Bangalore District Court
Hanumanthappa @ Hanumantha vs Aslam on 1 September, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.430/2014
Dated this the 1st day of September 2015
Petitioner/s : Hanumanthappa @ Hanumantha,
S/o Nagaraju @ Nagappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.509, 1st main,
II cross, T-Dasarahalli,
Bangalore-560057.
V/s
(By pleader Sri MI)
Respondent/s 1. Aslam,
S/o Late. SH.Abdul,
No.17, Bainsi Village,
Nuh Tehsil,
Mewat Dist.Ferozepur,
Harayana,
2.TATA AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.
II Floor, JP and Devi
Jambukeshwari Arcade,
No.69, Millers Road,
Bangalore-52
(R1-Exparte
R2-By pleader Sri RSS)
SCCH-14 2 MVC NO.430/14
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. Brief averments of the petition are as under:
The petitioner was aged 43 years, was coolie and earning Rs.9,000/- per month. On 05.01.2014 at about 3.00 pm, the petitioner after attending his coolie work was standing on the side of NH-4 i.e., Bangalore-Tumkur Road, near Jass toll, Byadarahalli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Dist. At that time, Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 driven by its driver in high speed, in rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the petitioner. Due to the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained crush injury over the right leg. He was taken to Government hospital, Nelamangala for first aid and then, shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. As per advice of the doctors, the petitioner underwent amputation of right leg above knee and skin grafting for amputated stump. He was discharged on 21.01.2014 with an advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest.
Accordingly, the petitioner was under follow up treatment and bed rest. The doctors have advised the petitioner to go for an artificial limb for right leg in future. The petitioner has incurred huge medical expenses and spent amount towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. He has to incur huge amount for future follow up treatment. Due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner is permanently disabled. He is unable to do any work and thereby lost his income. He is undergoing deep mental shock, pain and suffering SCCH-14 3 MVC NO.430/14 and untold hardship. He can not walk or stand without support, he can not climb stairs, lift or carry weights. He is depending on others for his routine activities. Nelamangala Rural police have registered Cr.No.04/2014 against the driver of Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC. The respondents are the owner and insurer of the said lorry and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compenstion. Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with Court cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared before the Court through his counsel and filed objection statement. Notice was not served upon the respondent No.1 in the ordinary course. Hence, notice was issued against him by the substitute method i.e., by paper publication. In spite of publication of citation, the respondent No.1 remained absent and hence, he is placed exparte. The respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of the policy in favour of the respondent No.1 in respect of the Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198, but he has denied the other averments of the petition as false. He has contended that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the same, that the said lorry was not having valid and effective permit and FC on the said date, that the respondent No.1 and concerned police have not complied their mandatory duties, that the insured lorry was not involved in the accident, that the said lorry was driven in reasonable speed and in careful manner, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry, that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner SCCH-14 4 MVC NO.430/14 himself, who was under the influence of alcohol and tried to cross the road without noticing on coming vehicles in a place which is not meant for pedestrian crossing, that compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive, exorbitant, arbitrary and speculative. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of the petition with cost.
4. On the basis above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained grievious injuries in the nature of permanent disablement on 05.01.2014 at about 03.00 p.m., On NH-4, Bangalore-Tumkur Road, Jass toll, Byadrahalli, Nelamangala, Bangalore, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Lorry bearing No.HR-74-
4198?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5. During the evidence, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and examined a doctor as PW.2. He has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P11. The respondent No.2 has examined his Asst. Manager as RW-1 and got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 7.
SCCH-14 5 MVC NO.430/146. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following rulings;
1. 2014 ACJ 919 (Jagmohan Singh Vs Devraj saini and Ors)
2. 2014 ACJ 986 (Seema and Ors Vs Sat Pal and Ors)
3. 2013 ACJ 2539 (Badavath Janna Bai Vs Afsari Begum and Anr)
4. 2014 ACJ 2736 (OICL Vs Prasanna Kumar and ors)
5. 2013 ACJ 145 (Jayaprakash Agarwal and Ors Vs Mohd.Kaleemulla and Ors)
6. 2013 ACJ 249 (NIACL Vs K.Devi and Ors) I have gone through the rulings and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In Affirmative, For Rs.8,56,000/-
from the respondent No.2.
Issue No.3 : As per final order :
for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1: The admitted facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 and the policy of insurance was in force on the date of accident, that Nelamangala Rural police have registered Cr.No.04/2014 regarding the accident, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC, that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and underwent amputation of right leg SCCH-14 6 MVC NO.430/14 above knee. Evidence of RW-1 and contents of Ex.R1 reveal that the Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 was owned by the respondent No.1 and it was duly insured with the respondent No.2, that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Copies of police records at Ex.P1 to 3 and 5 disclose that Nelamangala Rural police have registered Cr.No.04/2014 on 05.01.2014 at 04.30 pm on basis of the information given by the petitioner regarding accident, that the police have detained the vehicles and subject it to IMV inspection, that after completing investigation, the police have filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC.
9. The petitioner has relied upon his own oral evidence and that of PW-2 to prove that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.HR-74- 4198 in which he sustained grievous injuries. He has produced copies of police records, copy of wound certificate and other medical records with photographs which are marked as Ex.P1 to 11. In order to prove the defence and to disprove the case of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has examined his Asst.manager as RW-1 and got marked Ex.R1 to 7.
10. PW-1 Hanumanthappa is the petitioner. He has reiterated the entire averments of the petition and stated that he sustained grievous injuries to his right leg in the accident arising out of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.HR- 74-4198. PW-2 Dr.Ramesh has stated that the petitioner sustained traumatic gangrene of right foot and he underwent above amputation SCCH-14 7 MVC NO.430/14 of right lower limb in Victoria Hospital. In cross examination, PW-1 has denied the suggestions that he was under influence of alcohol, fell on the road and sustained injuries, that he sustained injuries due to self fall and in order to get compensation, he filed false case against the driver of the lorry, that amputation of right leg was not due to the accidental injuries and it was due to diabetes. PW-2 has stated that right lower limb of the petitioner is amputated due to gangrene, that gangrene setting depends upon the severity of the injuries and it can not be controlled, that the petitioner is advised to go for artificial limb, but he is not using such artificial limb. Facts extracted during the cross examination of PW-1 and 2 are not sufficient to hold that the petitioner sustained injuries to his right leg due to self fall and he was under influence of alcohol, that the amputation of right leg of the petitioner was due to diabetes and not due to the accidental injuries. The respondent No.2 has taken up contention in his written statement that the petitioner tried to cross the road under influence of alcohol and met with an accident. PW-1 was not given any suggestion during cross examination in that regard. Only on the basis of said denial, evidence of PW-1 and 2 can not be disbelieved.
11. RW-1 Sunil Ramesh has deposed that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner himself who was under the influence of alcohol and he tried to cross the road without noticing the on coming vehicles, that there was no provision for pedestrian crossing in the place of accident, that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In cross examination, he has denied the suggestions that the petitioner was not under the SCCH-14 8 MVC NO.430/14 influence of alcohol and he was not negligent in crossing the road. Though, nothing is elicited from RW-1 to disbelieve his evidence, but he was not an eye witness to the accident and hence, his evidence regarding manner of accident is inadmissible and unbelievable.
12. Copy of wound certificate, discharge summary and case sheet at Ex.P4 and 7 and 11 disclose that the petitioner sustained crush injury to his right leg in the accident and he was taken to government hospital, Nelamangala on 05.01.2014 with the history of road traffic accident, that the petitioner was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein his right leg was amputated. The injury caused to the petitioner was grievious in nature. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and contents of Ex.P4, 6 and 11. There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner was suffering from diabetes and gangrene was due to the said diabetes. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident and his right leg was amputated due to the traumatic gangrene.
13. Police records at Ex.P1 to 3 and 5 go to show that the police have registered a case, investigated matter and filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC. There was no delay in lodging complaint. Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 was detained from the place of accident on 05.01.2014. Its brake system was in order. IMV authority has reported that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicles. Charge sheet filed by the police is prima facie evidence as to the negligence of the respondent No.1. There is nothing on SCCH-14 9 MVC NO.430/14 record to believe that the investigation done by the police is collusive and defective. The police records and medical records corroborate the evidence of PW-2 as to manner of accident and its result. The photos at Ex.P8 confirm the amputation of right leg of the petitioner. The evidence of RW-1 is not sufficient to hold that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the petitioner and there was no negligence on the part of the respondent No.1. He has got marked MLC extract as Ex.R7 wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol. The petitioner has denied that he was under influence of alcohol, but the contents of Ex.R7 can not be disbelieved. Only on the basis of fact that the petitioner was under
the influence of alcohol, it can not be held that the accident has occurred due to negligence of the petitioner. The Court can not imagine the negligence on the part of the petitioner only on the ground that he was under the influence of alcohol. The respondent No.1 is the best witness to speak about the accident. If he had appeared before the Court and deposed that the petitioner, under the influence of alcohol, tried to cross the road abruptly and he could not control his vehicle, then the Court would have come to the conclusion that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. The brake system of the lorry was in order. The respondent No.1 could have applied the brakes and avoided the accident. In the absence of evidence of the respondent No.1, the defence of the respondent No.2 can not be believed. He could have examined any other witness named in the charge sheet to prove overt act of the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 has failed to prove the negligence on the part of the petitioner. The contents of Ex.R7 alone are not sufficient to hold that the petitioner SCCH-14 10 MVC NO.430/14 was negligent and contributed to the accident. Hence, I hold that the petitioner has proved this issue and I answer the same in affirmative.
14. ISSUE NO.2: It is pleaded that the petitioner was aged 43 years, was a coolie and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 has denied the averments of the petition as to age, occupation and income of the petitioner. PW-1 Hanumanthappa @ Hanumantha has deposed about his age, occupation and income.
Except bare denials nothing is elicited from him in cross examination. Age of the petitioner is shown as 45 years in police records and as 52 years in wound certificate. His age is mentioned as 40 years in Victoria Hospital records. There is no cogent evidence regarding the age of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that if the age of the petitioner is considered as 45 years, it will meet the ends of justice. Appropriate multiplier for the said age is 14.
15. The FIR and complaint at Ex.P1 disclose that the petitioner has stated before police about his occupation as coolie. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the information given by the petitioner before police regarding his occupation. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was a coolie. However, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-1 regarding his income. In the absence of positive evidence, I am of the opinion that if the income of the petitioner is considered as Rs.7,000/- per month, it will meet the ends of justice. His annual income comes to Rs.84,000/-. Such income does not attract any income tax.
SCCH-14 11 MVC NO.430/1416. PW-1 Hanumanthappa @ Hanumantha has deposed that he sustained crush injury to his right leg in the accident and he underwent amputation of right leg above knee and underwent skin grafting to the amputated stump. PW-2 Dr.Ramesh has supported the version of the PW-1 regarding injuries caused in the accident, amputation of right leg above knee. The doctor has further stated about the complaints of the petitioner which are as under;
1. pain in right lower limb, wound over stump,
2. Difficult to do routine activities,
3. Difficult to walk.
The doctor found following difficulties of the petitioner:
1. Walk with the help of crutches,
2. Tenderness over stump,
3. Above knee amputation upper 1/3rd.
He has assessed permanent disability of 90% of right lower limb and 45% of whole body. He has further stated that the petitioner needs fixation of artificial limb for his right lower limb. Except bare denials nothing is elicited from PW-1 and 2 regarding injuries and the effect of such injuries on the petitioner. Photographs at Ex.P8 reveal that the right leg of the petitioner is amputated above knee. OPD book, X-ray and case sheet and Ex.P9 to 11 support the evidence of PW-1 and 2. Oral evidence RW-1 Sunil Ramesh is not sufficient to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P8 to 11. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is suffering from permanent physical disability to the extent of 45% to the whole body. He can not do coolie work with such disability. If he goes for artificial SCCH-14 12 MVC NO.430/14 limb, then he may perform his day to day activities with difficulty and carry out his occupation with loss of earning capacity. I am of the opinion that the disability caused to the petitioner is physical as well as occupational. Looking to the injury, amputation of right leg above knee, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has lost his earning capacity to the extent of more than 50%. If artificial limb is fixed, his loss of earning capacity can be restricted to 50%.
17. The petitioner has produced medical bills amounting to Rs.10,061/- which are marked as Ex.P7. Nothing is elicited from PW-1 to believe that the said bills are created for this case. Though, prescriptions are not produced, the medical bills are consistent with wound certificate, discharge summary and case sheet at Ex.P4, 6 and 11. Therefore, I believe that the medical bills at Ex.P7 are genuine. The petitioner might have spent amount more than such bills as he has not produced hospital bills. Evidence of PW-1 and 2 and contents of Ex.P4 and 6 disclose that the petitioner after amputation of right leg, underwent skin grafting to the amputated leg. The said process might have taken 2 to 3 months. The petitioner was admitted in Victoria Hospital from 05.01.2014 to 21.01.2014. He might have taken follow up treatment and bed rest for a period of more than 3 months. Total period of treatment and rest comes to 4 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have incurred expenses towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. He lost income for 4 months. He is suffering from permanent occupational disability to the extent of 50% resulting in loss of earning capacity. He has to live with the present difficulties through out his life. Such difficulties may be reduced by fixing of artificial SCCH-14 13 MVC NO.430/14 limb. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards conveyance and attendant charges.
18. He was a coolie with monthly income of Rs.7,000/- and annual income of Rs.84,000/-. He lost his income for 4 months and lost earning capacity to the extent of 50%. Hence, I award a compensation of Rs.28,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. His future loss of income would be Rs.84,000X14X50%=Rs.5,88,000/-. He has lost amenities of life for which he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. He needs an artificial leg. Looking to the status of the petitioner, he can go for an artificial limb manufactured in India. Hence, I award a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost and maintenance of artificial limb. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under;
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 75,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 15,000/-
3 Nourishment charges Rs. 15,000/-
4 Conveyance and attendant Rs. 10,000/-
charges 5 Loss of income during the Rs. 28,000/-
period of treatment and bed rest (7000X4) 6 Loss of future income Rs.5,88,000/-
(84000X14X50%) 7 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
8 Cost of artificial limb Rs.1,00,000/-
Total Rs.8,56,000/-
SCCH-14 14 MVC NO.430/14The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
Liability
19. The respondents are the owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198. The respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 has contested the matter. The petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said lorry in which he sustained crush injury to his right leg which was amputated later. The respondent No.2 has failed to prove that the accident has occurred due to sole or contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. Though, Ex.R7 MLC extract discloses that the petitioner was under the influence of alcohol, but it is not sufficient to establish the negligence on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 has contended that he is not liable to indemnify the respondent No.1 and to compensate the petitioner on the ground that the respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, that the driver of Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 was not holding a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was not having a valid permit on the date of accident. In order to prove his defence, the respondent No.2 has relied upon oral evidence of RW-1 who has deposed as per averments of the written statement of the respondent No.2. He has got marked copy of policy, copy of letter to the respondent No.1, postal receipt, postal cover, copy of permit and copy of driving license as Ex.R1 to 6. The copy of policy reveals that the policy was in force on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 has issued letter to the respondent No.1 calling upon him to produce relevant documents, SCCH-14 15 MVC NO.430/14 that the said notice was not served upon the respondent No.1. It is endorsed by the postal authority on the cover that the respondent No.1 has refused the notice. The said endorsement is sufficient to hold that the letter was deemed to be served on the respondent No.1.
20. Copy of permit is at Ex.R5 and it discloses that Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 was having a valid national permit upto 30.05.2013 and basic goods permit was valid upto 30.05.2015. Since, the accident has occurred in Karnataka, the said lorry ought to have a valid national permit on the date of accident. Ex.R5 makes it clear that national permit of Lorry bearing No.HR-74-4198 was expired on 30.05.2013. The accident in this case has occurred on 05.01.2014. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Lorry bearing No.HR- 74-4198 was not having valid and effective permit on the date of accident.
21. Ex.R6 is the copy of driving license wherein it is mentioned that the respondent No.1 has been holding valid and effective driving license to drive a LMV and a HMV from 16.10.2009 to 15.10.2012, from 15.10.2012 to 14.10.2015. It means, the respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving license on 05.01.2014 i.e., on the date of accident. The police have filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable U/s 279 and 338 of IPC. He was not charge sheeted for not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, evidence of RW-1 as to license held by the respondent No.1 is liable to be rejected. I am of the opinion that the respondent No.2 has succeeded to prove that the insured lorry was not holding a valid permit on the date of accident, SCCH-14 16 MVC NO.430/14 but he has failed to establish that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving license on the date of accident. The rulings relied upon by the petitioner are regarding license. In this case, the respondent No.1 was holding a valid license on the date of accident. Hence, those rulings can not be applied to this case.
22. The respondent No.2 has established that the respondent No.1 has violated permit conditions and used his vehicle beyond the territory of his State without holding a valid permit, but lack of permit on the date of accident can not be sole ground to absolve the respondent No.2 from indemnifying the respondent No.1. The accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the respondent No.1. Violation of permit condition was not a cause for the occurrence of accident. Hon'ble High Court in ruling reported in MFA No.9970/2010 Dated 28.10.2014 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs S.Chandrashekar and another) has held that the Insurance Company can not avoid its liability to pay compensation only on the ground that the insured vehicle was not having permit on the date of accident. The said ruling is applicable to this case. I am of the opinion that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 can not avoid his liability to indemnify the respondent No.1. The policy was in force on the date of accident. Hence, the respondent No.2 is liable to deposit the amount before the Court. Consequently, I answer the issue as above.
23. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
SCCH-14 17 MVC NO.430/14ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and then corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 1st day of September 2015.)s (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 18 MVC NO.430/14
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Hanumanthappa @ Hanumantha
PW.2 Dr.Ramesh.B
Respondent' s
RW.1 Sunil Ramesh
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint
E.xP2 - Copy of Panchanama
Ex.P3 - Copy of IMV report
Ex.P4 - Copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P5 - Copy of Charge Sheet
Ex.P6 - Discharge Summary
Ex.P7 - Medical Bills
(30 in nos amounting to Rs10,061/-)
Ex.P8 - Two photographs and CD
Ex.P9 - OPD book
Ex.P10 - X-ray
Ex.P11 - Case sheet
Respondent's
Ex.R1 - Copy of policy with terms and conditions
Ex.R2 - Copy of letter to R1
Ex.R3 - Postal Receipt
Ex.R4 - Postal Cover
Ex.R5 - Copy of permit
Ex.R6 - Copy of Driving Licence
(subject to production oftranslation)
Ex.R7 - Copy of MLC register
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT,
Bangalore.
SCCH-14 19 MVC NO.430/14
Dt.01.09.2015
P-BSM
R1-Exparte
R2 -RSS
For Judgment
Order pronounced in open court
vide separate judgment.
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.SCCH-14 20 MVC NO.430/14
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT., Bangalore.SCCH-14 21 MVC NO.430/14
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.430/2014 Petitioner/s : Hanumanthappa @ Hanumantha, S/o Nagaraju @ Nagappa, Aged about 43 years, R/at No.509, 1st main, II cross, T-Dasarahalli, Bangalore-560057.
V/s (By pleader Sri MI) Respondent/s 1. Aslam, S/o Late. SH.Abdul, No.17, Bainsi Village, Nuh Tehsil, Mewat Dist.Ferozepur, Harayana,
2.TATA AIG Gen.Ins.Co.Ltd.
II Floor, JP and Devi Jambukeshwari Arcade, No.69, Millers Road, Bangalore-52 (R1-Exparte 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.
(Rupees ) for the
injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor
Accident by vehicle No.
SCCH-14 22 MVC NO.430/14
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay to the petitioner a compensation of Rs.8,56,000/- with interest. In view of policy, the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the amount before court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.4,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest shall be released in favour of the petitioner through account payee cheque with proper identification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore.
SCCH-14 23 MVC NO.430/14
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 24 MVC NO.430/14
SCCH-14 25 MVC NO.430/14
PETITIONER PRESENT AND DULY SWORN ON: 01.12.2014 HE HAS FILED AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF EVIDENCE OF PW.1. ACCEPTED.
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF: BY SRI. A.D.P. ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER:
I have produced documents under list and they may be marked. The said documents are marked as under:
Ex.P1 - Copy of FIR with complaint E.xP2 - Copy of Panchanama Ex.P3 - Copy of IMV report Ex.P4 - Copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P5 - Copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P6 - Discharge Summary Ex.P7 - Medical Bills (30 in nos amounting to Rs.10,061)
(Counsel for petitioner prays time for produce few more documents. Granted).
(Computerised to my dictation in the Open Court) R.O.I & A.C. (BASAVARAJ CHENGTI) XVI ADDL. JUDGE Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.