Bangalore District Court
Abhishek .H.S vs K. Nandakumar on 13 June, 2024
SCCH-14 1 MVC.3558/2019
KABC020152762019
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH14
Dated : This the 13th day of June 2024
Present : SRI. YATHISHA.R.
B.A.L.,L.L.B., ,
MEMBER, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.3558/2019
Petitioner: Abhishek.H.S.
S/o Sathish.H.M
Aged about 19 years,
R/at Heraganahalli,
Alisandra,
Bindiganavile Hobli,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya Dist.
(By Sri.K.Nisar Ahamed Adv)
Vs.
Respondents : 1.K.Nandakumar,
S/o Kantharaju,
No.44/45, Sanjeevappa Lane,
Bengaluru - 560 002
SCCH-14 2 MVC.3558/2019
(By Sri.B.Ramesh, Adv.)
2.Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Golden Heights, 4th Floor,
@1/2, 59th 'C' Cross,
4th M Block,
Rajajinagara,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
(By Sri.M.S.Basavaraju, Adv)
:JUDGMENT:
This Claim Petition is filed by the Petitioner against the Respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Compensation of Rs.30,00,000/ for the injuries sustained in the Road Traffic accident.
2. The substance of averments made in the Petition is as under:
That on 13032019 at about 9.40 a.m., the Petitioner was getting down from the KSRTC bus in front of A.C. Giri hospital, NH75, BM Road, Belluru Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District. At that time, a Innova car bearing No.KA02MP1089 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed SCCH-14 3 MVC.3558/2019 against petitioner. Due to the impact, the Petitioner was knocked to the ground and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the Petitioner was shifted to Adichunchanagiri hospital, wherein first aid treatment was given and then he was shifted to BGS Global hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient. He has spent Rs.5,00,000/ towards medical treatment, conveyance and the incidental expenses.
3. Prior to the accident, the Petitioner was hale and healthy and he was a student and helping his parents in agriculture, sericulture and milk vending business. Due to the accident, he has sustained grievous injuries causing permanent disablement.
4. The Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the offending car and therefore, Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Petitioner. Hence, this Petition.
5. In pursuance of service of notice, the Respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the court through their respective SCCH-14 4 MVC.3558/2019 counsels and filed objections to the main petition.
Respondent No.1 in his Objection Statement denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. Further contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner himself. He also contends that he is the RC owner of offending vehicle in question which was duly insured with the respondent No.2. The policy of the said vehicle was in force at the time of accident and the driver possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. As such, the liability to pay compensation to the petitioner may be saddled upon the respondent No.2. On these grounds, Respondent No.1 has prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
Respondent No.2 in its Objection Statement denied the age, avocation and income of the Petitioner and also denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car. Further it denied that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the SCCH-14 5 MVC.3558/2019 offending car. Further it contended that the driver of the car was not possessing valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle and the car was not possessing valid FC and permit. Further it contended that the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner. On these grounds, Respondent No.2 has prayed to dismiss the petition against it.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following Issues.
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident that occurred on 13.03.2019 at about 9.40 a.m. in front of A.C. Giri hospital, NH75, B.M.Road, Bellur Hobli, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, in an accident arising due to rash and negligent driving of driver of car bearing No.KA02MP1089?
SCCH-14 6 MVC.3558/2019
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
7. In order to substantiate the case of the Petitioner, the father and natural guardian of the Petitioner got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.15. Petitioner himself examined as PW.2. He also examined two witnesses as PW.3 and PW.4 and got marked documents as per Ex.P16 to 28 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, Respondent No.2 examined its Manager as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1 and closed its side evidence.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following decisions.
1. (2009) 6 SCC 121 (Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation)
2.AIR 2017 SC 5157 (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others)
9. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied SCCH-14 7 MVC.3558/2019 on the following decisions
1.(2005)6 SCC 172 (National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Prembai Patel and others)
2.(2014) 13 SCC 254 (Lachoo Ram and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation)
3.MFA.2829/09 (MV) (Manju Vs. Mathue K.P. and another)
4.ILR 1998 KAR 1934 (Sri.Narasimhaiah Vs. The General Manager & another)
5. ILR 2003 KAR 1104 (Koosappa Poojari Vs.K.Sadabba and others)
6.MFA.8473/15 (MV) (The Managing Director, KSRTC Vs. Hari Prasad Reddy and another)
7. ILR 2000 KAR 3443 (United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. D.C.Rajanna and another)
8. ILR 2010 KAR 2439 (Sri.Subash Vs. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Rep.by its Manager and others)
9.MFA.4427/10(MV) (New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Shanthi Mascarenhas and another) SCCH-14 8 MVC.3558/2019
10. Having heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2 upon perusal of the depositions, documents exhibited, decisions relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 and materials available on record, my answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No. 2 : Partly in the Affirmative Issue No. 3 : As per the Final Order for the following :
REASONS
11. Issue No. 1 : It is the case of the Petitioner that he had sustained grievous injuries in the Road Traffic accident that occurred on 13032019 at about 9.40 a.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Regn.No.KA02 MP1089 by its driver.
12. On the other hand, the Respondents have denied the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Regn.No.KA02MP1089 by its driver. SCCH-14 9 MVC.3558/2019
13. In order to prove the case of the Petitioner, his father natural guardian got examined himself as P.W.1 and petitioner got examined himself as PW.2 and also examined two witnesses as PW.3 & PW.4 and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P28. P.W.1 has reiterated the Petition averments in his chiefaffidavit. Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are the True copies of FIR with Complaint, Spot Panchanama, IMV report, Wound certificate and charge sheet. Ex.P.6 is discharge summary, Ex.P.7 is the Referral form of Adichunchunagiri hospital, Ex.P8 is entire medical report, Ex.P.9 is the prescriptions, Ex. P.10 is final bill, Ex.P.11 is Medical bills, Ex.P.12 and 13 are the notarized copy of Aadhar cards, Ex.P.14 is the notarized copy of driving licence and Ex.P.15 is the notarized copy of RC.
14. Upon going through Ex.P.1 FIR and Complaint, they justify the fact that on the complaint lodged before Bellur Police Station, the SHO of the concerned Police Station has registered the case against the driver of car bearing Regn.No.KA02MP 1089 for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337 of IPC. Ex.P.2 i.e., Spot Mahazar justify the fact that IO has drawn the SCCH-14 10 MVC.3558/2019 same in the presence of panchas. Ex.P.3 i.e., the IMV report which shows that accident is not caused due to any mechanical defects and also justify the fact of involvement of vehicle in question in the accident. The document Ex.P4 wound certificate shows that petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. The document Ex.P.5 Charge sheet shows that after thorough investigation, the PSI of Bellur Police Station has Charge sheeted the driver of the offending car for the offences punishable under Sec.279, 337, 338 of IPC. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that during investigation it is not found that the driver of offending vehicle had driven the same without possessing valid and effective driving licence. Moreover, the document Ex. P.14 justify that the driver did possessed valid and effective driving licence as on the date of occurrence of accident. Such being the case, the contention raised by the respondent No.2 that the driver of offending vehicle had driven the same without possessing valid and effective driving licence does not sustain.
15. Further, P.W.1 examined Medical record officer as SCCH-14 11 MVC.3558/2019 PW.3 and got marked Ex.P.16 to 26 i.e., authorisation letter, case sheet, 5 xrays, 3 CT scan films and MLC report. He also got examined Dr.Nagaraj.B.N as P.W.4 and got marked Ex.P.27 and 28 i.e., clinical report and Xray. PW.4 has reiterated about the injuries sustained by the Petitioner in a RTA.
16. To rebut the evidence of petitioner, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 cross examined the P.W.2. In the cross examination P.W.2 has denied the suggestions of the Learned Counsel for Respondent No.2 and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve the contentions of the Petitioner.
17. Further, the Respondent No.2 got examined its Manager as RW.1 and reiterated the Objection statement contentions in his chief affidavit. In the cross examination, he denied the suggestions made by the learned advocate for petitioner. He admits that he is deposing only based on the documents. There is also admission of the fact that the IO has charge sheeted the driver of offending car in question to which the respondent No.2 company has issued policy. SCCH-14 12 MVC.3558/2019
18. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the deposition and documents exhibited, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the accident is occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in the said accident, the Petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the 'Affirmative'.
19. Issue No. 2 : As the petitioner has proved that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation.
20. In the petition, the Petitioner has shown his age as 17 years. He has produced Aadhar card at Ex.P.13 to prove his age. As per the aadhar card, the date of birth of the petitioner is shown as 14.08.2001. The accident took place on 13.03.2019. Hence, the age of the Petitioner as on the date of accident was 18 years and the same is to be taken for consideration.
SCCH-14 13 MVC.3558/2019
21. Further, the petitioner has averred that he was a student and also was assisting his father in agricultural activities and also milk vending business. Though no supportive documents are furnished, it appears proper to consider the petitioner was assisting his father. In this regard, he has not produced any document to substantiate the said fact. Therefore, in the absence of proof of income, the notional income to be assessed as per the guidelines of Karnataka State Legal Service Authority i.e., Rs.14,000/p.m. as the accident has been occurred in the year of 2019, for the purpose of assessment of compensation.
22. With this background, the quantum of compensation to which the Petitioner is entitled may be adjudicated. For the sake of convenience, discussion may be had under following heads :
I COMPENSATION TOWARDS PAIN, SHOCK AND SUFFERING:
23. The Wound Certificate i.e., Ex.P4 and other medical SCCH-14 14 MVC.3558/2019 records reveals that in the accident the Petitioner has sustained following injuries:
1. Bleeding from both ears and swellings over right parietal region.
2. Abrasions over the distal part of the medial border of left foot 1st metatarsal and big toe.
3.Abrasions over the right side of neck and right shoulder.
4.Deformity over the middle of right leg.
Further, the Doctor has opined that injuries No.1 and 4 are grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that, awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
II COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF AMENITIES:
24. Bearing in mind the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/ under this head would be just and reasonable.
SCCH-14 15 MVC.3558/2019
III COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF INCOME OF THE PARENTS DURING THE LAID -UP PERIOD:
25. The Petitioner has averred in the petition as well as in his evidence that he was admitted as an inpatient from 13 032019 to 15032019. Further, P.W.2 Dr.Nagaraj.B.N has also reiterated the same in his evidence. Therefore, the total period which the petitioner was admitted as an inpatient is 3 days.
26. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that the laid up period of the parents may be considered as one month. Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.14,000/ under this head (@ Rs.14,000/ per month).
IV COMPENSATION TOWARDS ATTENDANT'S CHARGES, EXTRA DIET & NOURISHMENT AND CONVEYANCE :
27. Admittedly, the Petitioner has sustained injuries and during the laid up period, the Petitioner might have engaged an SCCH-14 16 MVC.3558/2019 attendant and also he might have spent some amount towards extra diet and nourishment and for his conveyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/ towards attendants charges, Rs.5,000/ towards extra diet and nourishment and Rs.5,000/ towards conveyance would be just and reasonable. In all, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/ under this head. V. COMPENSATION TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENCES :
28. The Petitioner has deposed that he has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/ towards medical expenses and other expenses. In order to prove this fact, he has produced medical bills at Ex.P.10 and 11 which is totally amounting to Rs.57,306/. There is no serious disputed about the medical bills. Hence, petitioner is entitled for sum of Rs.57,306/ which is rounded off to Rs.57,310/as a compensation under this head.
VI COMPENSATION TOWARDS LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS/COMPENSATION TOWARDS PERMANENT SCCH-14 17 MVC.3558/2019 DISABILITY :
29. The Petitioner has alleged that due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disablement and due to fracture of both bone right lower leg, he cannot stand or walk without support, cannot walk fast, run, cannot sit with cross legs, cannot climb stairs, cannot use Indian toilet.
30. Further, the Petitioner got examined doctor by name Dr.Nagaraj B.N as P.W.4 who also deposed regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and examination he made. Further, he got marked Clinical report and Xray at Ex.P.27 and 28. He assessed physical disability of right lower limb at 42% and whole body disability at 14%.
31. In the crossexamination PW.4 has admitted that he has not treated the petitioner. He has admitted that he has not taken any opinion from the doctor who has treated the petitioner while assessing the disability. He has also admitted SCCH-14 18 MVC.3558/2019 that fractures are united. He has also admitted that the condition of the petitioner was stable at the time of discharge. There is also admission of the fact that considering the age of the petitioner, there are chances of improvements in the power of knee, ankle and the stability components. He also admits to have not issued any estimation regarding the future expenses which petitioner may incur.
32. Hence, having regard to the medical records placed on record and the nature of the injuries sustained by the Petitioner and by considering the nature of his work, I am of the opinion that considering the disability of the Petitioner with respect to the whole body at 8% would be just and proper.
33. As per Sarla Verma's Case (2009 ACJ 1298 SC), the multiplier applicable to the Petitioner is 18. With multiplier of 18, income of Rs.14,000/ per month and disability of the Petitioner with respect to his whole body at 8%, the loss of future income comes to Rs.2,41,920/ (Rs.14,000/ x 12 = 1,68,000/, Rs.1,68,000/x 18 x 8/100 = 2,41,920/). Hence, SCCH-14 19 MVC.3558/2019 the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,41,920/ under this head.
FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
34. The doctor/PW.4 deposed that the petitioner needs to undergo another surgery for the removal of implants. During his cross examination he admits to have not issued any documents to support that for such surgery petitioner may have to incur sum of Rs.60,000/. However, during the evidence there is material available to show that the implants are yet to be removed. Such being the case, in the absence of any supportive document to show the expenses of sum of Rs.60,000/ it appears just and reasonable to award sum of Rs.20,000/ under this head. Hence, Rs.20,000/ is awarded. This amount do not carry any interest.
TOTAL COMPENSATION TO WHICH THE PETITIONER IS ENTITLED:
35. To sum up, the Petitioner is entitled for compensation under the following heads : SCCH-14 20 MVC.3558/2019
1. Pain, shock & Suffering Rs. 35.000/
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 20,000/
3. Attendant's charges, Extra Rs. 15,000/ diet, and conveyance
4. Medical expenses Rs. 57,310/
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 14,000/ laid up period
6. Loss of Future income Rs.2,41,920/ 7 Future medical expenses Rs. 20,000/ Total Rs.4,03,230/ Thus, totally the Petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.4,03,230/ which is rounded off to Rs.4,03,250/ (Rs.20,000/ do not carry any interest) with costs and simple interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this petition till the date of realization.
36. Regarding Liability: This Court has arrived at the conclusion that the accident has been occurred by the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.KA02MP1089. The respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of car. The Policy is valid and in force at the time of accident. There is no dispute about the validity of the policy. Therefore, Respondent No.1 SCCH-14 21 MVC.3558/2019 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the Petitioner. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 "Partly in the Affirmative".
37. ISSUE No. 3 : In view of my findings on Issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Claim Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 and 2 U/Sec. 166 of M.V. Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The Petitioner is entitled for Compensation of Rs.4,03,250/ (Rs.20,000/ do not carry any interest) along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the Petition till the date of deposit of Award amount.
The Respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the Petitioner.SCCH-14 22 MVC.3558/2019
The Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle, is directed to deposit the Award amount and interest within 60 days from the date of the Award.
After the deposit of the Award amount and interest being made by the Respondent No.2, 75% of the award amount is ordered to be paid to the Petitioner by way of E payment and after proper identification and the remaining 25% of the award amount shall be kept in Fixed deposit in his name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3 years.
The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Draw Award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, typed and computerized by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 13th day of June 2024) (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.SCCH-14 23 MVC.3558/2019
Annexure Witnesses examined on behalf of the Petitioners :
P.W.1 : Sathish.H.M P.W.2 : Abhishek.H.S P.W.3 : Stalin Christopher P.W.4 : Nagaraj.B.N Documents marked as Exhibits for the Petitioners :
Ex.P.1 : True Copy of FIR along with
complaint
Ex.P.2 : True copy of Spot panchanama
Ex.P.3 : True copy of MVI report
Ex.P.4 : True copy of wound certificate
Ex.P.5 : True copy of Charge sheet
Ex.P.6 : Discharge summary
Ex.P.7 : Referral form of Adhichunchunagiri
hospital
Ex.P.8 : Entire medical report
Ex.P.9 : Prescriptions (2 in nos.)
Ex.P.10 : Final bill
Ex.P.11 : Medical bills (6 in nos.)
Ex. P.12 : Notarised copy of aadhar card
Ex. P.13 : Notarised copy of aadhar card
Ex. P.14 : Notarised copy of DL
Ex. P.15 : Notarised copy of RC
Ex. P.16 : Authorisation letter
Ex. P.17 : Case sheet
SCCH-14 24 MVC.3558/2019
Ex. P.18 to 22 : 5 Xrays
Ex. P.23 to 25 : 3 CT scan films
Ex. P.26 : MLC extract
Ex. P.27 : Clinical notes
Ex. P.28 : Xray
Witness examined on behalf of the Respondents : RW.1 : Chaitresh Documents marked as Exhibits for the Respondents : Ex.R.1 : True copy of policy (YATHISHA.R) MEMBER, MACT, XVI ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU.Digitally signed by YATHISHA R
YATHISHA Date:
R 2024.06.15
16:43:02 +0530