for any
compensation? If so to what extent and from
whom?
3. What Order or Award ?
5. At the instance of the petitioners, these two petitions
are clubbed together for common evidence and disposal by a
common Judgment. During the evidence, the petitioners have
examined themselves as PW.1 and 2 respectively and have
examined a doctor as PW.3. They have got marked documents as
Ex.P1 to 21. The respondents have not adduced any evidence on
their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In both cases: In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.4633/2014: In Affirmative.
Rs.2,50,000/- from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.4634/2014: In Affirmative.
Rs.5,48,000/- from the respondent no.2.
Issue No.3 :In both cases: As per final order:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES: The respondents
are the owner and insurer of Renault Duster car bearing No.KA-03-
MT-1221. There is no dispute that Thalaghattapura police have
SCCH-14 8 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
registered Cr.No.589/14 regarding accident on the basis of
information given by one Nagegowda, investigated the matter and
filed charge sheet against the driver of duster car for the offences
punishable U/s 279, 338 of IPC, that the policy of the car was in
force on the date of accident.
9. PW-1:Suresh and PW-2:Shivaraj are the petitioners and
they have reiterated the averments of the petitions. Copies of police
records at Ex.P-1 to 3, 13 and 14 corroborate their evidence
regarding manner of accident, whereas medical records at Ex.P-4
to 7, 9 to 12, 18 to 21 support their evidence as to injuries caused
to them in the accident. There is no evidence to believe that the
petitioner Suresh was not knowing skill of riding the motorcycle.
Ex.P-8 and 15 are copies of driving licence of the petitioner Suresh
which reveal that the petitioner Suresh was holding licence to ride
a motorcycle as on the date of accident.
10. The police records at Ex.P-1 to 3, 13 and 14 disclose that
there was no delay in lodging complaint, that the police have
detained both the vehicles and subjected them to inspection. It is
found that both the vehicles were damaged and brake system of
the same was in order. It is opined that the accident was not due
to mechanical defects of the vehicles. There was no delay in
admitting the petitioners to hospital. The charge sheet is prima
facie evidence as to negligence of the driver of duster car for the
occurrence of accident. Evidence of PW-1 and 2 as to negligence of
the driver of duster car for the occurrence of accident is believable
and is corroborated by the contents of police records. The
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
respondents have not adduced any evidence to establish their
defence that the accident was due to sole or contributory
negligence of the petitioner Suresh. Hence, I hold that the accident
has occurred due to negligence of the driver of Renault Duster car
bearing No.KA-03-MT-1221 and there was no negligence on the
part of the petitioner Suresh for the occurrence of the accident.
11. Evidence of PW-1 to 3 and contents of wound
certificates, discharge summary, OPD books, medical bills,
prescriptions and x-rays at Ex.P-4 to 7, 9 to 12, 18 to 21 disclose
that the petitioners have sustained grievous injuries in the
accident, that the petitioners underwent surgery, that the
petitioners are suffering from disability due to accidental injuries.
The respondent has disputed the extent of disability suffered by
the petitioners as stated by PW-3. Extent of disability suffered by
them can be assessed while discussing the issue no.2. There is no
evidence to believe that the medical records are created for this
case and the petitioners have not sustained any injuries as shown
in wound certificates and have not suffered disability as stated by
PW-3. X-rays confirm the causing of fracture injuries to the
petitioners. Hence, I hold that the petitioners have sustained
grievous injuries in the said accident which led them to suffer
permanent disability. Thus, the petitioners have succeeded to
prove the issues by oral and documentary evidence. The
respondents have failed to prove their defence regarding manner of
accident by producing cogent evidence. Hence, I answer the issues
in affirmative.
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
12. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.4633/15: It is pleaded that the
petitioner Suresh was aged 28 years, was a sweet maker and was
earning Rs.15,000/- p.m., that he sustained grievous injuries in
the accident, that he spent Rs.3,00,000/- towards treatment,
nourishment and conveyance, that he suffered financial loss and
mental agony due to accidental injuries. Hence, he has sought for
awarding compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The respondents have
denied the claim of the petitioner as false and contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and
exorbitant.
13. PW-1: Suresh has reiterated the averments of the
petition. Driving licence at Ex.P-8 and 15 disclose that the
petitioner was born on 1.6.1986. It means, he was aged 28 years
on the date of accident. His age is shown as 25 years in police
records and in medical records. There is nothing on records to
disbelieve the date of birth shown in driving licence. There is no
corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 as to his occupation and
income. However, occupation of the petitioner is shown as
businessman in charge sheet and same is believable. Hence, I hold
that the petitioner was aged 28 years and was a sweet maker as on
the date of accident. In the absence of material evidence such as
bank statement, salary slip, income of the petitioner shall be
assessed notionally. I am of the opinion that if the income of the
petitioner Suresh is considered as Rs.9,000/- p.m., it will meet the
ends of justice. His annual income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-.
Appropriate multiplier for the age of the petitioner is 17.
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
14. The petitioner has examined PW-3: Dr.Ramachandra and
got marked Ex.P-18 and 19 to corroborate his oral evidence as to
injuries caused to him in the accident. PW-3 has supported the
version of PW-1 as to injuries and stated that the petitioner is
suffering from permanent disability of 18.1% to right upper limb
and of 9% to whole body. The respondents have disputed the
correctness of assessment made by PW-3. Contents of OPD book
and x-ray at Ex.P-18 and 19 corroborate the evidence of PW-3 as
to extent of disability suffered by the petitioner. Copy of wound
certificate and discharge summary at Ex.P-4 and 5 disclose that
the petitioner Suresh has sustained following injuries:
1. Fracture of right ulna.
2. Fracture of navicular bone of left foot.
The petitioner Suresh has taken treatment in Sri Sai Ram
hospital, Bangalore. He was an inpatient for a period of 3 days
from 26.10.2014 to 28.10.2014 and underwent following procedure
in the hospital:
"Under GA right ulna, open reduction
and internal fixation with DCP an screw, left
foot B/k fibre cast apply"
He was advised to take rest. The nature of injuries caused to
him requires follow up treatment and rest for 3 to 4 months. Total
laid up period of the petitioner comes to 4 months. During the said
period, the petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment,
conveyance and attendant charges apart from incurring medical
expenses. There is no documentary evidence regarding
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges incurred by the
petitioner, but he has produced medical bills amounting to
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
Rs.53,436/- which are marked as Ex.P-6 which are supported by
prescriptions at Ex.P-7. There is nothing on record to disbelieve
the medical bills. I am of the opinion that the petitioner Suresh is
entitled for a compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and
sufferings, Rs.54,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/-
towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. He
might have lost income for 4 months and he is entitled for a
compensation of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during laid
up period.
15. PW-3:Dr. Ramachandra has stated about the injuries of
the petitioner Suresh, his difficulties, union of fractures with
implants in situ. He has assessed that the petitioner is suffering
from permanent disability of 18.1% to right upper limb which is
permanent disability of 9% to whole body. He has denied the
suggestion that the petitioner is not suffering from permanent
disability as assessed. The fractures of the petitioner are united.
Implants are to be removed by a surgery. Hence, whole body
disability will 1/3rd of limb disability. Then, whole body disability of
the petitioner comes to 6%. The said disability is negligible and will
not come in the way of the petitioner in doing day to day activities
and his business. However, he is facing several difficulties which
may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities. There is no
evidence to believe that the petitioner has closed his business due
to accidental injuries. Thus, the disability will have no bearing on
the work of the petitioner i.e., in doing work of sweet maker.
Therefore, there can not be any loss of earning capacity. But, the
petitioner has to live with disability. The difficulties lead to loss of
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
amenities. He has to undergo surgery for removal of implants by
spending amount. There is no estimation as to cost of future
surgery. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled
for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards disability, Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.15,000/- towards future medical
expenses. Thus, the petitioner Suresh is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.54,000/-
3. Nourishment, conveyance Rs.20,000/-
and attendant charges
4. Loss of income during laid Rs.36,000/-
up period
(Rs.9,000X4)
5 Disability Rs.60,000/-
6 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
7 Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.2,50,000
16. The petitioner Suresh entitled for interest @9% p.a., from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
17. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.4634/15: It is pleaded that the
petitioner Shivaraj was aged 21 years, was a electrician and was
earning Rs.12,000/- p.m., that he sustained grievous injuries in
the accident, that he spent Rs.3,50,000/- towards treatment,
nourishment and conveyance, that he suffered financial loss and
mental agony due to accidental injuries. Hence, he has sought for
awarding compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The respondents have
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
denied the claim of the petitioner as false and contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and
exorbitant.
18. PW-2: Shivaraja has reiterated the averments of the
petition. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-2
regarding his age. However, age of the petitioner is shown as 21
years in police records and in medical records. There is nothing on
record to disbelieve the contents of police records and medical
records regarding age of the petitioner. Hence, I hold that the
petitioner was aged 21 years on the date of accident. Appropriate
multiplier for the said age is 18.
19. The petitioner has produced copy of his study certificate
and copy of his PNT certificate. These documents disclose that the
petitioner has completed National Trade Course in Electrical in
July 2014. The accident has occurred in October 2014. Hence,
evidence of PW-2 that he was working as an electrician can be
believed. However, there is no evidence regarding income. In the
absence of material evidence such as bank statement, salary slip,
income of the petitioner shall be assessed notionally. I am of the
opinion that if the income of the petitioner Shivaraj is considered
as Rs.9,000/- p.m., it will meet the ends of justice. His annual
income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-.
20. The petitioner has examined PW-3: Dr.Ramachandra and
got marked Ex.P-20 and 21 to corroborate his oral evidence as to
injuries caused to him in the accident. PW-3 has supported the
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
version of PW-2 as to injuries and stated that the petitioner is
suffering from permanent disability of 35.6% to right lower limb
and of 17.8% to whole body. The respondents have disputed the
correctness of assessment made by PW-3. Contents of OPD book
and x-ray at Ex.P-20 and 21 corroborate the evidence of PW-3 as
to extent of disability suffered by the petitioner. Copy of wound
certificate and discharge summary at Ex.P-9 and 10 disclose that
the petitioner Shivaraj has sustained following injuries:
1. Fracture of shaft of right femur.
2. Concussive head injury.
3. Laceration over right parietal scalp.
The petitioner Shivaraj has taken treatment in Sri Sai Ram
hospital, Bangalore. He was an inpatient for a period of 5 days
from 26.10.2014 to 30.10.2014 and underwent following procedure
in the hospital:
"Interlocking nailing was done to femur
and Debridement and suturing was done to
laceration".
He was advised to take rest. The nature of injuries caused to
him requires follow up treatment and rest for 3 to 4 months. Total
laid up period of the petitioner comes to 4 months. During the said
period, the petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment,
conveyance and attendant charges apart from incurring medical
expenses. There is no documentary evidence regarding
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges incurred by the
petitioner, but he has produced medical bills amounting to
Rs.1,32,785/- which are marked as Ex.P-11 which are supported
by prescriptions at Ex.P-12. There is nothing on record to
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
disbelieve the medical bills. I am of the opinion that the petitioner
Shivaraj is entitled for a compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards
pain and sufferings, Rs.1,33,000/- towards medical expenses,
Rs.20,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges. He might have lost income for 4 months and he is entitled
for a compensation of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income during
laid up period.
21. PW-3:Dr. Ramachandra has stated about the injuries of
the petitioner Shivaraj, his difficulties, union of fractures with
implants in situ. He has assessed that the petitioner is suffering
from permanent disability of 35.6% to right lower limb which is
permanent disability of 17.8% to whole body. He has denied the
suggestion that the petitioner is not suffering from permanent
disability as assessed. The fracture of the petitioner is united.
Implants are to be removed by a surgery. Hence, whole body
disability will 1/3rd of limb disability. Then, whole body disability of
the petitioner comes to 11.86% which can be rounded to 12%. The
petitioner is working as an electrician. His disability is from right
lower limb. Hence, the said disability will definitely affect the
working capacity of the petitioner resulting in loss of earning
capacity. I am of the opinion that the petitioner has lost earning
capacity to the extent of 12%. The petitioner is facing several
difficulties which may persist in future resulting in loss of
amenities. He has to undergo surgery for removal of implants by
spending amount. There is no estimation as to cost of future
surgery. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled
for a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses. His loss of future
income would be Rs.1,08,000X18X12%=Rs.2,33,280/- which can
be rounded to Rs.2,34,000/-. The petitioner was aged 21 years.
There is no evidence that the petitioner is married. Hence, it can be
said that he is unmarried on the date of accident. The disability
caused to due to accidental injuries will affect his marriage
prospects. Hence, I award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards
loss of marriage prospects. Thus, the petitioner Shivaraj is entitled
for just and reasonable compensation as under:
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 60,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.1,33,000/-
3. Nourishment, conveyance Rs. 20,000/-
and attendant charges
4. Loss of income during laid Rs. 36,000/-
up period
(Rs.9,000X4)
5 Loss of future income Rs.2,34,000/-
(1,08,000X18X12%)
6 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects Rs. 25,000/-
7 Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
Total Rs.5,48,000
22. The petitioner Shivaraj entitled for interest @9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
LIABILITY
23. The respondents are the owner and insurer of Renault
Duster car bearing No.KA-03-MT-1221. The accident has occurred
due to sole negligence of the driver of said car. Therefore, the
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14
respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners as stated above. The policy was in force on the date
of accident. There is nothing on record to believe that the
respondent no.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the
policy. Hence, the respondent no.2 is liable to indemnify the
respondent no.1 and to compensate the petitioners. Consequently,
I answer the issues regarding liability as above.
24. ISSUE No.3 IN BOTH THE CASES: In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.4633/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.4634/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,48,000/-. The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,48,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of the policy, SCCH-14 19 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14 respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.75,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4633/2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4634/2014 shall be deposited in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.4633/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.4634/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 16th day of June 2016.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE., Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Suresh S.B PW.2 Shivaraj PW.3 Dr.S.Ramachandra Respondents NIL Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR
Ex.P2 - Copy of Panchaname Ex.P3 - Copy of spot mahazar Ex.P4 - Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P5 - Discharge Summary. Ex.P6 - Medical bills Ex.P7 - Prescriptions Ex.P8 - Copy of Driving license Ex.P9 - Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P10- Discharge summary Ex.P11- Medical bills Ex.P12- Prescriptions Ex.P13- Copy of IMV report Ex.P14- Copy of charge sheet Ex.P15- Copy of Driving license Ex.P16- Copy of Study certificate Ex.P17- Copy of PNT certificate Ex.P18- OPD book Ex.P19- X-ray Ex.P20- OPD book Ex.P21- X-ray Respondent's NIL XVI ADDL.JUDGE., Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14DT.16.06.2016 P-RGC R1- ASG R2-RSS For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.4633/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.4634/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,48,000/-. The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,48,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. In view of the policy, respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14After deposit, Rs.75,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4633/2014 and Rs.2,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner in MVC No.4634/2014 shall be deposited in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.4633/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.4634/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE., Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.4633/2014 Petitioner Suresh S.B. S/o Basavegowda Aged about 28 years, R/at No.67, Yadavanahalli Village Chikka Arasanahere hobli, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District.
Presently R/at No.167/1, 8th cross Balaji layout, Bangalore-560 062.
(By pleader Sri RGC) V/s Respondents in both the cases 1. Ameer Shahul S/o Shahul Hameed, No.104, Laa Residency, Thimmareddy colony Jeevan Beem Nagara Bengaluru-560075
2.HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.
No.14, 1st floor, H.M.Geneva House, Cunningham Road, Bangalore -52.
(R1- By pleader Sri ASG R2- By pleader Sri RSS ) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for SCCH-14 24 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14 the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.4633/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of the policy, respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order. After deposit, Rs.75,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner shall be deposited in any nationalized, scheduled or co-
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in his favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.4633/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.4634/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 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-14 26 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No. 3634/2014 Petitioner Shivaraj.K S/o Krishnegowda, Aged about 21 years, R/at Channipuradadoddi (Sathegala) Kollegala Taluk Chamarajanagara District.
Presently R/at No.167/1, 8th cross Bajaji layout, Bangalore-560062 (By pleader Sri RGC) V/s Respondents in both the cases 1. Ameer Shahul S/o Shahul Hameed, No.104, Laa Residency, Thimmareddy colony Jeevan Beem Nagara Bengaluru-560075
2.HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co.Ltd.
No.14, 1st floor, H.M.Geneva House, Cunningham Road, Bangalore -52.
(R1- By pleader Sri ASG R2- By pleader Sri RSS ) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
SCCH-14 27 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,48,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,48,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. In view of the policy, respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order. After deposit, Rs.2,00,000/- out of the compensation amount of the petitioner shall be deposited in any nationalized, scheduled or co- operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance SCCH-14 28 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14 amount with interest shall be released in his favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.4633/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.4634/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 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-14 29 MVC No.4633/14 & 4634/14