Bangalore District Court
Sri. Rajashekar A.B vs Mr. Obby Abraham on 1 June, 2017
SCCH-1 1 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
BEFORE THE MEMBER PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
DATED THIS THE 01st DAY OF JUNE 2017
PRESENT : SRI H.P.SANDESH, B.A.L, LL.B.,
MEMBER, PRL. M.A.C.T.
M.V.C. No. 7134/16, 7135/16, 7136/16, 7137/16,
7139/16, 7140/16, 7142/16 and 7143/16
Petitioners: Sri. Rajashekar A.B.,
(in MVC 7134/16) S/o. Late C. Bommaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.702, 14th Cross,
Near BBMP Office,
I Stage, Chandra Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 072.
PETITIONERS Sri. Shashibhushana K.,
(in MVC 7135/16) S/o.Late Kalasaiah,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident at No.6,
J.C. Road, Kote,
Near Public High School,
Channapatna Town,
Ramanagara District.
PETITIONERS Smt. C. Sharadhamma,
(in MVC 7136/16) W/o. C.L. Gowda,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.69,
Karishma Hills, Gubbalala,
Subramanyapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
PETITIONERS Sri. M. Devendra Kumar,
(in MVC 7137/16) S/o. Late Mullaiah,
SCCH-1 2 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Aged about 63 years,
Residing at No.850, 6th Main,
3rd Cross, KSRTC Layout,
J.P. Nagar, 2nd Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
PETITIONERS Sri. K. Nagabhshana,
(in MVC 7139/16) S/o. Kalaiah,
Aged about 77 years,
Residing at No.1732, 8th Cross,
2nd Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
PETITIONERS Smt. Nagarathnamma,
(in MVC 7140/16) W/o. S.H. Balagangadharaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
Residing at No.856, 6th Main,
3rd Cross, K.S.R.T.C. Layout,
J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
PETITIONERS Mrs. Prema Das,
(in MVC 7142/16) W/o. S. Krishna Das,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.17/20,
Bhagavathi Nilaya,
Doddakanalli Layout,
Sarjapura Road, Bengaluru.
PETITIONERS Mrs. Chandravathi,
(in MVC 7143/16) W/o. T.R. Gopal,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.G-30,
St. John's Medical College
Staff Quarters,
Bengaluru - 560 029.
(By Sri L.T.Gopal, Advocate in all the cases)
SCCH-1 3 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
- V/s -
Respondents: Mr. Obby Abraham,
(in all the cases) S/o. M.O. Abraham, Major,
Residing at IRIS Apartment,
Flat No.108, 2nd Cross,
Bejai New Road,
Mangalore.
(R.C Owner of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.
KA-19-AB-0451)
.. Exparte in all the petitions
Respondent No.2 Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
T.P.Hub,
Represented by its Manager,
Leo Shopping Complex,
No.44/45, Residency Road,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
(Insurer of the Lorry bearing Reg.No. KA-
19-AB-0451)
(By Sri M.Ramesha, Advocate in all the
cases)
Respondent No.3 Mr. Siddalingappa,
S/o. Mantheshappa,
Prop. M/s. Mallikarjuna Travels,
No.1741, 17th Cross,
M.C.Layout, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 040.
(R.C. Owner of the Private Bus bearing
Reg.No. KA-01-AE-2142)
(Sri G.V. Dayananda, Advocate in all the
cases)
SCCH-1 4 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Respondent No.4 Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
T.P.Hub,
Represented by its Manager,
Leo Shopping Complex,
No.44/45, Residency Road,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
(Insurer of the Private Bus bearing Reg.No.
KA-01-AE-2142)
(By Sri M.Ramesha, Advocate in all the
cases)
**********
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are arising out of the same accident and
therefore, they are disposed off by this common judgment.
2. The petitioners have filed these petitions under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the road
traffic accident.
3. Brief facts of the case are that:-
It is the case of the petitioners that, on 10.02.2016 at
about 03.45 p.m., they were traveling in a private bus bearing
registration No.KA-01/AE-2142 being driven by its driver on
SCCH-1 5 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
the left side of the road from Dharmasthala towards Bengaluru
and when they reached near Addahole, Shirady Village, at that
time, a lorry bearing registration No. KA-19/AB-0451 driven by
its driver came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite
direction i.e. from Gundya towards Uppinangadi and having
come to the extreme right side of the road, dashed against
their bus, as a result private bus fell down and they sustained
grievous injuries.
4. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7134/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Yenepoya
Hospital, Mangalore, wherein X-ray and CT Scan were taken
and fracture of both bones of right leg and other injuries were
detected and in the said hospital petitioner under went surgery
and implants are insitu. Thereafter, he took treatment at
Columbia Asia Hospital, Bengaluru. It is contended that, at
the time of accident, he was aged about 61 years and he was
earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing agricultural work. Due to
the said accident he is unable to work and thereby he has lost
his income and also facing mental shock and discomfort.
SCCH-1 6 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
5. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7135/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Mangala
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray and CT Scan were taken
and loss of teeth, fracture of 3rd to 8th Ribs and other lacerated
wounds all over the body were detected and in the said
hospital petitioner took treatment for one day and thereafter,
he was shifted to Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru
for further treatment wherein he took conservative treatment
for a period of 10 days as an inpatient. It is contended that, at
the time of accident, petitioner was aged about 44 years and
he was working as a Daftary in State Bank of Mysore, Head
Office, Bangalore. Due to the accidental injuries he was unable
to attend duty for a period of two month and thereby he lost
his income and also suffering from severe back pain, mental
shock and agony.
6. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7136/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to Yenepoya
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray and CT Scan were taken
and fracture of left clavicle and other injuries were detected
SCCH-1 7 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
and in the said she was inpatient for a period of two days and
thereafter she was shifted to Bengaluru for further treatment.
Due to severe pain again she was admitted to Shanthi hospital,
Bengaluru wherein she was operated for the fracture of left
clavicle and implants are insitu and after the discharge, she is
taking follow up treatment. It is contended that, at the time of
accident she was aged about 61 years and is a housewife. Due
to the accidental injuries she is not able to do the household
chores and has to depend on servants. She is also getting
severe pain on her left shoulder and unable to move around
and suffering from mental shock and agony.
7. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7137/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Mangala
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray was taken and loss of four
teeth, head injury and other injuries were detected and in the
said hospital he took treatment for two day and thereafter, he
was shifted to Apollo hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment,
wherein he took conservative treatment for a period of 2 days.
He has also taken treatment at Akruthi Dental Clinic for the
SCCH-1 8 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
loss of teeth. It is contended that, at the time of accident he
was aged about 63 years and he is a retired Bank Employee.
Due to the accidental injuries he is getting severe pain in his
head and dental pain and has also suffered mental shock,
agony and discomfort.
8. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7139/2016
that, immediately after the accident he was taken to Mangala
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray and CT Scan were taken
and Nasal bone fracture, head injury and other lacerated
wounds all over the body were detected and in the said
hospital petitioner took treatment for one day and thereafter,
due to the severe pain he took treatment at Apollo hospital,
Bengaluru. It is contended that, at the time of accident, he
was aged about 77 years and he is a retired Executive
Engineer. Due to the accidental injuries he is unable to move
around freely and unable to take the hard food.
9. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7140/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to Yenepoya
SCCH-1 9 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray and CT Scan were taken
and fracture of posterior lip of acetabulum, fracture of left
clavicle and other injuries were detected and in the said she
was inpatient for a period of two days and thereafter she was
admitted to Shanthi hospital, Bengaluru wherein she was
operated for the said injuries and implants are insitu and after
the discharge, she is taking follow up treatment. It is
contended that, at the time of the accident she was aged about
61 years and she is a housewife and also doing financial
consultant work and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Due to the
accidental injuries she is unable to do the work and getting
severe pain on her left leg and left shoulder and suffering from
mental shock and agony.
10. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7142/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to Mangala
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray and CT Scan were taken
and dislocation of back and other injuries were detected and in
the said hospital she was inpatient for a period of two days and
thereafter she was shifted to Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre,
SCCH-1 10 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Bengaluru for further treatment wherein she took treatment
for a period of two days and after the discharge, she is taking
follow up treatment. It is contended that, at the time of
accident she was aged about 48 years and she is a housewife.
Due to the accidental injuries she is not able to do the
household chores and has to depend on servants. She is also
getting severe pain on her left shoulder and unable to move
around etc., and suffering from mental shock and agony.
11. It is the case of petitioner in MVC No. 7143/2016
that, immediately after the accident she was taken to Mangala
hospital, Mangalore wherein X-rays were taken and laceration
over right and left side forehead, nose and contusion over right
shoulder, middle of the back, middle 1/3rd right thigh and
blood clot in the right leg and other injuries were detected and
in the said hospital she was inpatient for a period of two days
and thereafter due to the severe pain again she took
conservative treatment at St.John Medical College hospitals,
Bengaluru and after the discharge, she is taking follow up
treatment. It is contended that, at the time of the accident she
SCCH-1 11 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
was aged about 58 years and is working as Staff Nurse at St.
John's Medical College hospital and drawing salary of
Rs.25,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries she is unable
to do the work and thereby lost her income and also suffering
from mental shock and agony.
12. It is also the contention of the petitioners in all the
cases that, they have spent huge amount towards treatment,
conveyance, nourishment and other expenses. Further the
accident was occurred due to the negligent driving by the
driver of the offending lorry and the Uppinangadi Police have
registered a case against the driver of the lorry bearing
Reg.No.KA-19-AB-0451 under section 279, 338 and 304(A) of
IPC. Hence the respondents are liable to pay the
compensation to the petitioners.
13. In pursuance of these claim petitions, this Court
issued notice against all the respondents. Respondent No.1
remained exparte and respondent No.2 to 4 appeared through
their respective counsel and filed objection statement in all the
cases.
SCCH-1 12 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
14. It is the contention of the 2nd and 4th respondents
that, the very petition is false, frivolous, vexatious and not
maintainable either in law or on facts and denied all the
averments made in the petition. Further contended that, the
accused driver of the offending vehicle lorry was not holding
valid and effective driving licence and the insured 1st
respondent has knowingly entrusted the lorry to the driver who
had no license to drive the class of the vehicle and thereby has
violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
15. Further 2nd and 4th respondents have contended
that, the insured have not complied the statutory obligations
as per section 134(c) of the MV Act. Also the concerned police
have not forwarded all the relevant documents to the
concerned insurer within 30 days from the date of accident,
and not contemplated the statutory obligations as per Section
158(6) of the M.V. Act. Hence it is not liable to pay
compensation.
16. It is further contended that, it has issued the Policy
in respect of the lorry bearing Reg.No. KA-19-AB-0451 and the
SCCH-1 13 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
same was valid from 20.07.2015 to 19.07.2016 and liability if
any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy and
verification of the relevant documents pertaining to the vehicle
in question. It is also contended that, at the time of the
accident the insured was running the vehicle without having a
valid permit and fitness certificate and thereby he had violated
the terms and conditions of the policy and hence it is not liable
to pay compensation.
17. It is also the contention of the respondents that,
the seating capacity of the private bus is 17 members and the
insured bus was transporting more than 40 persons, thereby
the insured private bus had violated the terms and conditions
of policy and jurisdictional Puttur Police after investigation
have filed charge sheet against the driver of the Private Bus
under R.R.7 read with section 177 of M.V.Act, hence the
petition against their company is liable to be dismissed.
18. It is further contended that, the Petitioners have to
prove that the accident has occurred due to the rash and
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
SCCH-1 14 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Also have to prove that, the driver of the offending vehicle was
having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the
accident, their age, nature of injuries suffered by them,
treatment taken in the hospitals, the amount spent towards
medical expenses on account of accidental injuries and other
incidental expenses, the disabilities suffered by them,
avocation and also their earnings. Further contended that,
their company reserves the right to file additional statement of
objections under the changed circumstances U/s.170 of Motor
Vehicle Act.
19. Further contended that, if this court comes to the
conclusion that the petitioners are entitled to compensation,
then this court has to restrict the rate of interest @ 6% p.a. in
the event of petition is allowed. It is further contended that, the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and
exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss all the Petitions.
20. The respondent No.3/owner of Private bus in his
written statement has denied all the petition averments and
contended that, petitioners have to prove the same i.e. the
SCCH-1 15 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
nature of injuries, treatment taken in the hospital, the amount
spent towards medical expenses on account of accidental
injuries and the disabilities suffered by them, their age and
earnings.
21. 3rd respondent has further contended that, the
compensation claimed by the petitioner is fanciful, speculative
and exorbitant. It is also contended that, the driver of the bus
was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said
bus as on the date of the accident. Further it is his contention
that, he is the owner of the offending vehicle and it is insured
under the 4th respondent company and the said policy was in
subsistence at the time of the alleged accident and also had
valid fitness certificate and hence the insurer is liable to pay
compensation. Also has reserved the right to file additional
statement of objections under the changed circumstances.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the petitions.
22. Based on the pleadings this Court has framed the
following common issues in all the cases:-
SCCH-1 16 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
1. Whether the Petitioner proves that he sustained
grievous injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that
occurred on 10-2-2016 at about 3.45 p.m, at
Addahole, Shirady Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina
Kannada, within the jurisdiction of Uppinangadi
police station on account of rash and negligent
driving of the Lorry bearing registration No.KA-19-
AB-0451by its driver?
2. Whether the Respondent No.3 proves that the
accident was occurred on account of negligent act of
driver of the lorry?
3. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order?
23. In order to prove their cases, petitioners in M.V.C.
No.7134/16 to 7137/16, 7139/16, 7140/16, 7142/16 and
7143/16 were examined as PW.1 to PW.8 and have got marked
the documents at Ex.P.1 to 50. PW.1 has also examined the
Doctor as PW.9 and he got marked the documents Ex.P51 and
52. On the other hand, respondents have not adduced any
evidence before the Court.
24. I heard the arguments of petitioners counsel and
respondents counsel.
SCCH-1 17 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
25. Having heard the arguments, based on the
pleadings and the evidence available on record, I record my
findings on the above issues as under:-
1) Issue No.1 (in all the cases)... In the Affirmative,
2) Issue No.2 (in all the cases)... In the Affirmative,
3) Issue No.3 (in all the cases)... Partly in the Affirmative,
4) Issue No.4 (in all the cases)... As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
26. Issue No.1 & 2 (in all the cases): Since these two
issues are interconnected to each other, hence taken up
together for discussion to avoid repetitions.
27. The petitioners in all the cases have contended
that, on 10.02.2016 at about 03.45 p.m., they were traveling in
a private bus bearing registration No.KA-01/AE-2142 being
driven by its driver on the left side of the road from
Dharmasthala towards Bengaluru and when they reached near
Addahole, Shirady Village, at that time, a lorry bearing
registration No. KA-19/AB-0451 driven by its driver came in a
rash and negligent manner from opposite direction i.e. from
SCCH-1 18 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Gundya towards Uppinangadi and came to the extreme right
side and dashed against their bus, as a result private bus fell
down and they sustained grievous injuries.
28. In order to prove their case, the petitioner in MVC
No.7134/2016 has been examined as PW.1, and he got
marked the documents as Ex.P.1 to P4 and Ex.P6 i.e. FIR,
Mahazar, Sketch, IMV Report and charge sheet. In the cross
examination of PW.1 it is elicited that, there were 40 persons
in the said bus and all the 40 persons were having the seats.
It is further elicited from him that the road is curve where the
accident has occurred and the driver of the lorry who came in
the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner by
over taking other vehicle. There were no any other vehicles by
the side of their bus. It is suggested that, the driver of the bus
himself driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and
he only caused the accident and the same was denied. It is
suggested that, the seating capacity was only 17 and he took
the 40 persons exceeding the seating capacity and due to the
SCCH-1 19 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
over load he himself caused the accident and these
suggestions were denied.
29. On the other hand, the respondents while denying
the negligence on the part of driver of the lorry bearing
registration No.KA-19/AB-0451, alleged that the private bus
seating capacity is 17 members and against the same, the
driver was transporting more than 40 persons and thereby
insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy,
but to substantiate the same, they have not led any evidence
before the Court nor examined any of the witness.
30. Now let me consider the evidence available before
the Court. It is the contention of the PW-1 that the accident
has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of
the offending vehicle lorry who drove the same in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to their bus. The respondents in
the cross-examination only suggested that, the driver of the
bus himself driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner
and he only caused the accident and there is no negligence on
SCCH-1 20 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
the part of the driver of the lorry and the said suggestion was
denied by the PW.1.
31. On perusal of Ex.P1-Complaint, the complainant
has made specific allegation that, when he was returning from
Dharmasthala after his marriage in a Private bus along with
other inmates, the offending vehicle lorry driver who came from
Gundya drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and
dashed against their bus and hence they sustained grievous
injuries. On perusal of the Sketch which is marked as Ex.P3,
it discloses that, the bus was proceeding on the left side of the
road and the driver of the lorry who came from the opposite
direction instead of going in its direction came towards the
right side and dashed to the petitioners Bus, as a result they
sustained injuries and the Sketch has not been disputed in the
cross examination.
32. On perusal of the IMV report which is marked as
Ex.P4, it discloses that, the private bus bearing registration
No.KA-01/AE-2142 has suffered damages ie., front right side
shape pressed inwards, front wind screen glass broken into
SCCH-1 21 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
pieces. driver door damaged, front top hood damaged, front
bumper damaged, head light glass broken and assembly
damaged, steering column bent, passenger door frame
damaged, left side window glasses 3 nos., broken into pieces,
rear wind screen glass broken into pieces. Ex.P.4 IMV Report
further shows that the offending lorry has also sustained
following damages: driver cabin completely damaged, both
windscreen glasses broken into pieces, driver door damaged,
front mudguard damaged, both head light assembly damaged
and glasses broken, front bumper damaged, front right side
mudguard damaged, steering column bent, left side cabin door
damaged, left side front mudguard damaged.
33. It is important to note that a case has been
registered against the driver of the offending lorry and the
statement of witness also reiterates that the accident is on
account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry
and he went and dashed against the petitioners' bus. Police
have also filed charge sheet as per Ex.P.6 against the driver of
the offending lorry. The respondents have not disputed the
SCCH-1 22 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Sketch which is marked as Ex.P3. The respondents also have
not examined the driver of the offending vehicle to prove the
negligence on the part of the driver of the private bus and also
there is no any rebuttal evidence before this Court and also the
manner in which the accident was occurred and hence it is
clear that the accident was occurred on account of rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing registration
No.KA-19/AB-0451. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 & 2 in all
the cases as Affirmative.
34. Issue No.3 (in M.V.C. No.7134/2016): It is the case
of the petitioner that, on account of the accident he has
sustained the grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident
he was taken to Yenepoya hospital, Mangalore, wherein X-ray
and CT Scan were taken and fracture of both bones of right leg
and other injuries were detected and in the said hospital
petitioner under went surgery and implants are insitu and he
was inpatient in the said hospital from 10.02.2016 to
27.02.2016. Again due to the severe pain he took treatment at
SCCH-1 23 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Columbia Asia hospital, Bengaluru and after the discharge he
is taking follow up treatment. It is contended that, at the time
of accident, he was aged about 61 years and he was earning
Rs.10,000/- p.m. by doing agricultural work. Due to the said
accident he is unable to work and thereby he has lost his
income and also facing mental shock and discomfort.
Petitioner in order to substantiate his contention has relied
upon Wound Certificate, Discharge summary, copy of Aadhaar
card, Medical bills (9 in nos.) for Rs.1,81,980/- which are
marked as Ex.P5, Ex.P7 to 9.
35. The petitioner was subjected to cross examination
and in the cross examination it is suggested that, he has
sustained simple injuries and the same was denied. He admits
that, the injury is healed. It is suggested that, he is getting
pension and the same was denied. He admits that, he has
been retired from the service. It is suggested that, at the time
of the accident he was not doing any job and the same was
denied. Witness volunteers that, he was taking care of the
agricultural land and he has not produced any document to
SCCH-1 24 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
show that he is an agriculturist. It is elicited that, he is not
having any medi claim policy. He admits that, he was an
Inpatient for a period of 18 days at Yenapoya hospital at
Mangalore and the doctor of Yenepoya hospital has advised
him to take the treatment at Columbia hospital and he has
taken the treatment as Outpatient at Columbia hospital. It is
suggested that, medical bills are created for the purpose of
getting more compensation and the same was denied.
36. The petitioner also relied upon the evidence of the
Doctor who has been examined as PW.9 and in his evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries and fractures suffered by
the PW.1. Further says that, injured has sustained fracture of
proximal tibia and fibula of right leg with compartment
syndrome and he underwent external fixation to the right tibia
with Fasiotomy, wound inspection and re-alignment of Ex-Fix
with change of dressing, Skin grafting of right leg and got
discharged on 27.02.2016. It is also his evidence that, on
03.05.2017 he assessed the disability by combining difficulty
to stand and bear weight on right leg, always limps while
SCCH-1 25 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
walking, Range of movements of right knee joint flexion-
extension and right ankle, loss of power of muscles acting
around right knee joint and he came to the conclusion of
37.7% disability to the right lower limb and whole body
disability as 19.35%. He has produced Ex.P51 OPD book,
Ex.P52 X-ray.
37. The PW.9 was subjected to cross examination and
in the cross examination it is suggested that, the fractures are
united and the same was denied. He says, he has seen the
wound certificate and discharge summery issued by Yenepoya
hospital and he has not seen the follow up treatment records
and he has advised for corrective surgery on account of mal-
union. He admits that, the shortening can be rectified by
advising appropriate shoe. It is suggested that, at the age of
62, the disability will not come in the way of leading of normal
life and the same was denied. He admits that, the petitioner
can do the agricultural work with difficulties. The petitioner
has not suffered comminuted fracture. It is suggested that,
he ought to have taken 1/3rd instead of 50% while assessing
SCCH-1 26 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
the disability to whole body and if it is taken 1/3rd it comes to
13% and the same was denied. It is elicited that, the nature of
the fracture is for mal-union. He has not advised any other
further treatment except the corrective surgery.
38. Now let me appreciate both oral and documentary
evidences available before the court under the different heads:
39. PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:
The petitioner in his petition and also in the evidence he
has reiterated the nature of injuries sustained by him and also
says that, he has suffered the permanent disability on account
of the accident. The Petitioner in order to substantiate his
contention has produced the Wound certificate which is
marked as Ex.P5 and it reveals that, the petitioner has
suffered following injuries:
1. Reddish contused of 15 cm x 10 on the middle 1/3rd
of right thigh,
2. Reddish contusion of 8 cm x 7 cm on the lower part
of abdomen,
3. Laceration of 5 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the upper
1/3rd of right leg with x-ray showing comminuted
fracture of tibia and fibula.
SCCH-1 27 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
The doctor in the wound certificate has opined that the
injury No.3 is grievous in nature and injury No.1 and 2 are
simple in nature. Ex.P7 Discharge Summary of Yenepoya
hospital reveals that, PW.1 was inpatient in the said hospital
from 10.02.2016 to 27.02.2016 for a period of 18 days and was
subjected to surgery and he was treated with external fixator
to the right tibia with fascistomy, wound inspection and
dressing, realighment of Ex-fix with change of dressing, skin
grafting of right leg etc., In view of petitioner has suffered the
above said fracture and also underwent surgery, I am of the
opinion that, petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.40,000/-. Hence, I award Rs.40,000/- under the Head
Pain and Sufferings.
40. LOSS OF FUTURE EARNINGS ON ACCOUNT OF
DISABILITY:
a) Disability:
Regarding the disability is concerned the petitioner has
relied upon the evidence of the Doctor PW.2 who assessed the
disability of 19% to whole body. In the cross examination it is
SCCH-1 28 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
clear that, he is not a treated doctor. It is also elicited that,
Petitioner can do the agriculture work with difficulties. It is
important to note that while assessing the disability to whole
body he has taken 50% and not as 1/3rd. For having taken
note of the admissions elicited from the mouth of PW.2, the
disability assessed by the Doctor as 19% to whole body is on
the higher side, and if we take 1/3rd out of 38.7% disability to
right lower limb it come to 12.9% whole body disability.
Considering that, the Doctor PW.9 says that, there is mal-
union of fracture and he requires one more corrective surgery,
hence I have taken the whole body disability as 15% which
would be just and reasonable.
b) Income:
The Petitioner claims that, he was doing agriculture work
and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. It has to be noted that, though
he claims that, he was doing agriculture work and earning
Rs.10,000/- p.m. he has not produced any documentary proof
and in the cross examination also he categorically admits that,
he has not produced any document to show that he is an
SCCH-1 29 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
agriculturist. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof
with regard to the earnings of Rs.10,000/- p.m, I have taken
income of the petitioner as 8,000/- p.m. as notional income
since the accident was taken place in the year 2016.
c) Age & multiplier:
The Petitioner claims that he was aged about 61 years at
the time of the accident and to prove the same he has relied
upon the Ex.P8 Aadhaar Card in which his date of birth is
mentioned as 29.06.1995 which is not tallying with the date
mentioned by the petitioner. Hence this Court has relied upon
the documents which came into existence immediately after
the accident i.e. Ex.P5 Wound certificate in which his age is
mentioned as 61 years. In the Ex.P7 Discharge Summary of
Yenepoya hospital also the injured age is mentioned as 61
years. Hence I accept the age of the petitioner as 61 years.
Having taken note of the petitioner's age as 61 years, the
relevant multiplier applicable between the age group of 61 to
65 is 7.
SCCH-1 30 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
The petitioner is entitled for the compensation of
Rs.1,00,800/-(8,000x12x15x7/100). Hence I award
Rs.87,360/- under the Head of Loss of Earnings due to
disability.
41. MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The petitioner has produced medical bills to the tune of
Rs.1,81,980/- which is marked as Ex.P9. On perusal of Ex.P9
it discloses that, petitioner has produced in patient bill of
Yenepoya hospital amounting to Rs.1,73,252/- for having
admitted in the said hospital from 10.02.2016 to 27.02.2016
for a period of 18 days and underwent surgeries. Petitioner
has also produced bills of Columbia Asia hospital and other
bills for having spent amount towards consultation and
purchase of medicines and nothing is elicited to disbelieve the
same in the cross examination. Hence I award
Rs.1, 81,980/- under the head medical expenses.
42. CONVEYANCE, FOOD AND NOURISHMENT, ATTENDANT
CHARGES AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES:
During the treatment period the Petitioner must have
spent amount towards conveyance and other incidental
SCCH-1 31 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
expenses. The petitioner was an inpatient at Yenepoya
hospital for a period of 18 days from 10.02.2016 to
27.02.2016. He has suffered fractures and undergone surgery.
Hence I award Rs.20,000/- under the head traveling,
conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment and
other incidental expenses.
43. LOSS OF INCOME DURING THE PERIOD OF
TREATMENT:
It is important to note that, he was an inpatient for a
period of 18 days and he has sustained the fracture of
proximal tibia and fibula of right leg with compartment
syndrome and other injuries. The PW.1 has not placed any
documentary evidence before the court to prove that presently
he is not working. Hence for having taken note of nature of
injuries he has suffered, I am of the opinion that he could not
work for a period of 4 months. Hence, I award an amount of
Rs.32,000/-(8,000x4) under the head Loss of earnings
during the period of treatment.
SCCH-1 32 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
44. LOSS OF AMENITIES IN LIFE:
The petitioner is aged about 61 years and he has suffered
the disability and this court has fixed 15% disability to whole
body. On account of his age being 61 years and he has to lead
his rest of life with the disability of 15%, I am of the opinion
that, the Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/-
on the head loss of amenities in life.
45. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES:
The Doctor who has been examined as PW.9 before the
court says that, fracture of right tibia proximally shows mal-
union, shortening and fracture of right fibula shows mal-union
and he has advised to undergo another operation for corrective
osteotomy and nailing. On perusal of records it discloses that,
petitioner was subjected to surgery and skin grafting. For
having taken note of the fracture and malunion and requires
one more surgery of nailing, I am of the opinion that, an
amount of Rs.40,000/- towards future medical expenses is
just and reasonable. Hence I award an amount of
Rs.40,000/- under the head future medical expenses.
SCCH-1 33 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
The details of compensation, I propose to award are as
under:
Sl.
Head of Compensation Amount
No.
1. Pain and Sufferings Rs. 40,000.00
2. Loss of future earnings due to Rs. 1,00,800.00
disability
(8,000x12x15x7/100)
3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,18,980.00
4. Conveyance, food and 20,000.00
nourishment, attendant
charges and other incidental
expenses.
5. Loss of income during the Rs. 32,000.00
period of treatment(8,000x4)
6. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 25,000.00
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 40,000.00
Total Rs. 3,76,780.00
In all the Petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,76,780/- which is rounded off to Rs.3,77,000/-.
46. Issue No.2 ( in M.V.C. No.7135/2016) : It is the case
of the petitioner that, on account of the accident, he suffered
grievous injuries and immediately, he was taken to Mangala
Hospital, Mangalore wherein he took treatment for one day and
then shifted to Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru
SCCH-1 34 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
wherein he was treated as inpatient for the injuries for a period
of 10 days. He has spent huge amount towards hospitalization
and medical expenses. It is also his case that, he is working as
Daftary in State Bank of Mysore, Head Office, Bengaluru and
due to the accidental injuries he is unable to attend to his duty
and thereby he has lost his income. The petitioner in support
of his contention has examined himself as PW.5 and got
marked the documents Ex.P29 Wound certificate, Ex.P30 and
31 Discharge Summary, Ex.P32 Pay slip, Ex.P33 Leave
Certificate, Ex.P34 CT Scan Report, Ex.P35 Medical bills (27 in
nos.) for Rs.96,491/- and Ex.P36 - 3 Prescriptions. In the
cross examination of PW.5 it is elicited that, now also he is
working in the bank and he is having medical reimbursement
facility but he has not claimed the same. He was on leave for
a period of 2 months and he has received the salary during the
said period. He was applied for leave for accidental injuries. It
is elicited that, the injuries are healed but he has got pain.
Now he is doing his work as usual. He admits that, he was not
subjected to any surgery and he was subjected to conservative
treatment. He was an Inpatient for a period of 15 days.
SCCH-1 35 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
47. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidence available before the Court. On perusal
of Wound Certificate which is marked as Ex.P29, it discloses
that, petitioner has suffered following injuries:
1. Laceration of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the
left ear,
2. Reddish contusion of 4 cm x 3 cm on the lower lip
with fracture of left upper central and lateral
incisors, left lower central and lateral incisors, right
lower central incisor teeth,
3. Reddish contusion of 7 cm x 5 cm on the lower pat
of left side of chest,
4. Reddish contusion of 5 cm x 4 cm on the right
knee.
In the wound certificate doctor has opined that, injuries
No.2 and 3 are grievous in nature and Injury No.1 & 4 are
simple in nature. Ex.P31 Discharge summary of Mangala
hospital discloses that the petitioner took treatment in their
hospital from 10.02.2016 to 11.02.2016 i.e., for a period of 2
days and she was treated conservatively. Ex.P30 Discharge
summary of Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre reveals that,
petitioner was treated with injections and tablets for fracture of
SCCH-1 36 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
4th and 5th Ribs. He was inpatient in the said hospital from
12.02.2016 to 22.02.2016 for a period of 11 days.
48. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries and petitioner
has taken conservative treatment in two hospitals and in the
absence of doctor's evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit
case to award a global compensation of Rs. 75,000/- including
pain and sufferings, loss of income and other incidental
expenses. Hence, I award Rs. 75,000/- as Global
Compensation.
49. The petitioner has produced medical bills of
Rs.96,419/- which is marked as Ex.P35 and it discloses that,
petitioner was admitted to the Mangala hospital on 10.02.2016
at the first instance and the said hospital has issued bill to the
tune of Rs.16,352/-. Petitioner has also produced the
Inpatient bill of Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre to the tune of
Rs.23,000/- for being admitted in their hospital from
12.02.2016 to 22.02.2016 as an inpatient. There is also a bill
of Suraksha Dental Care Centre amounting to Rs.25,000/- for
SCCH-1 37 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
having taken treatment for dental injuries sustained during
the accident and also has produced other additional bills for
having purchased the medicines. It has to be noted that,
petitioner has produced receipt dated 11.02.2016 amounting
to Rs.15,000/- issued by Mangala hospital towards
ambulance service charges. Hence I consider the medical bills
and I award Rs.96,419/- which is rounded off to Rs.97,000/-
under the head 'Medical expenses'.
Hence in all petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs. 1,72,000/- (75,000+97,000).
50. Issue No.3 (in M.V.C. No.7136/2016): It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident she has
suffered grievous injuries and immediately after the accident
she was taken to Yenepoya hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray
and CT Scan were taken and fracture of left clavicle and other
injuries were detected and in the said hospital she was
inpatient for a period of two days and thereafter she was
shifted to Bengaluru for further treatment. Due to severe pain
again she was admitted to Shanthi hospital, Bengaluru
SCCH-1 38 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
wherein she was operated for the fracture of left clavicle and
implants are insitu and after the discharge, she is taking follow
up treatment. It is contended that, at the time of accident she
was aged about 61 years and is a housewife. Due to the
accidental injuries she is not able to do the household chores
and has to depend on servants. She is also getting severe pain
on her left shoulder and unable to move around and suffering
from mental shock and agony. The petitioner in support of her
contention has examined herself as PW.2 and in her evidence
she has reiterated the averments made in the petition. Also
got marked the documents Wound certificate, Discharge
summaries, CT Scan report, notarized copy of passport,
medical bills for Rs.1,13,379/-, one medical prescription as
Ex.P10 to 16. In the cross examination of PW.2 it is elicited
that, the injuries are healed. She was an Inpatient for a period
of 3 days at Yenapoya hospital at Mangalore and was not
subjected to any surgery. She was an Inpatient at Shanthi
hospital at Bangalore and she was subjected to surgery. It is
suggested that, medical bills are created for the purpose of
SCCH-1 39 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
getting more compensation and the same was denied. She also
admits that, she is a house wife.
51. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, she claims that she has suffered grievous injuries
and also suffered disability and to prove the same she has not
examined the Doctor before court.
52. On perusal of Wound Certificate which is marked as
Ex.P.10 discloses that, she has suffered following injuries:
1. Laceration of 3 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep on the left
side of head,
2. Reddish contusion of 6 cm x 5 cm on the left
shoulder with x-ray showing fracture of clavicle
In the Wound certificate doctor has opined that, injury
No.2 as grievous and injury No.1 as simple in nature. Ex.P11
Discharge summary of Yenepoya Specialty hospital discloses
that the petitioner took treatment in their hospital from
10.02.2016 to 12.02.2016 i.e., for a period of 3 days and she
SCCH-1 40 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
was treated conservatively for the left clavicle fracture. Ex.P12
Discharge summary of Shanthi hospital reveals that, petitioner
underwent curvilinear incision over clavicle, fracture site
exposed, reduced and fixed with clavicular plate and screw,
haemostasis ensured and closure in layers and sterile dressing
applied. She was inpatient in the said hospital from
15.02.2016 to 16.02.2016 for a period of two days. Ex.P13 CT
Scan reveals the injuries sustained to the head.
53. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries and petitioner
has taken treatment in two hospitals and subjected to surgery
with clavicular plate and screws and in the absence of doctor's
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
global compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses.
54. The petitioner has produced medical bills of
Rs.1,13,379/- which is marked as Ex.P15 and it discloses
that, petitioner was admitted to the Yenepoya hospital on
10.02.2016 and got discharged on 12.02.2016 at the first
SCCH-1 41 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
instance and the said hospital has issued bill to the tune of
Rs.28,363/-. Also produced the Inpatient bill of Shanthi
hospital to the tune of Rs.75,641/- in which petitioner received
discount of Rs.6,125/- and she has paid Rs.69,516/- for being
admitted in their hospital from 15.02.2016 to 16.02.2016 for a
period of 2 days and also has produced other additional bills
for having purchased the medicines. Hence I award
Rs.1,13,379/- which is rounded to Rs.1,14,000/- under the
head 'Medical Expenses.'
In all petitioner is entitled for an amount of
Rs. 2,14,000/- (1,00,000+1,14,000).
55. Issue No.3 ( in M.V.C. No.7137/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident he has
suffered grievous injuries and immediately after the accident
he was taken to Mangala hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray
was taken and loss of four teeth, head injury and other
injuries were detected and in the said hospital he took
treatment for two day and thereafter, he was shifted to Apollo
SCCH-1 42 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
hospital, Bengaluru for further treatment, wherein he took
conservative treatment for a period of 2 days. He has also
taken treatment at Akruthi Dental Clinic for the loss of teeth.
It is contended that, at the time of accident he was aged about
63 years and he is a retired Bank Employee. Due to the
accidental injuries he is getting severe pain in his head and
dental pain and has also suffered mental shock, agony and
discomfort. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.6 and reiterated the averments made
in the petition and also got marked the documents Ex.P.37
Wound certificate, Ex.P38 & 39 Discharge Summary, Ex.P40
Letter issued by medi assist, Ex.P41 8 medical bills for
Rs.57,408/- and Ex.P42 Prescriptions. In the cross
examination of PW.6 he admits that, he was not subjected to
any surgery, except dental surgery. It is elicited that, he was
having medi claim policy and he has not claimed the medi
claim policy benefits. He has not availed the medical
reimbursement benefit from medi assist for the reason that the
hospital authority insisted for payment by cash.
SCCH-1 43 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
56. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, he claims that he has suffered grievous injuries
and suffered disability and to prove the same he has not
examined the Doctor before court. On perusal of Wound
Certificate which is marked as Ex.P.37, it discloses that, he
has suffered following injuries:
1. Laceration of 6 cm x 1.5 cm x bone deep on the
right side of head, right side black eye present,
2. Laceration of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the
upper lip with fracture of left upper and left lower
central incisor and left lower lateral incisor and
mobility of other upper teeth,
3. Reddish contusion of 8 cm x 6 cm on the right
knee.
In the Wound certificate the doctor has opined that the
injury No.3 is grievous and injuries no.1,2,4 are simple in
nature. On perusal of Ex.P38 Discharge Summary of Mangala
hospital reveal that, petitioner was treated with suturing of
lacerated wounds. Ex.P39 Discharge Summary of Apollo
hospital, Neurosurgery Dept. reveals that, petitioner has
SCCH-1 44 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
sustained head injury with speck of right frontal contusion, left
fronto parietal maningioma and hypertension and he was
treated with physiotherapy and mobilization. Ex.P40 letter
issued by the Medi Assist reveals that, the petitioner has not
claimed the medical bills though he was covered under the
policy. In the cross examination also he admits that, he has
not claimed the medi claim policy benefits.
57. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries i.e. loss of four
teeth and subjected to dental surgery in the Apollo hospital
and in the absence of doctor's evidence, I am of the opinion
that, it is a fit case to award a global compensation of
Rs. 80,000/- including pain and sufferings, loss of income and
other incidental expenses. Hence, I award Rs. 80,000/- as
Global Compensation.
58. The petitioner has produced medical bills to the
tune of Rs.57,408/- which is marked as Ex.P40 and it
discloses that, petitioner was admitted to Mangala hospital on
10.02.2016 till 11.02.2016 at the first instance and the said
SCCH-1 45 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
hospital has issued bill to the tune of Rs.14,457/-. Also
produced the inpatient bill of Apollo hospital amounting
Rs.29,828/- for having admitted in the said hospital for a
period of two days from 12.02.2016 to 13.02.2016 and also
has produced other additional bills for having purchased the
medicines. Hence I award Rs.57,408/- which rounded off to
Rs.58,000/- under the head 'Medical Expenses'.
In all petitioner is entitled for Rs. 1,38,000/-
(80,000+58,000).
59. Issue No.3 ( in M.V.C. No.7139/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident, he suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident he was
taken to Mangala hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray and CT
Scan were taken and Nasal bone fracture, head injury and
other lacerated wounds all over the body were detected and in
the said hospital petitioner took treatment for one day and
thereafter, due to the severe pain he took treatment at Apollo
hospital, Bengaluru. It is contended that, at the time of
accident, he was aged about 77 years and he is a retired
SCCH-1 46 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Executive Engineer. Due to the accidental injuries he is
unable to move around freely and unable to take the hard
food.
60. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.4 and in his evidence he has
reiterated the averments made in the petition and also got
marked the documents Ex.P.23 Wound certificate, Ex.P24 &
25 Discharge Summary, Ex.P26 Letter issued by Medi-assist,
Ex.P27 6 medical bills for Rs.58,650/- and Ex.P28 one
Prescription. In the cross examination of PW.4 he admits
that, he was subjected to surgery in respect of lip. He is a
retired Executive Engineer and he is getting pension. He
admits that, after the retirement and he was not doing the
work. He also admits that, he is not having any medical
reimbursement benefit after retirement and he has not availed
any benefit from medi assist.
61. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, he claims that he has suffered grievous injuries
SCCH-1 47 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
and suffered disability and to prove the same he has not
examined the Doctor before court. On perusal of Wound
Certificate which is marked as Ex.P.23, it discloses that he has
suffered following injuries:
1. Laceration of 3 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep on the
upper lip,
2. Reddish contusion of 4 cm x 4 cm on the chin.
In the Wound certificate the doctor has opined that the
injuries are simple in nature. On perusal of Ex24 Discharge
Summary of Mangala hospital reveal that, petitioner was
treated with suturing of lacerated wounds and he was
inpatient in the said hospital from 10.02.2016 to 11.02.2016
for a period of 2 days. Ex.P25 Discharge Summary of Apollo
hospital, Neurosurgery Dept. reveals that, petitioner has
sustained head injury with left parietal acute sub-dural
haematoma, nasal bone fracture and other deceases and he
was treated with physiotherapy and mobilization and he was
inpatient in the said hospital from 12.02.2016 to 13.02.2016
for a period of two days. Ex.P26 letter issued by the Medi
SCCH-1 48 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Assist reveals that, the petitioner has not claimed the medical
bills though he was covered under the medi-claim policy. In
the cross examination also he admits that, he has not claimed
the medi claim policy benefits.
62. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries i.e. head injuries
and nasal bone fracture and petitioner has taken first aid
treatment at Mangala hospital and Apollo hospital and in the
absence of doctor's evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit
case to award a global compensation of Rs. 50,000/- including
pain and sufferings, loss of income and other incidental
expenses. Hence I award Rs.50,000/- as Global
Compensation.
63. The petitioner has produced medical bills to the
tune of Rs.58,650/- which is marked as Ex.P27 and it
discloses that, petitioner was admitted to Mangala hospital on
10.02.2016 till 11.02.2016 at the first instance and the said
hospital has issued bill to the tune of Rs.20,787/-. Also
produced the inpatient bill of Apollo hospital amounting
SCCH-1 49 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Rs.25,150/- for having admitted in the said hospital for a
period of two days from 12.02.2016 to 13.02.2016 and also
has produced other additional bills for having purchased the
medicines. Hence I award Rs.58,650/- which is rounded off to
Rs.59,000/- under the head 'Medical Expenses'.
In all petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.1,09,000/-(50,000+59,000).
64. Issue No.3 ( in M.V.C. No.7140/2016) : It is the
case of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident, she
suffered grievous injuries and immediately after the accident
she was taken to Yenepoya hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray
and CT Scan were taken and fracture of posterior lip of
acetabulum, fracture of left clavicle and other injuries were
detected and in the said hospital she was inpatient for a period
of two days and thereafter she was admitted to Shanthi
hospital, Bengaluru wherein she was operated for the said
injuries and implants are insitu and after the discharge, she is
taking follow up treatment. It is contended that, at the time of
the accident she was aged about 61 years and she is a
SCCH-1 50 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
housewife and also doing financial consultant work and
earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries she is
unable to do the work and getting severe pain on her left leg
and left shoulder and suffering from mental shock and agony.
65. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined herself as PW.3 and reiterated the averments made
in the petition and also got marked the documents Ex.P.17
Wound certificate, Ex.P18 to 20 Discharge Summaries, Ex.P21
10 medical bills for Rs.1,49,455/- and Ex.P22 two
Prescription. In the cross examination of PW.3 she admits that,
the injuries are healed and the fractures are united. She is a
retired bank employee and she was getting Rs.10,000/-. She
has not produced any document to show that, she was getting
Rs.10,000/-. It is elicited that, she was not having any medi
claim policy. It is suggested that, she was not subjected to any
surgery and in order to get the compensation, she is giving
false evidence before the Court and the same was denied.
SCCH-1 51 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
66. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, she claims that he has suffered grievous injuries
and suffered disability and to prove the same she has not
examined the Doctor before court. On perusal of Wound
Certificate which is marked as Ex.P.17, it discloses that, she
has suffered following injuries:
1. Laceration of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right
side of forehead,
2. Reddish contusion of 9 cm x 5 cm on the left shoulder
with X-ray showing fracture of clavicle,
3. Reddish contusion of 8 cm x 7 cm on the outer aspect
of upper 1/3rd of left thigh with x-ray showing fracture
of posterior lip of Acetabulum.
In the wound certificate the doctor has opined that the
injuries No.2 and 3 are grievous and injury No.1 is simple in
nature. On perusal of Ex18 Discharge Summary of Yenepoya
hospital reveal that, she was inpatient from 10.02.2016 to
12.02.2016 and she was treated with ICU care, tablets and
injections. Ex.P19 Discharge summary of Shanthi hospital
reveals that, in the said hospital she was treated with
SCCH-1 52 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Curvilinear incision over clavicle(L), fracture site exposed,
reduced and fixed with 6 holed clavicle plates and 6 screws,
haemostasis ensured and closure in layers, sterile dressing
applied and she was inpatient in the said hospital from
24.02.2016 to 25.02.2016 for a period of two days. Again she
was admitted to the said hospital and underwent implants
removal on 30.07.2016 as per Ex.P20.
67. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries i.e. fracture of
posterior lip of acetabulum, fracture of left clavicle and other
injuries and petitioner has taken treatment at Mangala
hospital and Shanthi hospital and in the absence of doctor's
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
global compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses.
68. The petitioner has also produced medical bills of
Rs.1,49,455/- which is marked as Ex.P21 and it discloses
that, petitioner was admitted to the Yenepoya hospital on
SCCH-1 53 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
10.02.2016 till 12.02.2016 at the first instance and the said
hospital has issued bill to the tune of Rs.34,565/-. Also
produced the Inpatient bill of Shanthi hospital to the tune of
Rs.71,838/- for being admitted in their hospital from
24.02.2016 to 25.02.2016 and Rs.33,627/- for having
admitted on 30.12.2016, and also has produced other
additional bills for having purchased the medicines. In the
cross examination also she admits that, she is not having any
medi claim policy. Hence consider the medical bills and I
award an amount of Rs.1,49,455/- which is rounded off to
Rs.1,50,000/- under the head 'Medical Expenses'.
In all petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs. 2,50,000/-(1,00,000+1,50,000).
69. Issue No.3 (in M.V.C. No.7142/2016) : It is the
case of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident, she
suffered grievous injuries and immediately after the accident
she was taken to Mangala hospital, Mangalore wherein X-ray
and CT Scan were taken and dislocation of back and other
injuries were detected and in the said hospital she was
SCCH-1 54 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
inpatient for a period of two days and thereafter she was
shifted to Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre, Bengaluru for
further treatment wherein she took treatment for a period of
two days and after the discharge, she is taking follow up
treatment. It is contended that, at the time of accident she
was aged about 48 years and she is a housewife. Due to the
accidental injuries she is not able to do the household chores
and has to depend on servants. She is also getting severe pain
on her left shoulder and unable to move around etc., and
suffering from mental shock and agony.
70. The petitioner in support of his contention has
examined himself as PW.7 and reiterated the averments made
in the petition and also got marked the documents Ex.P.43
Wound certificate, Ex.P44 and 45 Discharge Summaries,
Ex.P46 8 medical bills for Rs.32,725/-. In the cross
examination of PW.7 she admits that, she was not subjected to
any surgery and she has taken conservative treatment. It is
suggested that, the treatment which she has taken at
SCCH-1 55 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Jayanagar hospital is not relating to accidental injuries and
the same was denied.
71. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, she claims that she has suffered grievous injuries
and suffered disability and to prove the same she has not
examined the Doctor before court. On perusal of Wound
Certificate which is marked as Ex.P.43 it discloses that, she
has suffered following injuries:
1. Reddish abrasion of 5 cm x 3 cm on the right
shoulder,
2. Reddish abrasion of 3 cm x 2 cm on the right arm,
3. Laceration of 1 cm x 0.5 x bone deep on the right
wrist,
4. Reddish contusion of 7 cm x 5 cm on the left
shoulder,
5. Reddish contusion of 12 cm x 10 cm on the middle
1/3rd of left thigh.
In the wound certificate the doctor has opined that the
injuries are simple in nature. On perusal of Ex.P44 Discharge
Summary of Mangala hospital reveal that, she was inpatient
from 10.02.2016 to 11.02.2016 for a period of 2 days and she
was given conservative treatment with tablet and injections.
SCCH-1 56 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Ex.P45 Discharge summary of Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre
reveals that, she was admitted on 12.02.2016 and got
discharged on 13.02.2016 and in the said hospital she was
treated with tablets and injections.
72. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries and petitioner
has taken treatment at Mangala hospital and Jayanagar
Orthopaedic Centre and though simple injuries it has to be
noted that,, she has sustained bone deep injury which is
severe in nature and also in the absence of doctor's evidence, I
am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a global
compensation of Rs. 45,000/- including pain and sufferings,
loss of income and other incidental expenses.
73. The petitioner has produced medical bills of
Rs.32,725/- which is marked as Ex.P46 and it discloses that,
petitioner was admitted to Mangala hospital on 10.02.2016 till
11.02.2016 at the first instance and the said hospital has
issued bill to the tune of Rs.11,641/-. Also produced the
Inpatient bill of Jayanagar Orthopaedic Centre to the tune of
SCCH-1 57 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Rs.3,350/- for being admitted in their hospital from
12.02.2016 to 13.02.2016 and also has produced other
additional bills for having purchased the medicines. It has to
be noted that, petitioner has produced receipt dated
11.02.2016 amounting to Rs.13,000/- issued by Mangala
hospital towards ambulance service charges. Hence I have
considered the said bills and I award an amount of
Rs.32,725/- which is rounded off to Rs.33,000/- under the
head 'Medical expenses'.
In all petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.78,000/- (45,000+33,000).
74. Issue No.3 ( in M.V.C. No.7143/2016) : It is the case
of the Petitioner that, on account of the accident, she suffered
grievous injuries and immediately after the accident she was
taken to Mangala hospital, Mangalore wherein X-rays were
taken and laceration over right and left side forehead, nose
and contusion over right shoulder, middle of the back , middle
1/3rd right thigh and blood clot in the right leg and other
SCCH-1 58 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
injuries were detected and in the said hospital she was
inpatient for a period of two days and thereafter due to the
severe pain again she took conservative treatment at St.John
Medical College hospitals, Bengaluru and after the discharge,
she is taking follow up treatment. It is contended that, at the
time of the accident she was aged about 58 years and is
working as Staff Nurse at St. John's Medical College hospital
and drawing salary of Rs.25,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental
injuries she is unable to do the work and thereby lost her
income and also suffering from mental shock and agony.
75. The petitioner in support of her contention has
examined herself as PW.8 and in her evidence she has
reiterated the averments made in the petition and also got
marked the documents Ex.P.47 Wound certificate, Ex.P48 and
49 Discharge Summaries, Ex.P50 2 medical bills for
Rs.31,267/-. In the cross examination of PW.8 she admits
that, she was not subjected to any surgery but they put
stitches. She was on leave for a period of 1 month and she has
received salary during the said period as against her EL. She
SCCH-1 59 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
has not received any medical reimbursement in respect of
Mangala hospital, but in Bangalore she got the 50% discount
in their hospital.
76. Now let me let me appreciate both oral and
documentary evidences available before the court. It has to be
noted that, she claims that she has suffered grievous injuries
and suffered disability and to prove the same he has not
examined the Doctor before court. On perusal of Wound
Certificate which is marked as Ex.P.47 it discloses that, she
has suffered following injuries:
1. Laceration of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right
side forehead,
2. Laceration of 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the upper
part of left side of forehead,
3. Laceration of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep on the
tip of nose,
4. Reddish contusion of 5 cm x 5 cm on the right side
of shoulder,
5. Reddish contusion of 12 cm x 10 cm on the middle
of back,
6. Reddish contusion of 9 cm x 8 cm on the middle
1/3rd of right thigh.
In the wound certificate the doctor has opined that the
injuries are simple in nature. On perusal of Ex.P48 Discharge
SCCH-1 60 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
Summary of Mangala hospital reveal that, she was inpatient
from 10.02.2016 to 11.02.2016 for a period of 2 days and she
was given conservative treatment with tablet and injections.
Ex.P49 Discharge summary of St.John's Medical College that,
in the said hospital she was treated with tablets and injections.
77. Hence after considering the materials on record and
for having taken note of the nature of injuries i.e. laceration
over right and left side forehead, nose and contusion over right
shoulder, middle of the back , middle 1/3rd right thigh and
petitioner has taken treatment at Mangala hospital and
St.John's Medical hospital and in the absence of doctor's
evidence, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case to award a
global compensation of Rs. 50,000/- including pain and
sufferings, loss of income and other incidental expenses.
Hence I award Rs.50,000/- as global compensation.
78. The petitioner has produced medical bills of
Rs.31,267/- which is marked as Ex.P50 and it discloses that,
petitioner was admitted to Mangala hospital on 10.02.2016 till
11.02.2016 at the first instance and the said hospital has
SCCH-1 61 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
issued bill to the tune of Rs.17,767/-. Also produced the bill
amounting Rs.13,500/- towards the ambulance charges.
Hence I consider the medical bills and I awards an amount of
Rs.31,267/- which is rounded off to Rs.32,000/- under the
head 'Medical expenses.'
In all petitioner is entitled for compensation of
Rs.82,000/- (50,000+32,000).
79. INTEREST:
Relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in
2013 AIR SCW 5375 (Minu Rout and others Vs. Satya
Pradyumna Mohapatra and others), with regard to interest at
the rate of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount, in para 13 of
the judgment, the Apex Court held that Insurance Company is
also liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of
application till the date of payment and also by following the
principles laid down in (2011) 4 SCC 481:(AIR 2012 SC 100)
(Municipal Council of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims of
Uphaar Tragedy). In view of the above judgments with regard
SCCH-1 62 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
to the rate of interest, and also it is settled law that while
awarding interest on the compensation amount, the Court has
to take into account the rate of interest of the nationalized
bank and the rate of interest at 9% cannot said to be on the
higher side. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to interest at
the rate of 9% p.a.
80. LIABILITY:
As regards to the liability to be fixed on the respondents
is concerned, while answering issue No.1 and 2, it is held that
the accident has occurred on account of the rash and negligent
driving of the lorry No.KA.19/AB.0451 by its driver and
further, admittedly the respondent No.1 and 2 are the owner
and insurer of the offending Lorry. Hence, the respondent
No.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the lorry are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
However, primary liability is fixed on the respondent No.2 -
insurance company to satisfy the award and the petition as
against the respondent No.3 and 4, the owner and insurer of
SCCH-1 63 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,
7139/16 to 7140/16,
7142/16 to 7143/16
the bus No.KA.01/AE.2142 is liable to be dismissed. Hence,
this issue is answered accordingly.
81. Issue No.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER
M.V.C. No. 7134/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.3,77,000/-. He is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum only on Rs.3,37,000/- from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged more than 60 years and has incurred huge medical expenses, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
SCCH-1 64 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 M.V.C. No. 7135/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,72,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner has incurred huge medical expenses, I deem it just and proper to release the entire compensation amount with interest to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 7136/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
SCCH-1 65 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged more than 60 years and has incurred huge medical expenses, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 7137/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
SCCH-1 66 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 As the petitioner is aged more than 60 years, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 7139/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,09,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged more than 60 years, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 7140/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
SCCH-1 67 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the petitioner is aged more than 60 years and has incurred huge medical expenses, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 7142/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.78,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed SCCH-1 68 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16, 7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
M.V.C. No. 7143/2016 The petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part against the respondents No.1 and 2.
Petition against respondents No.3 and 4 is dismissed.
The petitioner is entitled for global compensation of Rs.82,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount with interest. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fixed on the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
As the compensation is meager, the entire compensation amount with interest is ordered to be released to the petitioner.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- in each case.
Original of the judgment shall be kept in MVC No.7134/2016 and a copy of the same be retained in other cases.
SCCH-1 69 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16,7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 01st day of June 2017) (H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bangalore.
ANNEXURES:
Witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Sri. Rajashekara P.W.2 : Smt. Sharadamma P.W.3 : Smt. Nagarathnamma P.W.4 : Sri. Nagabhushana. K. P.W.5 : Sri. Shashibhushana P.W.6 : Sri. M.Devendra Kumar P.W.7 : Smt. Prema Das P.W.8 : Smt. Chandravathi K. P.W.9 : Dr. Ramachandra
Documents marked on behalf of the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 FIR Ex.P.2 Mahazar Ex.P.3 Sketch Ex.P.4 IMV report Ex.P.5 Wound certificate Ex.P.6 Charge sheet SCCH-1 70 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16, 7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 Ex.P.7 Discharge summery Ex.P.8 Notarized copy of Adhaar Card Ex.P.9 Medical bills (9 in nos.) for Rs. 1,81,980/- Ex.P.10 Wound certificate Ex.P.11 Discharge summery Ex.P.12 Discharge summery Ex.P.13 CT scan report Ex.P.14 Notarized copy of passport (Original Compared) Ex.P.15 Medical bills (8 in nos.) for Rs.1,13,379/- Ex.P.16 One medical prescription Ex.P.17 Wound certificate Ex.P.18 Discharge summery Ex.P.19 Discharge summery Ex.P.20 Discharge summary Ex.P.21 Medical bills (10 in nos.) for Rs. 1,49,455/- Ex.P.22 Prescriptions 2 in nos. Ex.P.23 Wound certificate Ex.P.24 Discharge summery Ex.P.25 Discharge summery Ex.P.26 Letter issued by Medi Assist Ex.P.27 Medical bills ( 6 in nos.) for Rs. 58,650/- Ex.P.28 One medical prescription Ex.P.29 Wound certificate Ex.P.30 & 31 Discharge summery Ex.P.32 Pay slip Ex.P.33 Leave certificate Ex.P.34 CT Scan report SCCH-1 71 MVC: 7134/16 to 7137/16, 7139/16 to 7140/16, 7142/16 to 7143/16 Ex.P.35 Medical bills (27 in nos.) for Rs. 96,491/- Ex.P.36 3 Prescriptions Ex.P.37 Wound certificate Ex.P.38 & 39 Discharge summery Ex.P.40 Letter issued by medi assist Ex.P.41 8 medical bills for Rs.57,408/- Ex.P.42 Prescription Ex.P.43 Wound certificate Ex.P.44 & 45 Discharge summery Ex.P.46 Medical bills (8 in nos.) for Rs. 32,725/- Ex.P.47 Wound certificate Ex.P.48 & 49 Discharge summery Ex.P.50 Medical bills (2 in nos.) for Rs. 31,267/- Ex.P.51 OPD book Ex.P.52 X-ray
Witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents: Nil. Documents marked on behalf of the respondents: Nil.
(H.P.SANDESH) Member, Prl., M.A .C.T. Bangalore *S.D.* ***********