Bangalore District Court
Dhanaraj S vs Principal on 11 December, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 11th day of December 2015
M.V.C.No.5104/2014
Petitioner Dhanaraj S.,
S/o Siddappa,
Aged about 16 years,
R/at No.32/2,
Ashraya Colony, Kottanuru,
Vaddara Palya,
Bangalore.
(Since the petitioner is minor rep. by
father and natural guardian
Sri Siddappa,
S/o Dasappa,
Aged about 37 years)
(Sri R. Rajanikanth, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents 1. Principal,
Chinmaya Vidya Mandira High
School, SVR Public School,
HSR 2nd Sector,
Samsandrapalya,
Bangalore - 560 034.
(Owner of Mini bus bearing Reg.
No.KA-05-B-4200)
(Sri S. Shivakumar, Advocate)
2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
2. The National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
TP-HUB, 2nd Floor, Shubharam
Complex, M.G. Road,
Bangalore - 01.
(Policy
No.602100/31/13/6300003726
valid from 01-3-2014 to 28-2-2015)
(Sri M.M. Cariappa, Advocate)
3. Rajesh H.N.,
S/o S. Narayana Shastri,
Major, R/at No.13/4, 1st Cross,
Annayappa Garden, Jaraganahalli,
Kanakapura Road,
Bangalore.
(Present owner of Mini bus bearing
Reg. No.KA-05-B-4200)
(Sri S. Shivakumar, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner through his natural guardian father against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the petition are as under:
The petitioner being the minor has filed the instant claim petition through his natural guardian father in
3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 which he has stated that, on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., he was standing in Royal County bus stand waiting for bus, carefully and cautiously by observing all movements of the vehicles, the driver of the Mini bus bearing No.KA-05-B-4200 has came from Royal County towards Vaddarapalya with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller bearing No.KA-51-A-9468, due to the forced impact tempo traveller got turtled and went and hit against him and he was stuck under the tempo traveller and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Rajanandhini Hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment, later on he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, wherein he took the treatment and again he was shifted to Manipal Hospital and there was no bed in ICU. So, again he was shifted to Rajshekar Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery by spending huge amount.
4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy aged about 16 years, studying Diploma at KIET College and he was also taking the tutions to the school students at home by earning Rs.6,000/- per month, due to the accidental injuries, he could not able to conduct the tutions in future and he has lost the income and he cannot concentrate on his studies and unable to lead normal life as earlier. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus driver. Thereby, Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver, in their police station crime No.109/2014 for the offences punishable U/s. 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 134(A) & (B) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 being the owner, insurer and present owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondents were appeared through their respective counsel and filed their 5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 independent written statement. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle in his written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and he has denied the averments made in column No.1 to 3, 8 to 10 and 12 to 15 and 18 of the claim petition and he has also denied that on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., the petitioner was standing in Royal County bus stand waiting for bus, carefully and cautiously by observing all movements of the vehicles, the driver of the Mini bus has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller, due to the forced impact tempo traveller got turtled and went and hit against the petitioner, as a result he has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient in a different hospital by spending huge amount and prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, as 6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 he taking the tuitions to the students and he has alleged that on 07-11-2014 the driver of the mini bus has drove the same slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, when he has reached near Royal County bus stop, the injured abruptly rushed to the road in front of the another tempo traveller, without observing the movements of the vehicles. So, himself is the cause for the accident and he was fallen in front of the vehicle and the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident, but the petitioner has filed the false claim petition for unlawful gain and he has insured the vehicle with the second respondent and the policy was valid from 01-03- 2014 to 28-02-2015 and as on the date of the alleged accident, the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence to drove the same and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in its written statement has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 maintainable in law or on facts, but he has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of the first respondent and the policy was valid from 01-03-2014 to 28-02-2015 and its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy and he has alleged that he did not know the third respondent who is said to be the present owner of the offending vehicle and he has no knowledge about the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle in an accident said to have been taken place on 07-11-2014 and either the owner of the offending vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of M.V. Act in furnishing better particulars and he has denied that the petitioner was standing in Royal County bus stand waiting for bus, carefully and cautiously by observing all movements of the vehicles, the driver of the Mini bus has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 regulations dashed against the tempo traveller, due to the forced impact tempo traveller got turtled and went and hit against the petitioner, as a result he has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient in a different hospital by spending huge amount and he has also denied the involvement of the offending vehicle as alleged in the claim petition and the petitioner has took the treatment at Rajanandini Hospital, NIMHANS Hospital, Manipal Hospital and Rajashekar Hospital by spending an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drove the same. So, the owner of the offending vehicle has contravened policy conditions. So, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and he has denied that prior to the accident the petitioner was hale and healthy studying in Diploma and taking the tuition classes to students by 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- and prays for reject the claim petition.
6. The respondent No.3 being the present owner of the offending vehicle has denied the averments made in column No.1 to 3, 8 to 10 and 12 to 15 and 18 of the claim petition and he has also denied that on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., the petitioner was standing in Royal County bus stand waiting for bus, carefully and cautiously by observing all movements of the vehicles, the driver of the Mini bus has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller, due to the forced impact tempo traveller got turtled and went and hit against the petitioner, as a result he has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient in a different hospital by spending huge amount and prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month, as he taking the tuitions to the 10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 students and he has alleged that on 07-11-2014 the driver of the mini bus has drove the same slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, when he has reached near Royal County bus stop, the injured abruptly rushed to the road in front of the another tempo traveller, without observing the movements of the vehicles. So, himself is the cause for the accident and he was fallen in front of the vehicle and the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident, but the petitioner has filed the false claim petition for unlawful gain and the vehicle was insured with the second respondent and the policy was valid from 01-03-2014 to 28-02-2015 and as on the date of the alleged accident, the driver was holding valid and effective driving licence to drove the same and prays for reject the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate, in a 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 road traffic accident on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., near Royal County Vaddarapalya Junction, J.P. Nagar, 8th Phase, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mini bus bearing registration No.KA-05-B- 4200?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
8. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined his natural guardian being the father as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25 and he has examined three more witnesses on his behalf as PW2 to PW4 and got marked the documents as Ex.P26 to Ex.P36. The respondent No.2 in order to prove its defence has examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW1 and got marked the document as Ex.R1 and examined its Administrative Officer Legal as RW2 and got marked the 12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 document as Ex.R2 and FDA of RTO Jayanagar has been examined as RW3.
9. Heard arguments on both side.
10. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order for the
following.
REASONS
11. Issue No.1.
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached the court through his natural guardian father on the ground that on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., he was standing in Royal County bus stand waiting for bus, carefully and cautiously by observing all movements of the vehicles, the driver of the Mini bus has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller, due to 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 the forced impact tempo traveller got turtled and went and hit the petitioner and he was stuck under the tempo traveller and sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient in a different hospital by spending huge amount. Thereby, the natural guardian of the minor petitioner has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
12. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed the affidavit of his natural guardian through him as PW1. The PW1 in his evidence has stated that on 07-11- 2014 at about 8.45 a.m., his son was standing in Royal County bus stand waiting for bus, carefully and cautiously by observing all movements of the vehicles, the driver of the Mini bus bearing No.KA-05-B-4200 has came from Royal County towards Vaddarapalya with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller bearing No.KA-51-A-9468, due to the forced impact tempo traveller got turtled and 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 came and hit his son and his son was stuck under the tempo traveller and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Rajanandhini Hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment, later on he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, wherein he took the treatment and again he was shifted to Manipal Hospital and there was no bed in ICU. So, again he was shifted to Rajshekar Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent number of surgeries by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the mini bus driver. Thereby, Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver, in their police station crime No.109/2014 for the offences punishable U/s. 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 134(A) & (B) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that he has produced the documents to show that the petitioner is none other than his son and he met with an accident 15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., but he was not the witness to the accident, as he has received the phone at about 9.00 a.m., that his son has met with an accident and got admitted to the hospital. So, he rushed to the hospital and came to know through Krishnappa that the mini bus driver has caused the accident and soon after the accident his son was got admitted to the Rajanandini Hospital, later on shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, again he was shifted to Manipal Hospital and again he was shifted to Rajashekar Hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent number of surgeries and he has denied that the offending vehicle driver has not caused the accident and the accident was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo traveller and they have filed the false case with a wrongful gain.
13. The RW1 being the driver of the offending vehicle in his evidence has stated that as on the date of the alleged accident, he was the driver of the tata 407. 16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 On 07-11-2014 he was proceeding from workshop towards RTO and he almost crossed the Royal County road up to 75%, at that time the driver of the tempo traveller was came from Jambusavari Dinne with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his vehicle. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined the RW1 with the permission of the court. The RW1 in his cross examination has denied that he has deposing the false facts in order to help the petitioner and the vehicle owner.
14. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the information filed by one Rajendra K., and one Siddappa in which Rajendra K., has alleged that on 07-11-2014 the tempo traveller was proceeding towards Konanakunte cross at about 8.45 a.m., after pick up the students and reached Royal County Waddarapalya Junction, the driver of the mini bus bearing No.KA-05-B-4200 has drove the same with 17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 high in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller on its back side, as a result the tempo traveller driver has lost the control and it was turn turtled and dashed against the tree and electric pole and dashed against the 2 persons who were standing by the side of the road and the student who were traveling in the said tempo traveller were also sustained injuries. so, immediately they were shifted to Rajanandhini Hospital, wherein they took the treatment. Siddappa being said to be the father of the petitioner has alleged that his minor son on 07-11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., was waiting the bus proceeding towards the college, the driver of the mini bus bearing No.KA-05-B-4200 has drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations dashed against the tempo traveller on its back side, as a result the tempo traveller driver has lost the control and it was turn turtled and dashed against the tree and electric pole 18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 and dashed against his son. So, his son has sustained grievous injuries, the public who are gathered on the spot were took him to Rajanandhini Hospital and informed him about the accident. Thereby, he rushed to the Rajanandhini Hospital and came to know about the accident which was caused by the mini bus driver. So based on the information Kumaraswamy Layout Traffic Police have registered the case against the offending vehicle driver, in their police station crime No.109/2014 for the offences punishable U/s. 279 and 337 of IPC and Section 134(A) & (B) read with Section 187 of M.V. Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Though, he has suggested the PW1 that his son abruptly entered the road and fallen on the road nearby the vehicle and the offending vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and the petitioner has filed the false claim petition for which he has denied the same and he has also suggested that the tempo traveller driver 19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 has caused the accident for which he has also denied the same. But, the RW1 being the driver of the mini bus in his chief examination itself has categorically admitted that the accident in question was taken place on his own negligence and he was holding the driving licence to drive the mini bus bearing No.KA-05-B-4200. So, the materials on record clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. So, the respondent by examining the driver of the offending vehicle has helped the petitioner to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver and as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. So, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are remained unchallenged. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the panchanama and sketch drawn by the I.O., clearly reflects though there is a sufficient space to avoid the accident, but the reasons best known to the offending vehicle driver did not taken minimum care to 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 avoid the accident. So, on his own negligence the accident was occurred and the petitioner has sustained the injuries as shown in the wound certificate. Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 are clearly reflects that the offending vehicle driver has caused the accident and the petitioner has sustained the injuries. Ex.P8 is the final report filed by the I.O., clearly reflects that the I.O., after conducting the investigation has found that the accident in question was taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Ex.P9 to Ex.P34 are clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient almost for a period of 21 days and he has underwent number of surgeries by spending huge amount. So, the documents marked on behalf of the petitioner as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36 are coupled with the oral evidence of the PW1. The respondent has examined three more witnesses on its behalf as RW1 to RW3, but their evidence will not help the respondent to prove its 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 defence. On the other hand the petitioner has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the natural guardian of the petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated that on 07- 11-2014 at about 8.45 a.m., his son was waiting the bus proceeding towards the college, the driver of the offending vehicle has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tempo traveller, due to the said impact, the tempo traveller was turn turtled and hit his son, as a result his son was fell down and sustained the following injuries;
1) Fracture bilateral symphysis pubic rami fracture with sacral.
2) Fracture involving joint left acetabulum floor involved.
3) Traumatic rupture urethra with extra peritoneal bladder.
22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
4) Injury secondary to pelvic fracture.
5) Mild head injury.
6) Multiple facial and thigh abrasions.
16. So, immediately his son was shifted to Rajanandhini Hospital, wherein his son has took the first aid treatment, later on he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient and again he was shifted to Manipal Hospital and further shifted to Rajashekar Hospital, wherein his son has took the treatment as an inpatient and underwent number of surgeries, but inspite of best treatment, his son could not come to the normal position, still he is facing difficulties.
17. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy aged about 16 years, studying Diploma at KIET College and he was also taking the tutions to the school students at home by earning Rs.6,000/- per month, due to the accidental injuries, he could not able to conduct the tutions in future and he has lost the income and he cannot concentrate on his studies and unable to lead normal life as earlier and his son face became disfigured, 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 due to the accidental injuries. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that soon after the accident, his son has been shifted to Rajanandhini Hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment, later on he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital and again he was shifted to Manipal Hospital and finally he was shifted to Rajashekar Hospital, wherein his son underwent number of surgeries i.e., 4 surgeries and he has denied that he has created the medical bills placed before the court in order to get the compensation and he has not spent the amount as alleged in the claim petition and his son has not sustained any permanent disability, due to the accidental injuries and prior to the accident his son was not doing tuitions to the school student nor getting income of Rs.6,000/- per month and his son is not facing any difficulties after the accident.
18. PW2 being the Medical Record Officer in his evidence has clearly stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 07-11- 24 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 2014 and got admitted to the hospital for 4 times and he was underwent surgery and marked the documents as Ex.P26 to Ex.P30. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the contents as appeared in the documents which he has produced before the court.
19. The PW3 being the Professor of Urology at Institute of Nephro-Urology, Bangalore in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 07-11-2014, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Pelvis B/L symphysis public rami # with sacral # involving joint left acetabulum floor involved (Stable type).
2) Traumatic rupture urethra with extra peritoneal bladder injury secondary to pelvic fracture.
3) Mild head injury.
4) Multiple facial and thigh abrasions.
20. So, he was underwent following operations;
1) Patient was in ICU, antioedema of brain. 25 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
2) Emergency surgery - Diagnostic laparoscopy + SPG under USG guidance on 08-11-2014.
3) Patient discharged on 13-11-2014 with SPC in situ with other form of treatment.
21. The petitioner again he was got admitted to the hospital on 16-11-2014 for UTI and other complication for that treatment was given including blood transfusion and discharged on 19-11-2014 and again on 25-01-2015 has admitted due to pain and discharged on 26-01-2015. Finally, he was got admitted to the hospital on 05-02- 2015 and took the treatment till 11-02-2015. Recently he has examined the petitioner and found the following difficulties;
a) Patient is unable to pass urine via naturally.
b) Flabby corpora (Shunken penis).
c) Suprapubic pain.
d) Poor nourishment.
e) Fewer with chills.
22. So, the petitioner has sustained 29% of whole body disability. The PW3 in his cross examination has 26 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 admitted that since 13 years he is working in a urology department and he was contacted the doctor who treated the petitioner and he has stated the surgeries which was underwent by the petitioner based on the materials and the petitioner has took the treatment as he has treated the petitioner as outpatient and he has denied that the doctor who treated the petitioner is only the competent person to say about the condition of the patient and the petitioner is not facing any difficulties, due to the accidental injuries and he has admitted that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are curable injuries and the petitioner still is the minor and there is a chances of reducing of problems in future and he has denied that he has stated false facts in favour of the petitioner with an intention to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
23. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated that the petitioner has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident said to 27 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 have been taken place on 07-11-2014, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Pelvis-bilateral symphysis pubic rami fracture with sacral fracture involving joint left acetabulum floor involved.
2) Traumatic rupture urethra with extra peritoneal bladder injury secondary to pelvic fracture.
3) Mild head injury.
24. So, he was underwent operation of diagnostic laparoscopy + SPC under USG guidance and discharged on 13-11-2014 and again got admitted to the hospital on 16-11-2014 and diagnosed as urinary trat infection <E.Coli growth treated conservatively and discharged on 19-11-2014 and again he got admitted to the hospital on 25-01-2015 treated conservatively and discharged on 26- 01-2015 and again he got admitted to the hospital on 05- 02-2015 and underwent diagnosis PFUDD stricture urethra, procedure of end to end urethra plasty with 28 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 progressive perimeal approach done on 06-02-2015 and discharged on 11-02-2015. So, recently he has examined the petitioner on 05-09-2015 for disability assessment and found the following disabilities;
1) Difficulty to sit cross legged.
2) Difficulty to squat on the floor.
3) Difficulty to climb stairs.
4) Difficulty to walk on the slope.
25. So, the petitioner has sustained the permanent residual physical disability to an extent of 8% of whole body. The PW4 in his cross examination has admitted that on 05-09-2015 has examined the petitioner for disability assessment and he has stated the difficulties of the petitioner based on the materials and he did not produced the document which was shown by the petitioner at the time of assessment of disability and he has denied that he has stated higher disability in order to help the petitioner to get more compensation, though the petitioner is not facing any disability, due to the accidental injuries.
29 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
26. The PW1 being the father of the petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and difficulties of the petitioner due to the accidental injuries and he has also stated about the surgery which was underwent by the petitioner for a period of 4 times, but inspite of best treatment, his son could not come to the normal position. The PW3 being the professor of urology in his evidence has clearly stated about the difficulties and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner due to the accidental injuries. So, the evidence of the PW3 and PW4 corroborate the evidence of the PW1. Ex.P7 is the wound certificate issued by the Rajashekar Multi Speciality Hospital in which it is clear that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
1) Head injury speck of contusion left frontal region.
2) Splenic laceration.
30 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
3) B/L superior ramus fracture, (L)
acetabular floor.
4) Urethra rupture.
5) Hemaparetonium.
6) Facial abrasions and thigh abrasions.
27. So, the above said injury Nos.1, 3 and 5 are grievous in nature and injury Nos.2, 5 and 6 are simple in nature. Ex.P10 is the discharge summary in which it is clear that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the Rajshekar Multi Speciality Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 07- 11-2014 to 13-11-2014 for a period of 7 days, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Pelvis bilateral symphysis pubic rami fracture with sacral fracture involving joint left acetabulum floor involved.
2) Traumatic rupture urethra with extra peritoneal bladder injury.
3) Mild head injury.
4) Multiple facial and thigh abrasions.
28. So, the petitioner was treated in ICU with oxygen supplementation, IV fluids, injuction morphine, 31 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 injuction pan, injuction augmentin, injuction metrology1, injuction emeset and injuction tramadol and injuction wilbact S forte and he was referred to NIMHANS and neuro surgeon opinion and obtained orthopaedic surgeon opinion and urologist opinion about the surgery. So, the petitioner was posted for emergency surgery, diagnostic laparoscopy + SPC under USG guidance on 08-11-2014. Under GA, 10 mm trocar inserted by Hassan technique and laparoscope introduced. Ex.P11 is the discharge summary in which also it is clear that the petitioner again got admitted to the Rajshekar Multi Speciality Hospital on 16-11-2014 and took the treatment till 19- 11-2014 for a period of 4 days, due to severe pain in epigastric region and right hypochondrium region. So, he was admitted and treated for pubic rami fracture of one week back. Ex.P12 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner again got admitted to the Rajshekar Multi Speciality Hospital on 25-01-2015 and took the treatment till 26-01-2015, due to the fractures 32 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 as shown in the Ex.P12. So, the petitioner was treated with IV fluids, injuction pan, injunction dynapar and tab dicloran A. Ex.P13 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner again got admitted to the Rajshekar Multi Speciality Hospital on 05-02-2015 and took the treatment till 11-02-2015 and underwent diagnostic laparoscopy + SPC under USG guidance. Ex.P14 clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment at NIMHANS. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are clearly reflects about the condition of the petitioner, due to the accidental injuries. Ex.P19 are clearly reflects about the treatment taken by the petitioner in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident by spending an amount of Rs.4,15,710/-. Ex.P21 to Ex.P36 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries as shown in the wound certificate and took the treatment as an inpatient almost for a period of 21 days and underwent number of surgeries. So considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and 33 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 and the materials on record, it is necessary to grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following heads;
a) Pain and suffering.
The PW1 being the father of the petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated that his son has sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 07-11-2014 and got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 21 days and he was underwent number of surgeries, but inspite of best treatment he could not come to the normal position, still he is facing difficulties due to the accidental injuries. The PW3 and PW4 are clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident and they have also stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So considering the evidence of the PW1, PW3 and PW4 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the duration of treatment he would have 34 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.60,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.60,000/- is granted for the above head.
b) Inconvenience caused to the parents during laid up period:
The PW1 being the natural guardian of the petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated that prior to the accident his son was studying in diploma, due to the accidental injuries, he could not concentrate on his studies and he took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of almost 21 days, even after the discharge he took the follow up treatment. The PW3 and PW4 in their evidence have clearly stated about the treatment taken by the petitioner as an inpatient and outpatient. So one has to take care during the treatment as an inpatient and outpatient, for that either the father or the mother would have lost the income, so if Rs.15,000/- is granted
35 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses.
The PW1 being the father of the petitioner in his evidence has stated that his son has sustained the grievous injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 21 days and underwent number of surgeries. So, he has spent an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards his son treatment, but on record he has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.4,15,710.60 Paisa. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are created nor fabricated in order to get the compensation. So, considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the duration of treatment, it is clear that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the 36 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.4,15,711/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the father of the petitioner in his evidence has clearly stated that prior to the accident his son was hale and healthy aged about 16 years studying in Diploma, due to the accidental injuries, he could not concentrate on his studies and he took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 21 days, even after the discharge he took the follow up treatment, but inspite of best treatment, he could not come to the normal position, still he is under treatment. The PW3 being the Professor of Urology in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to him the petitioner has sustained whole body disability to an extent of 29%. The PW4 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to him the
37 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 petitioner has sustained whole body disability to an extent of 8%. So, if the disability as stated by the PW3 and PW4 are taken into consideration it comes to 37%. So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the injuries sustained by the petitioner, if the whole body disability is taken into consideration as 25% by considering the evidence of the PW3 and PW4 it will meet the ends of justice. So, whole body disability is taken into consideration as 25%. Thus, this court drawn its attention on the decision reported in 2013 ACJ 2445 in between Mallikarjun vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another reads like thus;
Quantum - Injury - Principles of assessment - Assessment of compensation in case of children suffering disability - Apex Court observed that appropriate compensation on all other heads in addition to the actual expenditure for treatment, attendant, etc., should be, if the disability is above 10 per cent and up to 30 per cent to the whole body, 38 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 percent, Rs.4,00,000; up to 90 per cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per cent, it should be Rs.6,00,000; for permanent disability up to 10 per cent, it should be Rs.1,00,000, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick. On careful perusal of the above said decision, in the said decision their lordship held that where the disability is above 10 per cent and up to 30 per cent to the whole body, Rs.3,00,000; up to 60 per cent, Rs.4,00,000; up to 90 per cent, Rs.5,00,000 and above 90 per cent, it should be Rs.6,00,000. For permanent disability up to 10 per cent, it should be Rs.1,00,000, unless there are exceptional circumstances to take a different yardstick.
In the instant case according to the PW3 and PW4, the petitioner has sustained whole body disability to an extent of 29% and 8% respectively in total 37%. So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the evidence of the PW3 and PW4, the whole body disability is taken into consideration as 25%. So, it is below 30%. So by virtue of the above said decision, the 39 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 petitioner is entitled of Rs.3,00,000/-. So Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded for the above head, since the admission of the PW1 and the medical records and other documents reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident, the petitioner was aged about 16 years who is the minor.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the father of the petitioner in his evidence has stated that his son has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 07-11-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient almost for a period of 21 days and he was underwent number of surgeries and also took the treatment as an outpatient. The PW3 and PW4 are clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of PW1, PW3 and PW4 and the duration of treatment as well as the complaints of the petitioner after the accident, it is just
40 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 and necessary to grant Rs.40,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.40,000/- is granted for the above head.
29. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 60,000-00
2.Inconvenience caused to Rs. 15,000-00 the parents during laid up period
3.Medical bills Rs. 4,15,711-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs. 3,00,000-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 40,000-00 Conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc. Total Rs. 8,30,711-00
30. The respondent No.2 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in its written statement has admitted about the issuance of the package B policy in favour of the first respondent in respect of the offending vehicle and the policy was valid from 01-03-2014 to 28-02-2015. The accident was occurred on 07-11-2014. So, as on the date of the alleged accident, the policy was in existence. 41 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014
31. The respondent No.2 has taken up the contention that the accident was not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the mini bus driver and as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The respondent No.2 has examined the driver of the offending vehicle as RW1 in his chief examination itself has categorically admitted that the accident was occurred on his own negligence. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross examined the RW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve his evidence.
32. The RW3 being the FDA of RTO Jayanagar in his evidence has clearly stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised to drive the offending vehicle based on the Ex.R1, as the Ex.R1 is the driving licence of the offending vehicle driver. So, the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle 42 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 driver was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the policy was in existence and the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Therefore, the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. inview of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 KLJ 292 from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
33. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.8,30,711/- 43 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, out of the compensation amount of Rs.4,15,711/- shall be released to the father of the petitioner being the natural guardian and remaining amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank till he attains age of majority. After attaining the majority the amount shall be directly paid to the petitioner without any further proceedings on age proof. The natural guardian is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time. 44 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 11th day of December 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Sri Siddappa PW2 Sri K.V. Rajaram PW3 Dr. Shivalingaiah M. PW4 Dr. S. Ramachandra
List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Complaint dated 10-11-2014 Ex.P3 True copy of FIR Ex.P4 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P5 True copy of Spot sketch Ex.P6 True copy of IMV Report 45 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 Ex.P7 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P8 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P9 Rajanandini hospital document Ex.P10 4 discharge summaries to Ex.P13 Ex.P14 Emergency case record Ex.P15 Investigation report Ex.P16 6 Photos with CD
Ex.P17 Notarised attested true copy of ID Card Ex.P18 Notarised attested true copy of Aadhaar card Ex.P19 165 Medical bills amounting to Rs.4,15,710.60 Paisa Ex.P20 39 Meals bills amounting to Rs.897/- Ex.P21 27 Medical prescriptions Ex.P22 10 X-ray films Ex.P23 5 CT scan films Ex.P24 Notarised attested true copy of Ration card Ex.P25 Notarised attested true copy of Election ID card Ex.P26 Authorization letter Ex.P27 Case sheet dated 07-11-2014 Ex.P28 Case sheet dated 16-11-2014 Ex.P29 Case sheet dated 25-01-2015 Ex.P30 Case sheet dated 05-02-2015 Ex.P31 Outpatient case file Ex.P32 USG report 46 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.5104/2014 Ex.P33 4 X-ray films Ex.P34 2 Radiology reports Ex.P35 OPD book Ex.P36 One x-ray film List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
RW1 Sri Yeshwanthkumar RW2 Sri G. Shiva Kumar RW3 Sri H.V. Shankaranarayana
List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Ex.R1 Notarised attested true copy of DL Ex.R2 Policy copy (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.