Bangalore District Court
Sri.Nagesh.V vs Sri.Jayapal on 9 February, 2021
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE. (SCCH11)
DATED THIS 9th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
PRESENT: SMT. B.S.RAYANNAWAR, B.A., LL.B.,
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
E.C.A No.386/2014
PETITIONER: Sri.Nagesh.V.,
S/o.Anjanappa,
Aged about 21 years,
Resident of Kodihalli, Makali,
Nelamangala, Bangalore.
Permanent Resident of
Seshapuram, Kalipi,
Ananthapura District,
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri.C.G.B.............Advocate)
V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1.Sri.Jayapal,
Father's name not known to since dead,
Represented by his LR's.
1(a) Smt.Sarvamangala @ Lalitha,
W/o.Late.Jayapal.N,
Aged about 45 years.
1(b) Sri.Vinod,
S/o.Late: Jayapal.N.,
Aged about 26 years,
Both are R/at No.1A, 19th Cross,
SCCH - 11 2 ECA.386/2014
20th Main, 5th Phase, SMS Layout,
J.P.Nagar, Bangalore560 073.
(Owner of House).
(By Sri.T.P.M............Advocate)
2. Sri.Mahes, Father name not
known to the applicant,
Major in Age, No.GS2, Interiors and
Builders, No.17, Maranna Layout,
Thippenahalli Main Road,
Doddabidarakallu,
Nagasandra, Bangalore560 073.
(House building contractor/Civil Engineer)
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the applicant under Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the respondents claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the applicant during the course of his employment.
2. The case of the applicant in brief is as hereunder:
The applicant was mason by profession and doing his Mason Job and he was maintaining his entire family consists of his parents, brothers and sisters. That all the members of SCCH - 11 3 ECA.386/2014 applicant's family totally depending upon the income of the applicant. The applicant was permanent resident of Andrapradesh, he was came to Bangalore in the year 2011 and residing in Makali, Bangalore along with his old age parents and working as Mason in Bangalore.
The respondent No.1 is being a owner site, he has constructing the residentail house in his site in Rose Garden Road, 15th Cross, 20th Main Road, 6th Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore City. That the respondent No.2 is Engineer and taken up for responsibilities from respondent No.1 for construction and development of the said house by engaging many workers to construct said house. Both the respondents have appointed the applicant as Mason to Work for construction of said house along with other workers. The applicant was working as a Mason under both the respondents since from beginning of said house in construction work and respondents have paying daily Rs.400/ as salary to the applicant. The relationship between SCCH - 11 4 ECA.386/2014 the applicant and respondents is as "master and servant"/"employee and employer" as per the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act.
That on 08.12.2012 at around 9.30 a.m., as usual the applicant was doing work i.e., lifting/shifting the Iron Materials (rods) from ground floor to 3 rd floor for doing centering in said 3rd floor. At that time the said iron rods/materials were touched to the BESCOM Power line/wire and as a result of tremendous impact, the applicant has got electrocuted and fell down and got sustained severe injuries to his both hands and legs and also all over the body.
Immediately after the said incident, the coworkers have shifted him to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for treatment. Thereafter he was shifted to Jayadeva Hospital, Bangalore for further better treatment and on the advice of the doctors, the applicant was again shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore for better treatment. Due to this severe Electrical Burns to his both hands and legs, the applicant has got admitted to SCCH - 11 5 ECA.386/2014 Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 2 months and discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment for a period of 6 months and to take complete bed rest for a period of 2 years. Due to this incident, the applicant has spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ towards medicines and spet a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards food, nourishment and transportation and other incidental expenses.
Prior to the incident, the applicant is aged about 21 years and he was earning a salary of Rs.12,000/ per month by working as a Mason under the respondent No.1 and 2. The said incident occurred during the course of the employment, when the applicant was doing work as workmen under the respondent No.1 & 2. Accident took place when the applicant was discharging his duties as a Mason. Inspite of better treatment, the applicant has not recovered from the injuries sustained by him in the said incident. Since the severe fracture injuries resulted in amputation to his both hands and one leg, he cannot do his day to day work in his SCCH - 11 6 ECA.386/2014 entire life. The applicant is being Bachelor and as a result of the accidental injuries, amputations no girl will going to marry the applicant and hence this incident was seriously affected on the future as well as his marriage prospects are also affected. Due to the accidental injuries sustaiined by him in the incident, the applicant is became a permanently disabled person and his entire life and also his family members lives are thrown to streets. The respondent No.1 is being a owner of constructing house and also the respondent No.2 is being a engineer have not taken any precautionary steps/measures to protect/safeguard life of the workmen in the work place. Due to negilgence/irresponsible act of the both the respondents, the incident was occurred.
The Jurisdictional J.P.Nagar Police have registered a case in Crime.No.1006/2012 against the both the respondents and after completion their investigation, the said police have filed charge sheet. On the date of the incident, the respondent No.1 is the house owner and the respondent SCCH - 11 7 ECA.386/2014 No.2 is Engineer and has taken up construction and development of said house for respondent No.1. Hence, both the respondents are joint and severally liable to pay the compensation to the applicant. On these grounds applicant has filed the above petition for the relief's stated supra.
3. In issuance of notice issued by this court, 1 st respondent has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed his objection statement. Inspite of service of summons, respondent No.2 not appeared before the court and hence placed exparte.
1st respondent died during the pendency of the case. LR's of 1st Respondent brought on record, who filed objection statement denied the allegations made in the petitions as false and frivolous. They have further disputed the manner of the accident, age of the deceased and quantum of the compensation, relationship with deceased claimed under different heads. They have further contended that, the alleged accident occurred not due to the negligent act of the offending SCCH - 11 8 ECA.386/2014 vehicle.
Further contended that this respondent engared the respondent No.2 on contract basis for building construction along with materials and the respondent No.2 has agreed and given quotation on 04.06.2012 and thereafter as per the quotation, the 2nd respondent has been appointed for the said building construction and the 2nd respondentEngineer has taken over the work for completion of building construction with material Mason work, Electrical work and other works as stated in his quotation dated 4.6.2012 and after appointing the 2nd respondent for the work the 2nd respondent is the sole authority to maintain, look after the labour at his own cost and risk and if any problems arises the 2 nd respondent is sole responsible for the same and the 2 nd respondent shall get clear the same at his own cost and risk and expenses. This respondent is no way concerned with the said aspects. As such this respondent is not necessary party. Further contended that at the time of incident neither this SCCH - 11 9 ECA.386/2014 respondent nor his father late Jayagopal were present and after work alloted to the 2nd respondent, he has taken risk and appointed the applicant to do work on his behalf as per the instructions of the respondent No.2. This respondent nor the deceased Jayagopal are not concerned with the incident happened to the applicant. The 2 nd respondent has not take any precautionary measures and due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, the incident took place, this respondent not aware of the incident happened to the applicant. The applicant is working under the 2nd respondent and hence the 2nd respondent is the authority to take care of the applicant and the requirement of the applicant and there is no relationship between the applicant or Late Jayagopal or R.1(a) or this respondent herein. On these grounds the Respondent has sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. On the basis of the above rival pleading the following issues have been framed:
1) Whether applicant proves that, he sustained grievous injuries in the accident that SCCH - 11 10 ECA.386/2014 occurred on 08.12.2012 at about 9.30 a.m., during the course of his employment with respondents while working as a Mason?
2) Whether respondent No.1(a) and (b) they are not the necessary parties to petition?
3) Whether applicant is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4) What Order to Award?
5. In order to prove the case of the applicant, applicant has got himself examined as PW.1 and produced documents marked as Ex.P.1 to 21 and also examined Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW.2 and has produced documents marked as Ex.P.22 & 23 and also got examined eye witness as PW.3 and no documents have been marked on her behalf. The Medical Record Officer got examined as PW.4 and got marked documents at Ex.P.24 to 27 and closed their side evidence. The Respondent No.1(B) got examined as RW.1 and got marked one document at Ex.R.1 and closed his side evidence and one witness got examined as RW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.R.1(a) to Ex.R.(e) and closed his SCCH - 11 11 ECA.386/2014 side evidence.
6. Heard arguments by both counsels for applicant and respondents. The learned counsel for respondent No.1(a)
(b) has relied on Judgment reported in The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Dated: 27.09.2017 between Shri Krishan Vs. Jasoda Devi and Ors.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 & 2 In the Affirmative;
Issue No.3 Partly Affirmative;
Issue No.4 As per final order, for
the following :
REASONS
8. ISSUE No.1 AND 2: Since these issues are inter related to each other they are taken up together for discussion and to avoid the repetition of facts.
Present applicant filed by the applicant for compensation under Employee's Compensation Act, (a) while considering the provision to determine the compensation SCCH - 11 12 ECA.386/2014 under Section 3 of the Act, it requires to establish the following points:
(a) That the accident must arise out of and in the course of workman's employment:
(b) There must be causal connection between the injury and the accident and work done in the court of employment:
(c) Workman has to say that while doing a part of his duty or incidental thereto, it has resulted in an accident.
It is necessary that the workman must be actually working at the tiem of the injury or the accident, Theefore, the three factors that there must by injury, which must be caused in an accident and it must be caused in the course of and out of the employment must be established.
9. In the present case, PW.1 deposed that, respondent No.1 and 2 have appointed him as Mason to work for construction of house along with other workers. That is on 08.12.2012 at around 9.30 a.m., as usual the applicant was doing work i.e., lifting/shifting the Iron Materials (rods) from SCCH - 11 13 ECA.386/2014 ground floor to 3rd floor for doing centering in said 3 rd floor. At that time the said iron rods/materials were touched to the BESCOM Power line/wire and as a result of tremendous impact, the applicant has got electrocuted and fell down and got sustained severe injuries to his both hands and legs and also all over the body.
10. It is averred that at the time of incident, he was working as a Mason under the respondent No.1 & 2 and drawing a salary of Rs.400/ per day. Due to accidental injuries, he became permanently 100% disabled person and also his family members lives are thrown to streets and unable to do his day to day activities. The incident occurred during the course of employment. Hence, the respondents No.1(a) & (b) and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
11. Second respondent/House constrution Engineer placed exparte. During the pendency of present petition first respondent died, his legal heirs brouht on record. In the SCCH - 11 14 ECA.386/2014 present case, respondent not denied that the relationship of employee and employer. It is also not disputed that the accident occured during the course of employment. Lrs of first respondent disputed the liability, it is the contention of R1(a) and (b) that, they are not necessary party to the above petition. RW.1 son of first respondent deposed that, his father Sri.Late Jayapalan N. Engaged the Respondent No.2 i,e, Engineer on contract basis for building construction. Respondent No.2 has agreed and given quootation on 04.06.2012 and thereafter as per the quotation, the respondent no.2 was appointed for said builiding construction and said Engineer has taken over the work for completion of building construction for contract basis with material masson work, electrical work and other works as stated i agreement dated 04.06.2012 entered into agreement and after appointing for the work the respondent no.2 became sole authority to maintain, look after the labour at his own cost and risk and if any problems arises as sole responsible for the same at his own cost and risk and SCCH - 11 15 ECA.386/2014 expenses. Hence they are no way concerned with the said constuction work. As such they are not necessary party in the above case and hence the petition filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed against them.
12. Further contnded that, at the time of incident neither they nor his father late Jayapalan N were present at wok allotted to the 2nd respondent and appointed the applicant to do work on his behalf as per instructions of the 2 nd respondent. They are not concerned with the incident happened. The Respondent No.2 had not taken any precautionary measures and due to the negligence of the Respondent No.2 the incident has taken place, The applicant was working as masion under Respondent No.2 and hence the Respondent No.2 has to take care of applicant and the requirement of the petitione and there is no work relationship between the applicant or late Jayapalan N or Lrs of R1. Hence prays to dismiss the case against R1(a) and (b). In support of his contention RW.1 produced Ex.R.1 Agreement. The SCCH - 11 16 ECA.386/2014 learned counsel for LR's of respondent No.1 relied on citations reported in The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Dated: 27.09.2017 between Shri Krishan Vs. Jasoda Devi and Ors., wherein it is held that:
"In Koodalingam Vs. Superintending Engineer, Project Circle, Public Works Department, Kozhikode, 1994 (2) L.L.N. 779, the Division Bench of Kerala High Court Held that Section 12 would apply notwithstanding the agreement or contract entered into between the principal and contractor regarding their liability for payment of compensation under the Act. The agreement of contract between the principal and the contractor governs only their interse rights and liabilities, and cannot affect the right of the workmen or their dependants to get the compensation form the principal or from the contractor at their option. Relevant portion of the judgment is as under:"
"11........The avowed object with which Section 12 was enacted as part of the Act as seen from the Report of the Select Committee is to enable the workmen or the dependents of the workmen to SCCH - 11 17 ECA.386/2014 proceed against the contractor or against the principal or both and to make the contractor or against the principal or both and to make the contractor liable to indemnify the principal in all cases in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. The report of the Select Committee would also show that while finalising the provision the committee has eliminated the provision which in the bill as introduced exempted the Government and local authorities from liability imposed by this clause. The Committee has observed that these authorities are liable just in the same manner as private individuals. If these were the avowed objects with which Section 12 of the Act was incorporated in an enactment which itself is a beneficial legislation intended to confer benefits on the workmen, we are of the view that the provisions in Section 12(1) would apply notwithstanding the agreement or contract entered into between the principal and contractor regarding their liability for payment of compensation under the Act. So long as the Section has not been made specifically subject to any contract to the contrary, the Section would have application in all cases where the conditions specified in the Section are satisfied. The fact that no non obstante provision is used in the Section may not be a sufficient reason to exclude the application of the Section to cases where the conditions are satisfied. At best, agreements or contracts entered into between the principal and contractor can govern only their inter se rights and liabilities and cannot affect the right of the workmen or their dependents to get compesnation either from the principal or from the contractor at their option. Right to get indemnified from the contractor specifically conferred on the principal under Section 12(2) of the Act sufficiently safeguards the interest of the principal who has entrusted the work to the contractor stipulating the liability under the Act." SCCH - 11 18 ECA.386/2014
13. But during cross examination RW.1 not denied construction of building work. Admitted incident took place in their site. Also admitted that the applicant lodged complaint against his father and second respondent. Hence, there is not denial of appointment of applicant for construction work, no denial about the incident. First disputed the liability. applicant deposed that, "ಆದರರ ವವರಕರಕಕಕದದ ಸವರ ಮಹರಹಶಶ ಮತದತ ಜರಜಪವಲಶ ಪರಹಮಕಟಶ ಮವಡದತತದದರದ. ಆ ದನ ಎನರಹನದ ಕರಲಸ ಮವಡಬರಹಕರಕದದ ಮಹರಹಶಶ ರವರದ ಹರಹಳದತತದದರದ ಎಕದರರ ಸವಕಕ ಇಬಬರದ ಹರಹಳದತತದದರದ ಎಕದದ ನದಡದರದತವತರರ. ಮನರ ಕಟದಟವವಗ ಪಪತರ ಉಸದತವವರ ಇಕಜನಯರಶ ರವರದರದ ಇರದತತದರ ಎಕದರರ ಸವಕಕ ಇಬಬರದ ಕಕಲ ಕರಕಡದತತದದರದ ಎಕದದ ಸವಕಕ ನದಡದರದತವತರರ . ಇಕಜನಯರಶ ಬರದವವದದ ಲರಹಟವದರರ ಜರಜಪವಲಶರವರರಹ ಬಕದದ ಕರಲಸ ಸವಟಟರ ಮವಡದವ ಬಗರಗ ಹರಹಳದತತದದರದ. ಜರಜಪವಲಶ ರವರದ ಬದಬಸನರಸಶಮವಡದತತದದ ಜವಗದಲಲ ಇರದತತರಲಲಲ ಹವಗಕ ಎನದ ನಡರಯದತತದರ ಎಕದದ ತಳದವಳಕರ ಇರದತತರಲಲಲ ಎಕದರರ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಮಹರಹಶಶಇಕಜನಯರಶ ರವರರಹ ಬಕದದ ಅವತತನ ಕರಲಸ ಹರಹಳ ಅವರರಹ ಕಕಲ ಕರಕಡದತತದದರದ ಎಕದರರ ಸವಕಕ ಮಹರಹಶಶ ರವರದ ಬರಳಗರಗ 8.00 ಗಕಟರಗರ ಬರದತತರಲಲಲ ಜರಪವಲಶ ರವರದ ಬಕದದ ಕರಲಸ ಸವಟಟರ ಮವಡದವ ಬಗರಗ ಹರಹಳದತತದದರದ ಎಕದದ ನದಡದರದತವತರರ . ಸವಕಕ ಮದಕದದವರರದದ ಕರರಕಟಶ ವಯರಶ ಗಳದ ಇದದರದ ಕಕಬಗಳನದನ ಎತತಲದ ಜರಜಪವಲಶರವರದ SCCH - 11 19 ECA.386/2014 ಹರಹಳದದರದ ಎಕದದ ನದಡದರದತವತರರ." Hence by perusal of the evidence on record shows that, the applicant was employee under the respondent No.1 & 2, and the incident took place during the course of employment. Injury sustained by the applicant while doing work in the first respondent site.
14. Definition of the term "Employee" as defined under section 2(d) of the Employment Compensation Act. The main thrust of this definition is on the term "Employed'. It is silent as to the status of the individual employed, whether temporary, causal or permanent or trainee. The "trainees" are also employees of the employer, even apprentices who are team in as apprentices not under the apprentices Act but under the schedule of Apprentice formulate, by the employer are "Employees" therefore trainee are employer subject to provision of section 2(d) of Employment Compensation Act with the schedule II to the Employment Compensation Act.
15. The documents produced by the applicant would clearly indicates that the accident occurred while applicant SCCH - 11 20 ECA.386/2014 doing work under the both respondents, Hence accident arisen out of the employment, injury caused in the accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Hence his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provision of Chapter II of the Act. Hence in view of the above discussion, Issue No.1 and 2 answered in the Affirmative.
16. ISSUE NO.3: applicant proves that he sustained injury during the course of employment, hence entitled for compensation. Perused Ex.P.1 - FIR revels that the applicant was sustained injury on 08.12.2012 at working place, under Respondent No.1 and 2 and to show that the applicant hospitalised at Victoria Hospital has produced Ex.P.4 wound certificate, Ex.P.5 Disharge summary revelas that, the applicant sustained Electrical Burns with B/L and forearm aganrene, right leg feet gangrene with forefoot, Below elbow amputation, above knee amputation done. Applicant took treatement from 08.12.2012 to 04.02.2013. Ex.P.12 Follow SCCH - 11 21 ECA.386/2014 up sheets, Ex.P.22 OPD Card, Ex.P.23 X rays, Ex.P.26 Case sheets. During the course of the clinical and radiological examinations, the doctors have found that he had sustained injuries like electrical burns with B/L hand, forearm gangrene, right leg & foot gangrene and left fore foot gangrene and conducted operations for B/L below elbow amputation and right above knee amputation done in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore and discharged with an advice to take follow up treatment for a period of 6 months and to take complete bed rest for a period of 2 years.
17. Applicant examined PW.2 Dr.S.A.Somashekar who has deposed that on the date of incident applicant was diagnosed and found that applicant was sustained injuries like electrical burns with B/L hand, forearm Gangrene, right leg and foot gangrene and left fore foot gangrene and has undergone surgery in the form of B/L below elbow amputation, right sided above knee amputation with GA on 15.12.2012. In his recent Xrays shows that injuries are confirmed that the amputation of 3 limbs. The right sided SCCH - 11 22 ECA.386/2014 above knee amputation is 80%, right sided elbow amputation (upper 1/3rd) is 70% and left sided below elbow amputation (upper 1/3rd) is 70%. The total disability in respect of whole body at 90% by way of disabilities of both upper limbs and right lower limb with the said disabilities he cannot carry out even his activities of daily life. In his chief examination PW.2 has produced OPD Slip and 3 Xray films at Ex.P.22 & 23.
18. Applicant has stated in his evidence that he was earning Rs.12,000/ per month and has produced document and identity card issued by the Ace company.
S.O.1258(E): In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation act, 1923 (8 of 1923), the Central Government hereby specifies, for the purpose of Subsection (1) of the said Section, the following amount as monthly wages, with effect from the date of publication of this Notification in the Official Gazette, viz., "Eight thousand rupees".
The above Central Gazette notification dated 31.05.2010 clearly reflects that the monthly wages of the workers has been fixed at Rs.8,000/ with effect from the date of SCCH - 11 23 ECA.386/2014 publication i.e., 31.05.2010. The accident was occurred on 08.12.2012. But in this case applicant himself deposed that he was getting Rs.12,000/ per month. Under such circumstances, the salary of the applicant is taken as Rs.8,000/ per month.
19. Applicant has stated that he was aged about 25 years at the time of incident. To prove the age of applicant, he has produced Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate, but as per the age of applicant is shown as 25 years as on the date of incident.
20. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant coupled with the evidence of doctor who deposed that the applicant sustained whole body disability 90% and medical records as the applicant sustained fracture injuries this court accepts 90% disability to the whole body. The monthly income of the applicant is already taken at Rs.8,000/ per month. As per Section 4 (1)
(b) of Employees compensation Act 1923, where permanent total disablement has resulted due the injuries sustained in SCCH - 11 24 ECA.386/2014 the accident, 60% of the wages is to be taken into consideration equal to the monthly wages of the injured. If 60% equal to the monthly wages is taken into consideration then it will come to Rs.4,800/. That 60% of the monthly wages of the injured is to be multiplied by the relevant factor as per Schedule IV of the said Act. The age of the applicant is 25 years at the time of accident, the relevant factor is 216.91. Hence, the loss of income of the applicant would be Rs.4,800 x 216.91 x 90/100= Rs.9,37,051/. Hence applicant is entitled for Rs.9,37,051/ towards loss of earning capacity.
21. The applicant has produced medical bills for Rs.10,246/ at Ex.P.10 and there are no materials to disbelieve the genuineness of these receipts. From the above said medical receipts the amount comes to Rs.10,246/. Hence, the applicant is entitled for Rs.10,246/ under the head of Medical Expenses.
22. While discussing issue No.1 and 2, I have arrived at an conclusion that there existed relationship of employer SCCH - 11 25 ECA.386/2014 and employee between the applicant and respondent No.1 & 2, that the applicant has sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 08.12.2012, during the course of employment with Respondent No.1(a) & (b) and 2. In the light of the above though I hold that respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation of Rs.9,47,297/ to the applicant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. In result, Issue No.3 is answered Partly in the Affirmative.
23. ISSUE No.4: In view of my findings given on the above said issues, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The claim petitions U/Sec., 22(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is partly allowed with costs.
The applicant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,47,297/ with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of incident till realisation. The respondents No.1(a) & (b) and 2 are jointly SCCH - 11 26 ECA.386/2014 and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the applicant.
The respondent No.1(a) & (b) and 2 shall deposit the compensation amount awarded with its interest within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, 25% shall be deposited in the name of applicant for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of applicant through epayment on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Office to draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 9th day of February, 2021.) (B.S.RAYANNAWAR) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM SCCH - 11 27 ECA.386/2014 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR applicantS:
PW.1 Sri.Nagesh.V
PW.2 Dr.S.A.Somashekar
PW.3 Smt.Lalitha
PW.4 Smt.Lakshmidevi
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR applicantS:
Ex.P.1 FIR
Ex.P.2 Complaint
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate
Ex.P.5 Discharge Summary
Ex.P.6 Charge Sheet
Ex.P.7 MLC intimation
Ex.P.8 Photo
Ex.P.9 CD
Ex.P.10 34 Medical bills
Ex.P.11 11 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P.12 Follow up sheet
Ex.P.13 OPD Book issued by Department of
Cardiology
Ex.P.14 Quotations issued by GS2 Ineriors
Ex.P.15 & 16 2 Letters issued by BBMP
Ex.P.17 Admission/Discharge Certificate
Ex.P.18 to 21 Statements
SCCH - 11 28 ECA.386/2014
Ex.P.22 OPD Slip
Ex.P.23 Xray films
Ex.P.24 Authorization letter
Ex.P.25 MLC Register
Ex.P.26 & 27 Inpatient Case sheets (2 in Nos.) WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENTS :
RW1 Sri.Vinodh RW2 Sri.Vijay Kumar.K DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR RESPONDENTS: Ex.R1 Agreement Ex.R1(a) Signature in Agreement
Ex.R1(b & d) Signature of Jayapal (Respondent No.1) Ex.R1(c & e) Signature of Mahesh (Respondent No.2) I ADDL.SCJ. & MACT.SCCH - 11 29 ECA.386/2014
(Judgment pronounced in open court.) ORDER The claim petitions U/Sec., 22(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is partly allowed with costs.
The applicant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,47,297/ with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of incident till realisation. The respondents No.1(a) & (b) and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the applicant.
The respondent No.1(a) & (b) and 2 shall deposit the compensation amount awarded with its interest within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, 25% shall be deposited in the name of applicant for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of applicant through epayment on proper identification.SCCH - 11 30 ECA.386/2014
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/. Office to draw award accordingly.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & ACMM SCCH - 11 31 ECA.386/2014 AWARD SCCH NO.11 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY E.C.A No.386/2014 PETITIONER: Sri.Nagesh.V., S/o.Anjanappa, Aged about 21 years, Resident of Kodihalli, Makali, Nelamangala, Bangalore.
Permanent Resident of Seshapuram, Kalipi, Ananthapura District, Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri.C.G.B.............Advocate) V/S -
RESPONDENTS: 1.Sri.Jayapal, Father's name not known to since dead, Represented by his LR's.
1(a) Smt.Sarvamangala @ Lalitha, W/o.Late.Jayapal.N, Aged about 45 years.
1(b) Sri.Vinod, S/o.Late: Jayapal.N., Aged about 26 years, Both are R/at No.1A, 19th Cross, 20th Main, 5th Phase, SMS Layout, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore560 073.
(Owner of House).SCCH - 11 32 ECA.386/2014
(By Sri.T.P.M............Advocate)
2. Sri.Mahes, Father name not known to the applicant, Major in Age, No.GS2, Interiors and Builders, No.17, Maranna Layout, Thippenahalli Main Road, Doddabidarakallu, Nagasandra, Bangalore560 073.
(House building contractor/Civil Engineer) (Exparte) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the applicant/s above named U/sec.110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees
) for the injuries sustained by
the applicant/Death of in a Motor
Accident by Vehicle No.
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before
Smt.B.S.Rayannawar, I Addl.Judge, Member, Bangalore, in the presence of SriSmt. Advocate for applicant/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
SCCH - 11 1 ECA.386/2014
ORDER The claim petitions U/Sec., 22(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 is partly allowed with costs.
The applicant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.9,47,297/ with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of incident till realisation. The respondents No.1(a) & (b) and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the applicant.
The respondent No.1(a) & (b) and 2 shall deposit the compensation amount awarded with its interest within one month from the date of this order.
In the event of deposit of the said compensation amount, 25% shall be deposited in the name of applicant for a period of 3 years in any nationalized bank or scheduled bank and the remaining 75% shall be released in favour of applicant through epayment on proper identification.
SCCH - 11 2 ECA.386/2014
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this 9 th day of February 2021.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
SCCH - 11 1 ECA.386/2014
By the ________________________________________ Applicant/s Respondent No.1 No.2 ________________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 1000 Court fee paid on Powers 0100 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