Bangalore District Court
In Smt. Veena L.S vs In 1. Dr. T. Vijaya Kumar on 15 November, 2022
KABC020108582020
BEFORE THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT
BENGALURU
(SCCH-16)
Present: Sri. Sudeen Kumar D.J.,
B.A., LL.B.,
X Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes
& Member, MACT, Bengaluru.
MVC Nos.2069/2020 & 2070/2020
Dated: 15th November 2022
Petitioner in Smt. Veena L.S.,
MVC W/o Lokesh T.V.,
2069/2020 Aged about 40 years,
Resident of No.858, 12th Cross,
SIT Extension, Kuvempunagar,
Tumkur - 572 103.
Presently residing at No.361,
5th A Cross, 1st Main Road,
R.R. Layout, Nagadevanahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 056.
(Sri M. Manjunath, Advocate)
Petitioner in Sri Lokesh T.V.,
MVC S/o Veerabadraiah,
2070/2020 Aged about 44 years,
Resident of No.858, 12th Cross,
SIT Extension, Kuvempunagar,
Tumkur - 572 103.
Presently residing at No.361,
5th A Cross, 1st Main Road,
R.R. Layout, Nagadevanahalli,
2 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
Bengaluru - 560 056.
(Sri M. Manjunath, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondents in 1. Dr. T. Vijaya Kumar,
both the cases S/o Late H. Thippeswamy,
No.46, Parvathi Nilaya,
2nd Main Road, Dodda Kempaiah
Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 098.
(RC owner of car, bearing
No.KA-05-MV-0920)
(Sri H.R. Ramesh, Advocate)
2. Bharathi Axa General Ins. Co.
Ltd., No.43, Millers Road,
Vasanthanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 052.
Rep. By its Manager,
Policy
No.FPV/13557308/41/03/006518
(valid from 21-03-2019 to
20-03-2020)
(Sri V.R. Muralidhara, Advocate)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of M.V.
Act, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- in MVC
2069/2020 and Rs.50,00,000/- in MVC 2070/2020 from
respondents on account of grievous injuries sustained
by petitioners in Road Traffic Accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitions are that, on 06-
02-2020 at about 10.30 p.m., petitioner in MVC
2069/2020 was proceeding as pillion rider on Scooter,
bearing No.KA-14-EB-2849 which was ridden by her
3 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
husband who was petitioner in MVC 2070/2020 slowly
and cautiously observing all vehicular movements on
the extreme left side of road and when they reached
near Railway Bridge, Bengaluru University main road, at
that time the driver of car, bearing No.KA-05-MV-0920
driven the same with high speed, rash and negligent
manner so as to endangering human life and property
came from opposite side and dashed against the
scooter. Due to the impact petitioners fell down and
sustained grievous injuries all over their body.
Immediately after the accident, they were shifted to
SSNMC Hospital, wherein they took treatment as an
inpatient.
Earlier to the accident, petitioner in MVC
2069/2020 was working as Assistant Engineer in
Irrigation Department and earning a sum of Rs.72,509/-
per month. But, due to the accidental injuries, she
became permanently disabled and whereby lost his
earning capacity.
Earlier to the accident, petitioner in MVC
2070/2020 was working as Senior Software Engineer in
NTT Data Global Delivery Services Ltd., and earning a
sum of Rs.1,12,617.93 per month. But, due to the
accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled
and whereby lost his earning capacity. Therefore,
petitioners prayed for compensation.
4 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
3. In brief, objections by respondent No.1 and
respondent No.2 are that;
In written statement of objections, respondent
No.1 denied the petition averments generally, admits
the ownership of the car and the same was insured with
respondent No.2 and policy was valid from 21-03-2019
to 20-03-2020, and contended that the driver of the car
was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the
date of accident and so respondent No.2 is to indemnify
the liability. Thereby he shifted his liability on
respondent No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
3(a). Respondent No.2 denied the issuance of
insurance policy in respect of car, bearing No.KA-05-MV-
920 and its validity as on the date of accident and also
denied the other petition averments generally and it
contended that the driver of car was not holding valid
and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the
petition is bad for non compliance of provision under
Sections 134(C) and 158(6) of M.V. Act, the petition is
bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties as
the owner and insurer of the scooter are not impleaded
as parties, after lapse of one day the complaint had
been lodged. As without prejudice it contended that in
the alleged accident there is no negligence on the part
of driver of car. Further, it sought for permission to
contest even on behalf of respondent No.1 under
5 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
Section 170 of the M.V. Act. For the above denials and
contentions it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Based on the pleadings the following issues
came to be framed:
ISSUES IN MVC No.2069/2020
1) Whether the petitioner proves that she
sustained grievous injuries due to the road
traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on
06-02-2020 at about 10.30 p.m., due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of
car, bearing registration No.KA-05-MV-0920?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3) What order or Award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.2070/2020
1) Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained grievous injuries due to the road
traffic accident, alleged to have occurred on
06-02-2020 at about 10.30 p.m., due to the
rash and negligent driving of the driver of
car, bearing registration No.KA-05-MV-0920?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the quantum
and from whom?
3) What order or Award?
5. Petitioners got themselves examined as PW1
and PW2, examined PW3 and PW4 and marked 48
documents. Respondents did not lead their evidence.
6 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
6. Heard the counsel for petitioners and
respondents. Perused the pleadings and evidences, on
the basis, findings on the issues are as under:
IN MVC Nos.2069/2020 & 2070/2020
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : As per final order
REASONS
ISSUE No.1 of BOTH THE CASES :
7. Both cases are of from the same incident, for
the sake of convenience as to avoid repetition issue
No.1 in both cases have been taken up together for
common discussion. Petitioners led their oral as well as
documentary evidence. Respondent No.1 remained
neutral. Respondent No.2 didn't lead its evidence
except cross examining PWs. This is being a summary
proceedings a sum and substance of pleadings and
evidences are emphasized. The test for proof is
preponderance of probability herein. The petition
averments and objections are already summarized in
the brief facts of the case and objections herein above
and hence those are not repeated here in avoidance of
repetition. Negligence, issuance of insurance policy and
quantum of compensation are in dispute by respondent
No.2; the incident involvement of vehicles and injuries
are not in dispute. In proof of this issue petitioners
relied on police records viz., FIR with complaint, Sketch,
Spot Mahazar, Notice issued under 133 of the MV Act,
7 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
Reply on such notice, Charge sheet and Wound
certificates in Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and Ex.P15 & 16.
8. The final report filed by Kamakshipalya Traffic
Police,, shows there was the negligence by the driver of
car, bearing Reg No.KA-05-MV-0920. The brief facts of
the final report are extracted here under for better
appreciation:
" ದನನನಕ 06.02.2020 ರನದದ ರನತತ ಸದಮನರದ 10.30 ಗನಟಟಯಲಲ
ಕನಲನ ನನಬರರ 12 ರಲಲ ನಮಮದಸರದವ ಆರಟಮರಪಯದ ಕನರರ ನನಬರರ KA-
14-EB-2849 ರ ಚನಲಕನನಗದದದ, ಈತ ತನನ ವನಹನವನದನ ಬಟನಗಳಮರದ ನಗರ
ಕನಮನಕಕಪನಳಳ ಸನಚನರ ಪಲರಸರ ಠನಣಟಯ ಸರಹದದಗಟ ಸಟರರದ ಬಟನಗಳಮರದ
ವಶಶವದನಳನಲಯ ರಸಟಸಯಲಲ ಬಟನಗಳಮರದ ವ.ವ ಕನಶಟತಸರ ಕಡಟಯನದ
ನನಯನಡಹಳಳ ಕಡಟಗಟ ವಟರಗ ಮತದಸ ಅಜನಗರಮಕತಟಯನದ ಚನಲನಟ ಮನಡಕಟಮನಡದ
ಹಟಮರಗ ರಟರಲಟಶ ಗಟರಟರ ಬಳ ಎದದರದಗಡಟಯನದ ಸನಕಕ-5 ರವರದ ಅವರ ಹಟನಡತ
ಸನಕಕ-1 ಮತದಸ ಅವರ ಮಗದ ಬಟರಬ ದದತ, 3 ವರರ ರವರನದನ ಹನಬದಯಲಲ
ಕಮರಸಕಟಮನಡದ ಬರದತಸದದ ಸಮಸಟರರ ನನಬರರ KA-14-EB-2849 ಗಟ ಡಕಸ
ಮನಡದದರನದ ಸನಕಕ -5 ರವರ ಸಟಮನಟಕಟಸ ಹನಗಮ ಸನಕಕ-1 ರವರ ಬಲಗನಲಗಟ ತರವತ
ಸಶರಮಪದ ಪಟಟನಟಗರದತಸದಟ. ಬಟರಬ ದದತ ರವರಗಟ ಯನವವದಟರ ಪಟಟನಟಗರದವವದಲಲ.
ಆದದರನದ ಆರಟಮರಪಯ ವರದದದ ಕಲನ 279, 338 ಐಪಸ ರರತನಳ
ದಟಮರಷನರಟಮರಪಣ ಪಟಟ."
9. The spot mahazar and spot draft sketch depict
the seen of occurrence. The wound certificates show
the grievous injuries sustained by the petitioners. The
IMV report shows the incident was not due to any
mechanical defects of the vehicles and the damages of
8 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
vehicles. There was no mechanical defect in the
vehicles, then the incident could have been occurred
due to the negligence only. No eyewitness is examined.
On the basis of the final report the incident was due to
the negligence of driver of car. In the charge sheet the
car number is mentioned as scooter number; other
documents being tallied with the car number such
wrong entry might be due to wrong copy paste, the
number of the car is considered to be deemed to be KA-
05-MV-0920. No contrary evidence by respondents,
nothing supportive is elicited by respondent No.2 in
cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 regarding the
negligence. Such being the case, here is no impediment
in considering the police records. Hence, those are
considered.
10. Regarding non joinder of necessary parties as
contended by respondent No.2, as the final report came
to be filed against the driver of car, the parties arrayed
are suffice.
11. Regarding objections by respondent No.2 as to
non compliance of provision under Section 134(c) and
158(6) of MV Act is concerned as the petition reached
its finality and the petitioners approached the Tribunal,
and respondent No.2 had already taken all the
contentions of respondent No.1 the giving of permission
9 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
under Section 170 of MV Act and discussion on the
same now does not arise.
12. Wherefore, for the foregoing reasons, it stands
established that the petitioners sustained grievous
injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 06-02-
2020 at about 10.30 p.m., due to the rash and
negligent driving of driver of car, bearing No.KA-05-MV-
0920. Hence these issues are answered in the
affirmative.
ISSUE No.2 IN MVC 2069/2020:
13. In consideration of this issue disability,
avocation, age, income, laid up period, pain and
sufferings, medical bills, amenities, food, nourishment,
conveyance and future medical expenses are need to
be ascertained.
Disability, Avocation and Income :
Wound certificate Ex.P15 reveals the injuries
caused to this petitioner such as 1) right posterior
cruciate ligament tear (knee), 2) contusion right knee
lateral meniscus, 3) patella tendon contusion and 4)
parietal tear of medial patellar retinaculum. According
to it the above said injuries are grievous in nature.
Discharge summary, which is at Ex.P7, shows that
petitioner had taken conservative treatment as an
inpatient for a period of 4 days in SSNMC Super
Specialty Hospital. As averred by the petitioner because
10 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
of the injury she suffered the disablement and from
which she lost or lessen her earning capacity.
As per the petitioner's version, prior to the
accident, she was working as Assistant Engineer in
Irrigation Department and earning a sum of Rs.72,509/-
per month. In substantiation of the same, she
produced salary slips for the month of November 2019
to January 2020 as per Ex.P10. From these documents it
is clear that she was working as Assistant Engineer in
Irrigation Department and earning a gross salary of
Rs.72,509/- per month.
It is admitted by the petitioner during her cross-
examination that she got promoted as Assistant
Executive Engineer and earning a sum of Rs.91,000/-
per month. Hence, it is clear that she continued her
service. In proof of disablement here is no evidence.
Under the circumstances, it cannot be accepted that
she had suffered permanent disability. Therefore, she is
not entitled for compensation under the head loss of
future income due to disability.
Age
As per Ex.P7 - discharge summary and Ex.P15 -
wound certificate, age of petitioner as on the date of
accident was 38 years. So that, age of this petitioner is
taken to be considered as 38 years.
Pain and sufferings :
Petitioner was treated as inpatient from 07-02-
2020 to 10-02-2020. She suffered grievous injuries. So
11 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
that, she suffered pain and sufferings. It is therefore, it
is just and proper to award compensation considering
her pains and sufferings. Hence, it is opined that
Rs.50,000/- will be just and proper in compensation for
pains and sufferings.
Laid up period :
Admittedly the petitioner was continued with her
service, and here is no evidence regarding she was not
drawn her salary during the treatment period. She was
produced leave certificate and sanctioned letter as per
Ex.P8 and Ex.P9. From these documents it is clear that
she was availed commuted leave from 07-02-2020 to
21-03-2020 on medical grounds for a period of 44 days
and earned leave from 21-12-2020 to 08-01-2021 on
personal ground for a period of 19 days. No employer
evidence is led. Hence, she is not entitled to
compensation under this head.
Medical Bills:
It is averred that petitioner spent a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards the medical expenses. It is
admitted that Rs.37,504/- came to be reimbursed by
personal health insurance of petitioner and she is not
claiming the same, but others. Ex.P11 contains about
10 medical bills. All those bills have been examined
with care and found that bill at serial No.11 is not
having seal and signature. Hence, it is not considered
herein. Except this rest of the medical bills are
12 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
considered herein - accordingly total amount of medical
bills, applicable, is Rs.16,311/- for which the petitioner
is entitled for.
Amenities and happiness:
It is established that the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries. With such surgical scars she will have
to lead her future life. From such injuries she suffered
pains, difficulties, which deprived her of leading her
happy life and from enjoying amenities. It is therefore,
the petitioner is entitle for compensation for loss of her
such amenities and happiness. So, It is deemed proper
to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- under this
head.
Food, Nourishment, Attendant charges and
Conveyance:
Under the facts and circumstances of the case
having considered the nature of the injuries, though
there is no document particularly, it could be presumed
that the petitioner might have spent considerable
amount for her nutritional food, nourishment, attendant
charges and conveyance. It is therefore, it is of the
opinion of the Tribunal that for such food, nourishment
and for conveyance is concerned awarding of
Rs.25,000/- as compensation it is just and proper.
Hence, it is considered so.
13 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
Future medical expenses
There is no evidence as far as future medical
expenses is concerned. Hence, no compensation is
awarded under the head of future medical expenses.
Vehicle damages
Regarding vehicle damage is concerned as per
Ex.P-14 petitioner incurred expenditure of Rs.26,474/-
out of this Rs.12,157/- admittedly reimbursed by her
scooters insurer. Hence, she is entitled only for balance
amount of Rs.14,317/-. It is considered to be awarded.
14. Accordingly, details of compensations are as
under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000-00
2 Loss of income during Nil
laid up period
3 Attendant charges, extra Rs. 25,000-00
nutritious food and
conveyance expenses
4 Medical expenses Rs. 16,311-00
5 Loss of future income Nil
due to permanent
disability
6 Loss of future amenities Rs. 50,000-00
and happiness
7 Future medical expenses Nil
8 Vehicle damages Rs. 14,317-00
Total Rs.1,55,628-00
15. In all, the petitioner is entitled for
compensation of Rs.1,55,628/- which can be rounded
off to Rs.1,55,700/-. Keeping in view the interest on the
14 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
savings by the nationalized banks and as provided
under Section 34 of the CPC, in the present case, from
the date of petition only, the interest at 6% per annum
is considered to be directed till its realization. So, the
petitioner is entitled to the interest at 6% per annum on
the compensation amount.
ISSUE No.2 IN MVC 2070/2020:
16. In consideration of this issue disability,
avocation, age, income, laid up period, pain and
sufferings, medical bills, amenities, food, nourishment,
conveyance and future medical expenses are need to
be ascertained.
Disability, Avocation and Income :
Wound certificate Ex.P16 reveals the injuries
caused to the petitioner such as 1) fracture dislocation
right hip with acetabulum femoral head fracture, 2)
right foot drop due to sciatic nerve neuropraxia, 3) right
knee avulsion fracture PCL attachment, 4) fracture
patella right, 5) fracture right tibial condyle, 6)
contusion (bony) right femoral condyle, 7) fracture
nasal bone, 8) fracture right inferior pubic ramus and 9)
extra peritoneal haemoatoma. According to it the
above said injuries are grievous in nature. Discharge
summaries, which are at Ex.P17, shows that petitioner
had taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 19
days in SSNMC Super Specialty Hospital and underwent
surgeries. As averred by the petitioner because of the
15 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
injuries he suffered the disablement and from which he
lost or lessen his earning capacity. In proof of the
disablement he examined PW3 - Orthopaedic Surgeon
from Sparsh Hospital, who assessed disability of the
petitioner, opined that the petitioner suffered
permanent physical disability of the right lower limb at
37% and to the whole body at 18.5%. He is the treated
doctor. Implants are not removed, which means that
disability has been assessed before the completion of
the full treatment. In fact, as per the gazette
notification issued by Ministry of Social Justice of
Government of India, the disability should be assessed
after the treatment is completed. As far as this case is
concerned, if the disability would be assessed after the
future surgery, perhaps, there would have been
reduction in the percentage of the disability. According
to the doctor the fractures came to be united. This
witness has not stated about the future surgery.
Now the injuries affected the continuation of
service or earning capacity is to be seen. Admittedly
the petitioner continued in his service and hence it
does mean that the injuries didn't come in the way to
affect the petitioner to continue in his service. Hence,
here is no consideration for granting compensation
under loss of future income.
However, under the circumstances, having regard
to the nature of the injuries, the physical disablement
of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. The disability
16 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
assessed by the doctor is not in 1/3rd of lower limb to
the whole body. So that, it is taken to be considered as
1/3rd i.e 12.34% as disability of whole body. It is
therefore the petitioner is granted with global
compensation for reduced disablement at
Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for disablement of
petitioner as no disability certificate is here and the
disability assessed is only the opinion of the doctor.
Age
As per Ex.P22 - driving licence, date of birth of
the petitioner was 09-07-1976. So as on the date of
accident he was aged about 44 years. So that, age of
this petitioner is taken to be considered as 44 years.
Pain and sufferings :
Petitioner was treated as inpatient from 07-02-
2020 to 16-02-2020, 07-03-2020 to 11-03-2020 and 12-
03-2020 to 15-03-2020. He was treated as an inpatient
and also he underwent surgeries. He suffered fractures.
So that, he suffered pain and sufferings. It is therefore,
it is just and proper to award compensation considering
his pains and sufferings. Hence, it is opined that
Rs.1,00,000/- will be just and proper in compensation
for pains and sufferings.
Laid up period :
Admittedly the petitioner was continued with his
service. Evidently the petitioner is claiming loss of his
17 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
pay for 292 days, which is in conformity with the say of
his employer. His monthly salary is Rs.98,007/- for the
month of January 2020 is considered for calculation of
his loss of pay for 292 days, which will come to
Rs.9,53,935/- is considered to award as compensation
for loss of pay.
Medical Bills:
It is averred that petitioner spent a sum of
Rs.10,00,000/- towards the medical expenses. It is
admitted that Rs.2,65,650/- came to be reimbursed by
personal health insurance of petitioner and he is not
claiming the same, but others. In substantiation of the
same he produced 107 medical bills, medical
reimbursement letter, physiotherapy prescriptions,
ayurvedic treatment prescriptions, physiotherapy bills
as per Ex.P27, Ex.P28 and Ex.P43 to Ex.P48. All those
bills have been examined with care and found that bill
at serial No.78 in Ex.P27 is not in the name of the
petitioner, bill at serial No.1 in Ex.P45 and Ex.P46 are
one and the same. Hence, those are not considered
herein. Except those rest of the medical bills are
considered herein - accordingly total amount of medical
bills, applicable, is Rs.3,32,160/- for which the
petitioner is entitled for.
Amenities and happiness:
It is established that the petitioner underwent
surgeries for fractures. The disablement of the whole
18 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
body of the petitioner is to be considered herein. With
such permanent disablement and surgical scars he will
have to lead his future life. From such injuries he
suffered pains, difficulties, which deprived him of
leading his happy life and from enjoying amenities. It is
therefore, the petitioner is entitle for compensation for
loss of his such amenities and happiness. So, It is
deemed proper to award compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- under this head.
Food, Nourishment, Attendant charges and
Conveyance:
Under the facts and circumstances of the case
having considered the nature of the injuries and
permanent disablement, though here is no document
particularly, it could be presumed that the petitioner
might have spent considerable amount for his
nutritional food, nourishment, attendant charges and
conveyance. It is therefore, it is of the opinion of the
Tribunal that for such food, nourishment, attendant
charges and for conveyance is concerned awarding of
Rs.50,000/- as compensation it is just and proper.
Hence, it is considered so.
Future medical expenses
As per the evidence of the petitioner, he has to
undergo two more surgeries in the form of pantalar
fusion as a salvage procedure and total hip
replacement surgery for which he has to spent
19 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
Rs.6,50,000/-. In substantiation of the same he
produced future surgery estimation as per Ex.P19, but
nothing is here from PW3 except regarding implants
removal. However, considering the petitioner being
accommodated with his personal health insurance or
having reimbursement benefit with his employer
Rs.25,000/- is considered for expenses that would incur
in the government undertaking hospital for removal of
implants. So that Rs.25,000/- is considered to award
under this head.
17. Accordingly, details of compensations are as
under:
1 Pain and sufferings Rs. 1,00,000-00
2 Loss of income during Rs. 9,53,935-00
laid up period
3 Attendant charges, extra Rs. 50,000-00
nutritious food and
conveyance expenses
4 Medical expenses Rs. 3,32,160-00
5 Loss of future income Nil
due to permanent
disability
6 Physical disablement Rs. 2,00,000-00
7 Loss of future amenities Rs. 1,00,000-00
and happiness
8 Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000-00
Total Rs.17,61,095-00
18. In all, petitioner is entitled for compensation
of Rs.17,61,095/- which can be rounded off to
Rs.17,61,100/-. Keeping in view the interest on the
savings by the nationalized banks and as provided
20 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
under Section 34 of the CPC, in the present case, from
the date of petition only the interest at 6% per annum
is considered to be directed till its realization except
future medical expenses. So, the petitioner is entitled
to the interest at 6% per annum on the compensation
amount.
Liability:
19. Non issuances of Insurance policy and its
invalidity or any breaches are not established by the
insurer. As found on the discussions on issue No.1, the
negligence was on the part of driver of car. On vicarious
liability respondent No.1 being the owner of the car is
responsible, respondent No.2 being the insurer of
respondent No.1 contractually liable to pay
compensation. Thus, respondent No.1 and 2 are jointly
and severally liable to pay such compensation.
However, initially respondent No.1 is liable to pay the
determined compensation. The petitioners are only
entitled to such compensation and not fully as claimed
for. Accordingly, this issue stands answered partly in
the affirmative in both the cases.
ISSUE No.3 OF BOTH THE CASES:
20. In view of the findings, both petitions deserve
to be allowed in part. Hence, the following order is
passed:
21 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
ORDER
Petitions in MVC No.2069/2020 and 2070/2020 are partly allowed with costs.
Petitioner in MVC 2069/2020 is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,55,700/- (Rupees one lakh, fifty five thousand and seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till realisation.
Petitioner in MVC 2070/2020 is entitled to compensation of Rs.17,61,100/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs, sixty one thousand and one hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.,(Excluding future medical expenses) from the date of petition till realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. However, the primary liability to pay the compensation amount is fastened on respondent No.2 - Insurance Company and it is directed to pay the compensation amount within two months from the date of this order.
The entire compensation amount with proportionate interest awarded to 22 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020 & 2070/2020 the petitioner in MVC 2069/2020 shall be released to her through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
Out of the compensation amount awarded to petitioner in MVC 2070/2020, 25% of the compensation amount with proportionate interest shall be deposited in his name as FD in any nationalized bank for the period of two years with liberty to draw the accrued interest periodically and the remaining 75% amount with proportionate interest shall be released to him through E-payment on proper identification and verification.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,000/- each in both the cases.
Draw award accordingly in both the cases.
A copy of this judgment shall be kept in file of MVC 2070/2020.
(Dictated to the stenographer, directly on computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 15th day of November 2022) (Sudeen Kumar D.J.) Member, MACT, Bengaluru. 23 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020 & 2070/2020 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners :
PW1 Smt. Veena L.S. PW2 Sri Lokesh T.V. PW3 Dr. Brahmaraju T.J. PW4 Smt. Champa Nagaiah
Documents marked on behalf of petitioners :
Ex.P1 True copy of FIR with Complaint Ex.P2 True copy of Sketch Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar Ex.P4 True copy of 133 Notice Ex.P5 True copy of Reply to 133 Notice Ex.P6 True copy of Charge Sheet Ex.P7 Discharge Summary Ex.P8 Leave Certificate Ex.P9 Sanctioned Letter Ex.P10 Salary Slip (3 in nos.) Ex.P11 Medical Bills (10 in nos.) Ex.P12 OPD Case Sheet Ex.P13 Vehicle Damage Quotation February-
2020
Ex.P14 Repair Bill
Ex.P15 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P16 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P17 Discharge Summaries (3 in nos.)
Ex.P18 Medical Certificates (2 in nos.)
Ex.P19 Future Surgery Estimation
Ex.P20 OPD Case Sheets (15 in nos.)
Ex.P21 Photos (8 in nos.) with CD
Ex.P22 Notarized copy of Driving Licence of 2 nd
Petitioner
Ex.P23 Notarized copy of BE Degree Certificate
of 2nd Petitioner
Ex.P24 Notarized copy of Appointment Letter
Ex.P25 Lab Reports (30 in nos.)
Ex.P26 Bank Statement
Ex.P27 Medical Bills (101 in nos.)
Ex.P28 Medical Reimbursement Letter with
24 (SCCH-16) MVC 2069/2020
& 2070/2020
Certificate U/Sec. 65(b) of Evidence Act Ex.P29 Salary Slips (14 in nos.) with Certificate U/Sec. 65(b) of Evidence Act Ex.P30 Case Sheet Ex.P31 Organization Changing Letter Ex.P32 Police Intimation copy Ex.P33 MLC Extract copy Ex.P34 X-rays (2 in nos.) Ex.P35 X-rays (2 in nos.) Ex.P36 Authorization Letter along with ID Card Ex.P37 Offer Letter Ex.P38 Leave Certificate Ex.P39 Salary Statement Ex.P40 Compensation Statement Ex.P41 Salary Slips (14 in nos.) for the month of January-2020 to February-2021 Ex.P42 TDS Certificate (2 in nos.) Ex.P43 Physiotherapy Prescriptions Ex.P44 Ayurvedic Treatment Prescriptions Ex.P45 Medical Bills (2 in nos.) Ex.P46 Physiotherapy Bills (2 in nos.) Ex.P47 Physiotherapy Recent Estimation Ex.P48 Medical Bills (4 in nos.) Witnesses examined on behalf of respondents :
None Documents marked on behalf of the respondents :
Nil (Sudeen Kumar D.J.) Member, MACT, Bengaluru.