Bangalore District Court
Kapilla Gangadaram vs The Manager on 26 March, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
& ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru (SCCH-19)
Date : The 26th day of March 2016
Present : S.B. KEMBHAVI,
B.A. LL.B.(Hon's), LL.M
XV Addl. Small Causes Judge
& XXIII ACMM, Bengaluru
M.V.C.No.4164/2014
Petitioner: Kapilla Gangadaram
@ Gangadaram S/o
K. Venkataramana
Aged about 25 years
R/at No. 64, 12th main,
1st Cross, H V Reddy Layout,
Bangalore - 560049.
(Pleader by Sri M.Subramani, Adv.,)
-Vs-
Respondents: 1. The Manager
M/s. Mookambika stone Crusher,
Beerahalli Village, Nanadagudi,
Hobli, Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural Dist.
(Owner of the vehicles bearing
Reg.No.KA-53-A-9198)
(Exparte)
2 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19
2. H.D.F.C. ERGO General Insurance
Co Ltd, No. 14, 1st Floor,
H M Geneva House, Cunnigam
Road, Bangalore - 560052.
(Policy No. 2315200368328701000
Valid from 26-10-2013 to 25-10-2014)
(Rep.by Sri V.S.N., Adv.,)
******
JUDGMENT
This claim petition is filed by the petitioner under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act 1999 claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- together with interest @ 9% p.a. for the injuries sustained by him in a Road Traffic Accident, dated 26-08-2014.
2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under:
That on 26-08-2014 at about 8.30 a.m., when the petitioner was riding his Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 05-HY-1041 on Basavanapura main road from Old 3 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 Madras road towards Ayyappanagara slowly and cautiously and reached near Auto Gas Bunk, the driver of Tipper lorry Reg.No.KA-53-A-9198 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life with high speed from the behind and tried to over take the motor cycle of the petitioner from the left side and dashed against Motor cycle of the petitioner. Due to the forced impact, the petitioner fell down and the Right wheel of the Tipper lorry ran over both the legs of the petitioner resulting in grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, petitioner was shifted to Axon Hospital wherein on examination it is disclosed that the petitioner had sustained polytrauma, Fracture of right shaft of femur, Fracture of right Medial condyle of femur, Morel- Lavelle lesion of left thigh, Fracture open book pelvis, Degloving injury of both thigh region, Perineal tear and other injuries. Due to the accidental injuries, he is not able to walk, sit, squat, climb the stairs and use Indian 4 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 toilet. Due to the accidental injuries, he is undergoing mental shock, pain and sufferings and unable to perform his day today activities. Prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and aged about 25 years and working as an Engineer at Tech Mahindra, Electronic City, Bangalore and was earning Rs.25,000/- p.m. K.R.Puram Traffic Police have registered a case in Crime No.121/2014, punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending lorry for causing the accident. Respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending lorry are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, prayed to allow the application and grant compensation as prayed for:
3. Respondent No.1 has remained absent before this tribunal, in spite of service of notice. Accordingly, Respondent No.1 has been placed as exparte. Respondent No.2 has appeared before this tribunal in 5 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 response to the notice through his advocate and filed its written statement. Respondent No.2 in its written statement has denied entire averments of the petition as false. Respondent No.2 has also denied the alleged accident, manner in which accident took place and injury caused to the petitioner, due to accident and treatment taken for those injuries. It has also denied age, income and occupation of the petitioner, medical expenses incurred by him and disability caused to him. It has further specifically contended that this accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle by the petitioner. It has also contended that offending vehicle not at all involved in the accident. There is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tipper lorry towards cause for accident. The respondent No.2 has also contended that the driver of lorry vehicle was not possessed valid driving licence. However the Respondent No.2 has admitted about issuance of policy 6 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 of insurance in respect of offending lorry and the same was valid as on the date of accident. However, the Respondent No.2 has contended that the liability if any is subject to terms and conditions of the policy issued in favour of the offending vehicle. The claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant. Hence, 2nd Respondent has prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
4. Based on the above pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 26.08.2014 at about 08.30 a.m when the petitioner was riding a motor cycle on Basavanapura main road bearing Reg.No.KA-05-HY-1041, when the reahed near Auto Gas Bunk, at that time one Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-9198, came from high speed from the behind and dashed against petitioner's motor cycle. Due to forced impact petitioner was fell down and right wheel of the lorry ran over the both legs of the petitioner and he sustained grievous injuries?7 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) What award or order?
5. Petitioner has got examined himself as PW1 and 2 witnesses on his behalf of PW2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to 17 documents. There is no oral documentary evidence produced by the Respondent No.2.
6. Heard the arguments advocate for petitioner and Respondent. Perused the entire materials on record.
7. On careful appreciation of the entire materials and evidence on record, the above issues are answered as under :
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: As per final order,
for the following :
8 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 - It is the case of the petitioner
that on 26.08.2014 at about 8.30 a.m. when he was riding a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-HY-1041 on Basavanapura main road from old Madras Road towards Ayyappanagara near Auto Gas Bunk, the driver of Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-9198 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and tried to over take the motor cycle of the petitioner from left side and dashed against the petitioner's motor cycle resulting into accident. Due to forced impact, petitioner has fell down and right wheel of the offending lorry ran over his both legs resulting into several grievous injuries. According to petitioner, this accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver.
9. On the other hand the defence of the Respondent No.2 is that of total denial. Respondent No.2 9 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 has contended that this accident has not occurred due to negligence driver of the Tipper lorry. This accident took place solely due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-HY-1041 by its rider. Accordingly, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. Petitioner in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW1 and got marked at Ex.P1 to 17. PW1 in his chief-examination affidavit has reiterated averments of the petition and specifically deposed about the accident, manner in which took place, rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry for its driver as the cause for the accident. PW1 has also deposed about the injuries sustained by him in the accident and treatment taken for those injuries and medical expenses incurred by him. PW1 has also deposed about his age, income, avocation and disability caused to him due to accidental injuries. PW1 has further specifically deposed that this 10 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. PW1 has also deposed that driver of the offending lorry is solely responsible for the cause of accident.
11. Petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced and got marked Ex.P1 to 17. Ex.P1 and P1(a) are the FIR and complaint. On perusal of Ex.P1(a) complaint, it is clear that on 26.08.2014 at around 8.30 a.m when petitioner was riding his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-05-HY-1041 on Basavanapura main Road, near Auto Gas Bunk from Old Madras Road towards Ayyappanagara, the driver of Tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-53-A-9198 has drove his vehicle in high speed and over took from left side and dashed against motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down along with his motor cycle and in the mean while right side of the Tipper lorry ran over both the legs of the petitioner resulting into grievous injuries . Based on 11 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 such complaint lodged by friend of the petitioner, K.R.Puram Traffic Police have registered case against driver of the offending lorry in their Crime No.121/2014. Ex.P2 and P2(a) are spot mahazar and sketch of the spot of accident. On perusal Ex.P2, it is clear that the accident has took place on Basavanapura main Road, which is running from Old Madras Road towards Ayyappanagara and the said road is 30 ft. in width. It is also relevant to here to note that direction of motor cycle of the petitioner as well as the direction of the offending lorry were one and the same running from north towards south on that road. According to petitioner, this accident took place when he was riding his motor cycle and the driver of the offending lorry tried to over take from left side and dashed against his motor cycle. The said version of the petitioner is supported by Ex.P2 mahazar and Ex.P2(a) sketch. Petitioner has also produced IMV report at Ex.P3. On perusal of the same, it is clear that 12 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 the motor cycle of the petitioner has sustained several damages in its right side and rear side. Even it is relevant to here to note that as per Ex.P2(a) spot of the accident is in the left of the road running from Old Madras Road towards Ayyappanagara. It is also relevant to here to note that Police after completing investigation and collecting the all documents filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC and under Section 134(a) & (b) R/w 187 of Motor Vehicles Act. Filing of the charge sheet, in this case by the police against the driver of offending lorry is itself as prime facie evidence to show that this accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver as the cause for the accident. Thus the petitioner has produced all these documents and discharged his burden to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. 13 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19
12. On the other hand, though the Respondent No.2 has contended that this accident has occurred due to sole rash and negligence of the rider of the motor cycle i.e., Petitioner and not due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry by its driver, it is not led any evidence of their own to prove those contentions. Except taking such defence in written statement, no efforts have been made by the Respondent No.2 to let in any evidence before this tribunal. However, Respondent No.2 has tried to establish negligence on the part of petitioner by way of cross examination of PW1. Though the PW1 has been cross-examined at length nothing fruitful has been elicited from his mouth which is helpful to the defence taken by the Respondent No.2. PW1 in his cross- examination has denied all the suggestions made to him as false about his negligent riding of the motor cycle. PW1 in his cross-examination has withstood the test of cross-examination and denied suggestions made to him 14 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 that accident has occurred due to his own negligence while riding his motor cycle and not due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver. PW1 has also deposed in his cross-examination that this accident has occurred when driver of Tipper lorry tried to over take from left side in narrow road. Even a suggestion has been made to petitioner by respondent No.2 that in the accident right rear wheel of the offending lorry has ran over the petitioner. With this suggestion itself, Respondent No.2 has admitted the involvement of offending lorry in the accident and manner of accident, when the driver of the offending lorry tried overtake motor cycle of the petitioner from its left side and dashed against motor cycle. The rear portion of the motor cycle would be damaged and the same is evident from Ex.P3 IMV report. Thus, this tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver.
15 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19
13. The petitioner in order to show that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident has produced and got marked his wound certificate as per Ex.P4 Discharge summary as per Ex.P7 and MLC intimation by the hospital as per Ex.P5. On perusal of Ex.P4 wound certificate and Ex.P7 discharge summary, it is clear that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries :
Road Traffic Accident with Polytrauma Fracture of right shaft of Femur Fracture of right medial condyle of femur Morel - Lavelie lesion of left thigh Fracture open book pelvis Degioving injury of both thigh region Perineal tear
14. The discharge summary also clarify that the petitioner was admitted as inpatient in the hospital from 26/08/2014 and discharged on 22/09/2014. As per Ex.P1(a) complaint accident occurred on 26/08/2014 around 8.30 a.m., MLC intimation as per Ex.P5 has been delivered by the hospital on the same date. Even 16 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 complaint has been lodged on the same day of accident without any amount of delay. Under such circumstances, there cannot be any suspicion of false implication of the offending lorry. It is also relevant to here to note that no doubt Advocate for Respondent No.2 has argued that accident has occurred when petitioner drove his motor cycle rash and negligent manner and hit back portion of the lorry and the lorry has sustained damages in its back portion and accordingly petitioner has not produced IMV report of the offending lorry intentionally. The said contention of Advocate for Respondent No.2 is not acceptable one for the reasons that nothing prevented Respondent No.2 to produce such evidence i.e., IMV report of offending lorry to establish such manner of accident. Respondent No.2 has not made any kind of efforts such place evidence on record in this regard. As already discussed above, petitioner both by producing oral documentary evidece to established 17 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 before this tribunal that accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver and as a result of the accident he has sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in the AFFIRMATIVE.
15. Issue No.2:- This issue relates to quantum of compensation to be awarded to the petitioner and liability to pay the same. The petitioner in his petition has contended that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Axon Hospital, wherein he has been treated as inpatient from 26/08/2014 to 22/09/2014. The petitioner has also contended that after the tests, it is disclosed that he has sustained injuries polytrauma, Fracture of right shaft of femur, Fracture of right medical condyle of femur, Morel-Lavelle lesion of left thigh, Fracture open book pelvis, Degloving injury of both thigh region, Perineal tear and other injuries. Even the petitioner has contended that due to accident he has 18 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 remained absent for his work for a period of 7 months. Due to accidental injuries he has sustained permanent disability and became completely bed ridden and not able to perform his day today activities. Accordingly, petitioner has sought for award of compensation.
16. Petitioner in order to prove his contentions has got examined himself as PW1 and reiterated all these averments. In support of his oral evidence, PW1 has produced and marked Ex.P4 Wound Certificate, Ex.P5 MLC intimation by the Axon Hospital to the Indira Nagar Traffic Police station and Ex.P7 Discharge summary. On perusal Ex.P4 and P7 Wound certificate and discharge summary coupled with evidence of PW1 to PW3 it is clear that due to accident, the petitioner has sustained polytrauma, Fracture of right shaft of femur, Fracture of right medical condyle of femur, Morel-Lavelle lesion of left thigh, Fracture open book pelvis, Degloving injury of both thigh region, Perineal tear. Ex.P7 Discharge summary 19 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 also establish that the petitioner has taken treatments as inpatient in Axon Hospital from the 22/9/2016 to 26/8/2014. Thus, the petitioner has taken treatment at Axon Hospital as inpatient, totally for a period of 27 days. Considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and number of days of treatment he has under took as inpatient in the hospital, this tribunal of the opinion that it is just and proper award a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards the pain & sufferings.
17. Petitioner has been in the hospital as inpatient for a period of 27 days, I feel it is just and proper to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges, food and nourishment and transportation expenses.
18. The petitioner in order to show that he has incurred medical expanses has produced and got marked medical bills as per Ex.P12 at Sl.No.1 to 54. It is relevant to here to note that PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that in his company there is a provision for 20 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 Group Insurance Company facility and he has took a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under that Insurance Scheme. PW1 has also deposed that he has not taken any Medi Claim Policy. PW1 has also deposed that he has not produced final bills and he has submitted it to his company. PW1 has also denied suggestion made to him that he has not spend of Rs.12,00,000/- towards his medical treatment and he has took reimbursement of entire medical expanses from the Insurance Company and Company in which he is working. It is relevant to here point out that though the Respondent has contended that the petitioner has taken reimbursement of total medical expanses from the Medi claim insurer and his employer, they have not produced any materials before this court.
19. On the other hand, petitioner has produced inpatient bills that Sl.No.2 to 54 for having spent money towards treatment. I have carefully gone through the 21 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 medical bills Sl.No.2 to 54 and they are genuine bills. Petitioner has also produced certain prescriptions in support of those bills, but the bill produced at Sl.No.51 is relating to amount refunded to the petitioner in a sum of Rs.440/- and that cannot be taken into consideration. Though the petitioner has contended that he has spent more than Rs.12,00,000/- towards medical treatment he has produced medical bills, totally amounting to Rs.9,61,778/-. But, petitioner in his cross examination deposed that he has took reimbursement from Group Insurance in a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, but in the bills produced at Sl.No.1. The petitioner has calculated the claim amount only for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has produced documents in support of medical reimbursement by Insurance Company by the petitioner. It goes to show that the petitioner herein has taken reimbursement of Rs.3,80,000/- including TDS that 22 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 means Good Health TPA Services has the settled a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- as against the total claim amount of Rs.10,23,591/- and dis-allowed to Rs.6,43,591/- as per the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also relevant to here to note that amount of Rs.3,80,000/- has been by Good Health TPA Services as a full and final settlement against the claim submitted by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is only entitled for balance amount in the bills submitted by him. Though, the Respondent No.2 has contended that the petitioner has took reimbursement with entire medical expanses, it has not made any efforts to place any piece of evidence in support of the same before this court. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced documents in support of his case that he has took medical reimbursement to the extent of Rs.3,80,000/-. In view of these reasons, petitioner is entitled for medical expanses after deducting of Rs.3,80,000/- of which he has taken reimbursement 23 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 and the bill at Sl.No.51 of Ex.P12 which is a refund bill. Thus, the bills produced by the petitioner totally amount to a sum of Rs.9,03,766/- out of which a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- has to be deducted as the petitioner has took it from Good Health TPA Services as reimbursement and Rs.440/- which is refunded amount as per at Sl.No.51. After such deductions, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs,5,23,336/- towards medical expanses.
20. Petitioner has contended that due to accidental injuries he has permitted to lost his earning capacity. To prove the said contentions, petitioner has got examined PW2 and P3 doctors regarding the disability. PW2 has deposed in his evidence that the petitioner has sustained disability of Right Lower Limb to the extent of 33%. PW3 in his evidence the deposed that the petitioner has sustained disability of Right and Left lower limbs to the extent of 62.85% and whole body disability to the extent of 20.95%.
24 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19
21. At this juncture, it is relevant to here to note that PW1 in his cross-examination clearly deposed as under " £Á£ÀÄ Tech Mahindra Company AiÀÄ°è ¸Á¥ïÖªÉÃgï EAf¤ÃAiÀÄgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. FUÀ®Æ C¯Éèà ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. C¥ÀWÁvÀPÀÆÌ ªÀÄÄ£Áß £À£Àß wAUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼À 23 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ EvÀÄÛ. FUÀ wAUÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼À 24 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ. ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévBÀ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ, C¥ÀWÁvÀ¢AzÀ DzÀ UÁAiÀÄUÀ½AzÁV £Á£ÀÄ 7 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À PÁ® PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è". From the above answers of PW1, it is clear that the PW1 was working at Tech Mahindra Company as Software Engineer, prior to the accident. He has continued his service after recovery in the same company and in the same position. PW1 has also deposed and admitted that he has got a hike in the salary after he joined the services after taking treatment. Since the petitioner has clearly admitted that he has confirmed services there cannot be any loss of future income, due to permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the 25 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 head of loss of future income due to permanent disability.
22. The petitioner has contended that due to accidental injuries he is permanently disabled and he is unable to work and depend upon others for his day today activities. Though the Petitioner has contended that in his petition as well as the evidence that he is permanently disabled, in his cross-examination PW1 has clearly admitted that he has continued in his service Tech Mahindra Limited as software engineer as before the accident and getting a salary of Rs.24,000/- The petitioner in support of his case has produced Ex.P.8 Copy of Appointment Letter, Ex.P9 Letter by employer regarding availment of leave, Ex.P.10 salary slips. On perusal of these documents, it is clear that the petitioner was working as software engineer at Tech Mahindra Limited. The salary certificates produced by the petitioner at Ex.P.10 clearly establish that the petitioner 26 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 has drawn some minimum amount of salary, during the period, he taken treatment and he has drawn net salary of Rs.24,260/- for the month of May 2015. Even there is an admission by PW1 in his cross-examination before the accident he was earning a salary of Rs.23,119/-. The said admission of PW1 his corroborative to documentary evidence at Ex.P.10. PW1 has also deposed that he has not attended job for a period of 7 months due to accidental injuries and took rest. Ex.P9 document supports the said contention of PW1. Hence, this tribunal of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not attended the work for a period of 7 months and took treatment and rest in his home. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for his salary amount for that period. The salary of the petitioner as per Ex.P10 was Rs.23,000/- p.m. The same is multiplied by 7 months, it would amount to Rs.23,000 x 7 = 1,61,000/-. The petitioner is entitled 27 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 for Rs.1,61,000/- towards loss of income during the laid of period.
23. In view of injury sustained and disability suffered, the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities and happiness as he has lead the rest of his life with those difficulties.
24. The petitioner is not entitled for compensation in any other heads. So, the petitioner is entitled for the compensation under the following heads :
1. Pain & Sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2. Attendant Charges, Extra Rs. 15,000-00 nutritious food & transport expenses.
3. Medical Expenses Rs. 5,23,336-00
4. Loss of amenities & happiness Rs. 10,000-00
5. Loss of income during the period Rs.1,61,000-00 of taking treatment Total : Rs.7,59,336-00 28 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 Hence, this Tribunal feels to award just and proper compensation of Rs.7,59,336-00/- to the petitioner.
25. With regard to liability: Now, I have to consider the question of liability to pay the compensation Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2 has admitted that offending vehicle was insured with them and the Insurance policy was in force on the date of accident. Though, the Respondent No.2 tried to deny their liability to pay compensation on the ground that there is failure of policy conditions by the insured as the driver had no valid driving licence and vehicle had no valid permit and FC. They have failed to substantiate the same by leading any evidence before this tribunal. There is no such violation of policy conditions as alleged by Respondent No.2. Hence, the Respondent No.1 being the registered owner and Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and 29 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 severally liable to pay the compensation amount. The Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle is primarily liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered partly in the AFFIRMATIVE.
26. Issue No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is hereby partly allowed with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation Rs.7,59,336-00 (Seven Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred & Thirty Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount awarded with interest within two months from the date of award. Out of the compensation amount awarded 50% of the same with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized or Schedule Bank for a period 30 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 of FIVE years with liberty to draw accrued interest periodically.
The remaining 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner on proper identification and verification. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized transcript thereof corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 26th day of March 2016).
(S.B. KEMBHAVI) Member, MACT Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.
****** ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 : Kapilla Gangadharam PW.2 : Dr.M.Praveen PW.3 : Dr. Deepu.N.K.
List of witnesses examined for respondent:
----31 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19 List of documents marked for petitioner:
Ex.P.1 : C.C. of FIR Ex.P.1(a) : C.C. of Complaint Ex.P.2 : C.C. of Panchaname Ex.P.2(a) : C.C. of Sketch Ex.P.3 : C.C. of IMV report Ex.P.4 : C.C. of Wound Certificate Ex.P.5 : C.C. of Axon Speciality Hospital Ex.P.6 : C.C.of Charge Sheet Ex.P.7 : C.C. of Discharge Summary Ex.P.8 : C.C. of appointment letter Ex.P.9 : Letter issued by Tech.Maindrabills Ex.P10 : Pay slips of petitioner Ex.P11 : Statement of Account Ex.P12 : Inpatient bills Ex.P13 : Prescriptions Ex.P14 : Photos Ex.P14(a) : CD Ex.P.15 : Discharge summary Ex.P.16 To P.17 : X-Rays
List of documents marked for respondent:
-Nil-
(S.B. KEMBHAVI) Member, MACT Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.32 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19 33 MVC No.4164/2014 SCCH-19 26-03-2016 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate, ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner is hereby partly allowed with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation Rs.7,59,336-00 (Seven Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Three Hundred & Thirty Six only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. The Respondent No. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount awarded with interest within two months from the date of award.34 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19 Out of the compensation amount awarded 50% of the same with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized or Schedule Bank for a period of FIVE years with liberty to draw accrued interest periodically.
The remaining 50% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the petitioner on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(S.B. KEMBHAVI) Member, MACT Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.35 MVC No.4164/2014
SCCH-19