Bangalore District Court
Kum.Shalini. P vs Smt. S. Savitha on 10 January, 2022
SCCH-23 1 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
KABC020149862019
BEFORE THE MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, XXI ADDITIONAL JUDGE OF SMALL CAUSE
COURT AND A.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU.
PRESENT: Smt.Ashwini M Hattiholi,
(B.Com., LL.B),
XXI ASCJ & ACMM
and Member M.A.C.T, Bengaluru.
Dated : This the 10th Day of January 2022.
MVC.Nos.3499/2019 c/w MVC.3500/2019
Petitioner Kum.Shalini. P,
(in MVC.3499/19) D/o Prakash Reddy,
Aged about 16 years,
R/at: Vanakanahalli,
Anekal Taluk,
Banalore562106.
The petitioner is minor
hence represented by her Natural
Guardian / mother namely
Smt. Sumithra. V. S
W/o Prakash @ Prakash Reddy
Petitioner Sri. Gopala @ Gopala Reddy,
(in MVC.3500/19) S/o Yallappa @ Yellareddy,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at Kugur, Kugur Post,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore562125
(Smt.K.B. Roopa, Advocate)
V/s
SCCH-23 2 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
Respondents 1. Smt. S. Savitha,
(common in both W/o Shanmuga Sundaram,
petitions) : No.10, SSS building,
A.V road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore560 018.
(Exparte)
2 The Manager,
Royal Sundaram General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.30, 3rd Floor,
JNR city centre,
Rajaram Mohanroy road,
Sampangiramnagar,
Bangalore560 027.
(Sri.Ravi. S.Samprathi, Advocate)
XXI ASCJ & MEMBER,
MACTBengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of M.V Act
claiming the compensation on account of the injuries
sustained by the petitioners, in a Road Traffic Accident. As
these petitions were arising out of the same accident, they
were clubbed together for recording of common evidence and
judgment.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the instant petitions
are that on 22.04.2019 at about 03.30 p.m., the petitioner in
MVC.No.3500/2019 (as a rider) and petitioner in MVC
No.3499/2019 (as a pillion rider) were proceeding on a
SCCH-23 3 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
Motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA51ACET8020 from
Sarajapura towards Attibele. When they reached near Libarti
Ekkaers, Indlabele, at that time the driver of Petrol Tanker
Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN02AC2409 came from opposite
direction i.e., from Attibele towards Sarjapura in a rash and
negligent manner on the extreme wrong side of the road and
dashed against the aforementioned motorcycle. Due to the
said impact, both the petitioners fell down and sustained
grievous injuries. After the accident the petitioners were
shifted to respective hospitals, treated accordingly and then
discharged. In this regard they have incurred heavy expenses
towards their treatment, conveyance and other incidental
charges. On account of the accidental injuries the petitioners
have suffered permanent disablement. The first respondent
being the RC owner of Petrol Tanker Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN
02AC2409 and the second respondent being its insurer are
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners.
3. The respondent No.1 failed to appear despite due
service of notice upon her. Hence she was placed exparte.
The respondent No.2/Insurance Company admitted the
issuance of insurance policy in respect of Petrol Tanker Lorry
bearing Reg.No.TN02AC2409. However the liability if any is
pleaded to be subject to the terms and conditions of the
policy. Noncompliance of Sections 158(6) and 134(c) of IMV
SCCH-23 4 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
Act is alleged. It is contended that the driver of the Lorry was
not holding valid and effective DL at the time of accident. The
respondent No.1 willfully entrusted the said lorry to such a
driver and therefore he has not only contravened the
provisions of MV Act but also committed the breach of terms
and conditions of the policy. It is further averred that as on
the date of accident the lorry in question did not have valid
permit & route permit as well as F.C. Without prejudice to the
above contention it is submitted that the lorry in question
was neither involved in the accident nor has it caused any
accidental injuries to the petitioners. In fact the alleged
accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the
motorcycle. Contending so, prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
4. On the basis of the pleadings, the tribunal framed
following issues (which are common in both the petitions):
ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that on
22.04.2019 at about 03.30 p.m, near Liberty
Ekkaers, Indlabele, Attibele Sarjapura road,
Bengaluru, he/she sustained injuries in the
RTA caused by the driver of the Petrol Tanker
Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN02AC2409 on
account of his rash & negligent driving ?
2. Whether the petitioner/s is entitled for
compensation? If so, to what extent & from
whom ?
SCCH-23 5 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
3. What order or award ?
5. In order to prove the above issues the Natural
Guardian / mother of the minor petitioner in MVC
No.3499/2019 was examined as PW.1. Ex's.P1 to 11 were
marked. Likewise the petitioner in MVC.No.3500/2019 got
examined himself as PW.2. Ex's.P.12 to 18 were marked on
his behalf. Dr.S.A.Somashekara S/o Ankegowda, Orthopedic
Surgeon at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bengaluru
was examined as PW.3 (in MVC.3500/2019). Ex's.P.19 and
P.20 were marked through this witness. The respondent No.2
did not choose to lead evidence.
6. Heard arguments and perused the entire materials
placed on record. My answers to the above issues are as
follows :
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
(in both the petitions)
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative.
(in both the petitions)
Issue No.3 : As per final order for the
(in both the petitions) following ;
REASONS
7. ISSUE NO.1 (IN BOTH THE PETITIONS): In order to
prove their contention PW's.1 and 2 have relied upon the
police documents marked at Ex's.P.1 to 6 and 12. Ex.P.1-FIR
SCCH-23 6 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
& Ex.P.2Complaint corroborate the occurrence and
information of the accident. The contents of the Mahazar
(Ex.P.3) make it clear that the accident had occurred due to
rash & negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle.
Even the damages caused to both the vehicles as per IMV
report (Ex.P.5) supports this aspect. Be that as it may, the
IMV inspector has mentioned that he tested both the vehicles
on road and found that their brake systems were in order.
He has thereby opined that the accident was not due to any
mechanical defects of the above said vehicles. Therefore the
driver of the lorry did not have sufficient cause to cause the
accident. The fact that yet he went and dashed against the
motorcycle on which the petitioners were proceeding leads to
drawing of an inference that he was driving his vehicle rashly
& negligently. Hence the jurisdictional police have also filed
chargesheet (Ex.P.4) against him for the offences punishable
U/Sec's. 279 & 338 of IPC.
8. Ex's.P6 & 12Wound certificates disclose that the
petitioners in both the petitions sustained grievous injuries in
a Road Traffic Accident. Perusal of the crossexamination by
the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 goes to
show that the factum of accident is not denied by the
Insurance Company. Only suggestions were made to the
effect that the injuries were sustained on account of
SCCH-23 7 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle (PW.2), which were
outrightly denied.
9. On the other hand the respondent No.1 did not
appear despite due service of the notice of the petition upon
her. Accordingly an adverse inference could be drawn against
her that she has impliedly admitted the petition averments.
Though the respondent No.2 denied the cause of the accident
as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle, it has not
let in any cogent evidence to prove its defence or to disprove
the evidence led by the petitioners. Further, the respondent
No.2 did not make any attempt to examine the driver of
offending vehicle, who is the best witness to depose about the
cause of accident. There is no explanation to that effect. Non
examination of driver of offending vehicle is fatal to the
defence of Respondent No.2.
10. Further, respondent No.2 took up a contention that
as on the date of accident, the driver of offending vehicle was
not holding valid & effective driving license. As there is
violation of policy conditions, it is not liable to pay
compensation. But the same is not acceptable for the simple
reason that police have registered a case against the driver of
offending vehicle after due investigation and then filed
Chargesheet as per Ex.P4. Perusal of Ex.P4 reveals that the
jurisdictional police have not chargesheeted the accused for
SCCH-23 8 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
the offences punishable u/s 3(1) r/w 181 of IMV Act. Neither
the evidence of licensing authority is tendered nor any
materials are placed on record to that effect. In the absence
of proof, the contention of respondent No.2 cannot be
accepted.
11. In addenda, in a claim for compensation u/s 166 of
M.V Act, 1988, the claimant has to prove the incident only on
preponderance of probabilities and proof beyond reasonable
doubt is not required as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
(2011) 3 SCC 646. Hence issue No.1 (in both the petitions)
is answered in the affirmative.
ISSUE NO.2
(IN MVC3499/2019) :
12. The wound certificate/Ex.P6 shows that the
petitioner has sustained : (i) Left parietal sulcus
subarachnoid hemorrhage with contusion (ii) fracture left
clavicle and (iii) laceration over forehead, which are opined
to be grievous in nature. Ex.P7 i.e. Discharge Summary of
Sri Sai Hospitals, Bengaluru discloses that for the aforestated
injuries the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient at
the said hospital from 22.04.2019 to 25.04.2019 (4 days in
total). During the course of treatment she was conservatively
treated with IV antibiotics, antacids & supportive care.
SCCH-23 9 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
According to PW.1 because of these injuries her daughter has
become disabled and is thereby incapacitated to perform her
normal work.
13. However PW.1 has neither examined the doctor nor
produced the disability certificate to substantiate that the
petitioner has become permanently disabled. Under such
circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner has
suffered permanent disability. Therefore she is not entitled for
compensation under the head 'Loss of future income due to
disability'.
14. In this case PW.1 has produced 3 medical bills as
per Ex.P9 for having spent Rs.32,413/ towards medical
expenses. All these bills have been examined with care and
are found to be correct. Be that as it may, because PW.1 has
not proved that the petitioner has any kind of disability,
compensation cannot be awarded under conventional heads.
Therefore global compensation has to be awarded. Having
regard to the nature of injuries and duration of treatment, I
propose to award Rs.1,00,000/ to the petitioner.
(IN MVC3500/2019) :
15. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME: Petitioner has
produced his Aadhaar card (Notarized copy) at Ex.P14 in
which his date of birth is shown as 01.01.1984. This means
that he was aged 35 years as on the date of accident. PW.2
SCCH-23 10 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
deposed in his evidence affidavit that at the time of accident
he was working as a mason and thereby earning Rs.1,000/
to Rs.1,500/ per day. However no documents have been
produced by the petitioner to establish his exact income. In
the absence of proof, taking into consideration the date of
accident, age of the petitioner and his nature of work, if his
income is assessed at Rs.10,000/ p.m, it would meet the
ends of justice.
16. As per the medical records PW.2 has sustained the
following injuries : (i) Right Femur Shaft Fracture (ii) Left
Clavicle Fracture displaced (iii) Subarachnoid
hemorrhage. It is needless to say that the above injuries are
grievous in nature.
17. The Discharge summaries (Ex.P.13) issued by Sri
Sai and Sparsh Hospitals, Bengaluru indicate that the
petitioner was treated as an inpatient in the said hospitals for
the periods from 22.04.2019 to 27.04.2019 and from
17.01.2021 to 20.01.2021 (10 days in total). During the
course of treatment he had undergone surgery in the form of :
Right femur nailing with left clavicle brace (on 23.04.2019).
Further on 18.01.2021, he underwent Right Femur IMIL
broken bolt removal, reinsertion and bone grafting from
ipsilateral iliac crest.
SCCH-23 11 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
18. It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to
accidental injuries he became disabled and lost his earning
capacity. Therefore he got examined the doctor who treated
him i.e., Dr.S.A.Somashekar as PW.3, who stated that on
clinical and radiological examination conducted by him, he
found that petitioner has permanent physical impairment to
the both limbs at 52% & whole body disability at 26%.
However from the careful examination of the medical records,
it is seen that PW.3 has assessed the disability on the higher
side.
19. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that it is the
impact of the physical disability on the particular avocation of
the petitioner which is relevant for the purpose of assessment
of compensation under the head of loss of future income as
held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar's case reported
in (2011) 1 SCC 343. Considering the nature of injuries, line
of treatment and on appreciation of the clinical findings noted
by the Doctor/ PW.3, the possibility of the fact that petitioner
may be having economical or functional disability to the
extent of 8%, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I consider the
functional disability of PW.1 at 8%.
20. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS
FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: The period of
hospitalization of 10 days is proved. As such during his stay
SCCH-23 12 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
in the Hospital, the petitioner would have incurred expenses
towards attendant charges, as some family member/s of the
petitioner would have accompanied him to the hospital to
take his care, by leaving his/her duties. During the aforesaid
period the petitioner might have also spent a considerable
amount towards special diet, transportation and nutrition.
Accordingly considering the rate of inflation and rise in the
price Index, a sum of Rs.10,000/ is awarded under this
head.
21. PAIN & SUFFERINGS: Admittedly PW.1 had
suffered fracture injuries for which he underwent surgery. As
such, necessarily he had undergone pain & mental agony.
Thus this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.40,000/ under this
head.
22. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAIDUP PERIOD: As
referred above, considering the nature of injuries, treatment
given & duration of his stay in the hospital, it is quite natural
that PW.1 could not have carried out his avocation for atleast
3 months. Thus by taking into account the notional income
of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards Rs.30,000/ (10,000 X
3) under this head.
23. MEDICAL EXPENSES: PW.1 has produced 41
medical bills at Ex.P.15. As per that, the petitioner has spent
Rs.3,10,340/ towards medical expenses. Nothing worthwhile
SCCH-23 13 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
was elicited during the crossexamination of PW.1, so as to
doubt the genuineness of the medical bills. However a careful
scrutiny of these bills goes to show that bills at Sl.Nos.24, 25,
28, 29, 36 & 37 pertain to dental treatment taken by the
petitioner at different medical centers. There is no evidence
on record to show that the petitioner sustained dental injury
in the accident. Hence excluding the total of these bills the
petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,33,840/ (Rs.3,10,340 -
Rs.76,500) which is rounded off to Rs.2,34,000/ towards
medical expenses.
24. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY:
As per Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate multiplier
applicable is '16'. This Tribunal has already assessed the
notional income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/ p.m. Hence
a sum of Rs.1,53,600/ (Rs.10,000 X 12 X 16 X 8/100) which
is rounded off to Rs.1,54,000/ is awarded under this head.
25. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS:
The disability referred above would have necessarily caused
physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the
rest of his life. Thereby the petitioner would obviously face
disappointment and frustration & also suffer discomfort in
enjoying the normal pleasures and joys of human life. Hence
a sum of Rs.30,000/ is awarded under this head.
SCCH-23 14 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
26. FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES: In his examination
inchief filed by way of affidavit, PW.3 stated that the
petitioner has to undergo one more surgery in the form of
dynamisation for which he may require Rs.30,000/ in a
private setup. No estimation is produced to show the future
medical expenses. However the point that merits for
consideration is that the claim can be awarded only once.
The claimant cannot come back to the Tribunal for
enhancement of award at a later stage praying that
something extra has been spent. Considering all these
factors the petitioner is entitled to Rs.20,000/ towards
future medical & other incidental expenses.
27. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Attendant charges, extra : 10,00000
nutritious food &
conveyance charges
2 Pain & sufferings : 40,00000
3 Loss of income during : 30,00000
laidup period
4 Medical expenses : 2,34,00000
5 Loss of future income due : 1,54,00000
to disability
6 Loss of future amenities & : 30,00000
happiness
7 Future medical expenses : 20,00000
Total 5,18,00000
28. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having
regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of
SCCH-23 15 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate
of 6% p.a, is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice.
29. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of
Insurance Policy and its validity as on the date of accident.
The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company only contended that
its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It
was submitted that the owner of the Petrol Tanker Lorry had
violated the terms and conditions of the policy. But no
rebuttal evidence is adduced to prove such breach of terms
and conditions of the policy by the 1st respondent. Therefore,
the respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2
being the Insurer of the offending Petrol Tanker Lorry are
jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount
to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the
date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount.
However the respondent No.2 being the insurer is primarily
liable to satisfy the award amount together with interest
within one month from the date of this order. With this
observation, issue No.2 is answered as partly in the
affirmative (in both the petitions).
30. ISSUE NO.3 (IN BOTH THE PETITIONS) : In view of
the findings given on issues No.1 and 2 and for the reasons
discussed herein above paragraphs, I proceed to pass the
following :
SCCH-23 16 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019
ORDER
The petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, are hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioner in MVC No.3499/2019 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The petitioner in MVC No.3500/2019 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,18,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of the amount so awarded in MVC.3499/2019, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 SCCH-23 17 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the Natural Guardian / mother of the petitioner through Epayment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the amount so awarded in MVC.3500/2019, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to him through Epayment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3499/2019 and copy thereof shall be maintained in MVC.No.3500/2019 for reference.
SCCH-23 18 MVC.3499/2019 c/wMVC No.3500/2019 Draw an award accordingly in both the petitions.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and printout taken by him, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of January 2022).
(Ashwini M.Hattiholi) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioner/s:
P.W.1 : Smt. Sumithra. V.S P.W.2 : Sri.Gopala @ Gopala Reddy. P.W.3 : Dr.Somashekara.
List of documents got marked for the petitioner/s:
Ex.P.1 : True copy of FIR Ex.P.2 : True copy of Complaint Ex.P.3 : True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex P.4 : True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P.5 : True copy of IMV report Ex.P.6 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.7 : Discharge summary Ex.P.8 : Notarized copies of Aadhar cards of the minor
petitioner and the natural guardian. Ex.P.9 : Medical bills of Rs.32,413/(3 in No's) Ex.P.10 : Prescriptions (5 in No's) SCCH-23 19 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 Ex.P.11 : Advance bills (4 in No's) Ex.P.12 : True copy of Wound certificate Ex.P.13 : Discharge summaries(2 in No's) Ex.P.14 : Notarized copy of Aadhar card in MVC No.3500/19 Ex.P.15 : Medical bills of Rs.3,10,340/(41 in No's) Ex.P.16 : Prescriptions (14 in No's) Ex.P.17 : Advance bills ( 6 in No's) Ex.P.18 : Photographs along with 1 CD (3 in No's) Ex.P.19 : OP card with examination report Ex.P.20 : Recent Xray films ( 2 in No's) List of witnesses examined for the respondent/s:
None List of documents marked for the respondent/s:
NIL (Ashwini M.Hattiholi) XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH-23 20 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019 10.01.2022 Judgment pronounced in open court (Vide separate Judgment) ORDER The petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, are hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioner in MVC No.3499/2019 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.SCCH-23 21 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019 The petitioner in MVC No.3500/2019 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,18,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of the amount so awarded in MVC.3499/2019, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the Natural Guardian / mother of the petitioner through Epayment on proper identification and verification.SCCH-23 22 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019 Out of the amount so awarded in MVC.3500/2019, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to him through Epayment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3499/2019 and copy thereof shall be maintained in MVC.No.3500/2019 for reference.
Draw an award accordingly in both the petitions.
XXI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.
SCCH-23 23 MVC.3499/2019 c/wMVC No.3500/2019 SCCH-23 24 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 AWARD S.C.C.H. No.23 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY MVC.3500/2019 Petitioner Sri. Gopala @ Gopala Reddy, (in MVC.3500/19) S/o Yallappa @ Yellareddy, Aged about 35 years, R/at Kugur, Kugur Post, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore562125 (Smt.K.B. Roopa, Advocate) V/s Respondents 1. Smt. S. Savitha, (common in both W/o Shanmuga Sundaram, petitions) : No.10, SSS building, A.V road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore560 018.
(Exparte) 2 The Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., No.30, 3rd Floor, JNR city centre, Rajaram Mohanroy road, Sampangiramnagar, Bangalore560 027.
(Sri.Ravi. S.Samprathi, Advocate) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/s. 110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for SCCH-23 25 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Ashwini M.Hattiholi, XXI Addl. Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, are hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioner in MVC No.3500/2019 is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,18,000/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Eighteen Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. (excluding future medical expenses) from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount SCCH-23 26 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of the amount so awarded in MVC.3500/2019, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of petitioner in any Nationalized Bank/Scheduled Bank for a period of
3 years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to him through Epayment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3499/2019 and copy thereof shall be maintained in MVC.No.3500/2019 for reference.
Given under my hand and seal of the court this day of 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
SCCH-23 27 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 By the Petitioner/s Respondent/s No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition Court fee paid on Power Court fee paid on I.A., Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs. Decree drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, MACT, METROPOLITAN AREA: B'LORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-23 28 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 AWARD S.C.C.H. No.23
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY MVC.No.3499/2019 Petitioner Kum.Shalini. P, D/o Prakash Reddy, Aged about 16 years, R/at: Vanakanahalli, Anekal Taluk, Banalore562106.
The petitioner is minor hence represented by her Natural Guardian / mother namely Smt. Sumithra. V. S W/o Prakash @ Prakash Reddy V/s Respondents 1. Smt. S. Savitha, (common in both W/o Shanmuga Sundaram, petitions) : No.10, SSS building, A.V road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore560 018.
(Exparte) 2 The Manager, Royal Sundaram General Insurance Company Ltd., No.30, 3rd Floor, JNR city centre, Rajaram Mohanroy road, Sampangiramnagar, Bangalore560 027.
(Sri.Ravi. S.Samprathi, Advocate) SCCH-23 29 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/s. 110A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs. (Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.Ashwini M.Hattiholi, XXI Addl. Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, are hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms :
The petitioner in MVC No.3499/2019 is entitled for global compensation of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rupees One Lakh only only) with interest at the SCCH-23 30 MVC.3499/2019 c/w MVC No.3500/2019 rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.2 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
Out of the amount so awarded in MVC.3499/2019, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any Nationalized/Scheduled Bank for a period of 3 years (without any encumbrance or premature withdrawal) with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to the Natural Guardian / mother of the petitioner through Epayment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.SCCH-23 31 MVC.3499/2019 c/w
MVC No.3500/2019 The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.3499/2019 and copy thereof shall be maintained in MVC.No.3500/2019 for reference.
Given under my hand and seal of the court this day of 2022.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE.
By the
Petitioner/s Respondent/s
No.1 No.2
Court fee paid on
Petition
Court fee paid on Power
Court fee paid on I.A.,
Process
Pleaders Fee
Total Rs.
Decree drafted Scrutinized by MEMBER, MACT,
METROPOLITAN AREA:
B'LORE
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR