Bangalore District Court
Is Not Maintainable In The Eye Of Law. It ... vs Examined Its Official As Rw.1. Rw.1 ... on 28 August, 2015
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF AUGUST-2015
(SCCH-25)
Present:Sri.DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY
M.A., LL.M.
XXI A.C.M.M. & XXIII A.S.C.J, Bengaluru.
MVC No.1953/2014
PETITONER: Miss. Sheela.R.
D/o.Ramadass.
Aged about 28 years,
R/at No.459, 2nd A Main,
Ambedkar nagar, Vijinapura,
Doorvaninagar,
Bangalore North,
Bangalore-16.
V/S
RESPONDENTS: The Managing Director,
BMTC, K.H.Road,
Bangalore-560 027.
.......
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation for the injuries sustained in a road accident.
2. In brief facts of the petitioner are as under:
On 21.04.2014 at about 9.15 a.m., the petitioner was riding her Scooty bearing Reg.No.KA-53-X-0839 at Outer Ring 2 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 road, near Kammanahalli junction, opposite Girias Showroom, Bangalore, at that time the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No. KA-01-F-4367 came in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dashed against the petitioner.
Thereby petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately petitioner was shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bangalore, wherein undergone treatment. Therefore the petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, nourishment and conveyance and attendant charges.
The Banaswadi traffic police, filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their PS crime No.46/2014 punishable u/s.279, 337 of IPC.
As on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 28 years working as a Retail Sales Officer at Tanishq, Pheonix Mail, Whitefield, Bangalore, and earning an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month. Due to accident she sustained injury, underwent treatment, even though she cannot walk, sit, stand, squat, work and earn an amount of Rs.35,000/-p.m.
3. Respondent appeared through their counsel and filed objections. Wherein stated that, the application filed by the 3 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. It is false that, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and caused the accident and disputed the age, income, avocation and expenses and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
4. Based on the said pleadings the following issues are framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has sustained injuries on 21.04.2014 at about 9.15 a.m., on outer ring road, near Kammanahalli Junction, Opp; Girias Showroom, Bangalore, due to rash and negligent driving of BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No.KA-01-F-
4637, by its rider/driver and dashed against the petitioner as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom payable?
3. What order or award?
5. Petitioner to prove her case, she has examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 11 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.6 & P.9 to P.11 and one more witness examined as PW.2 and got marked 2 documents under Exs.P.7 & P.8 and closed their 4 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 side Whereas the respondent examined its official as RW.1 and not produced any documents on their behalf and closed their side.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Rs.3,02,462/- payable by the respondent Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:
PW.1 stated in her examination-in-chief that, On 21.04.2014 at about 9.15 a.m., the petitioner was riding her Scooty bearing Reg.No.KA-53-X-0839 at Outer Ring road, near Kammanahalli junction, opposite Girias Showroom, Bangalore, at that time the driver of the BMTC Bus bearing Reg.No. KA-
01-F-4367 came in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life and dashed against the petitioner. Thereby petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately petitioner was 5 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bangalore, wherein undergone treatment. Therefore the petitioner spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, nourishment and conveyance and attendant charges.
The Banaswadi traffic police, filed a case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their PS crime No.46/2014 punishable u/s.279, 337 of IPC.
9. PW.2 stated that the petitioner sustained injury with the history of RTA.
Respondent examined its official as RW.1. RW.1 stated that, it is false that, the driver of the offenidng vehicle drover the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Petitioner drove her Scooty in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and prayed for rejection of the application. He helped them to took her to the hospital and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
In support of their oral evidence petitioner has filed 11 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.11.
10. On perusal of the Ex.P.1 FIR with complaint, Ex.P.2 sketch & mahazar, Ex.P.3 IMV report, Ex.P.4 charge sheet, 6 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 Ex.P.5 wound certificate Ex.P.6 discharge summary reveal that charge sheet is against the rider of the offending vehicle. The Respondent is the RC holder. RW.1 is interested party. I believe the evidence of PWs.1 & 2. The petitioner proved that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner endanger to human life and caused the accident. Therefore the petitioner sustained the injury and undergone treatment. Accordingly, I have answered issue no.1 in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.2:
PW.1 further stated that as on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 28 years working as a Retail Sales Officer at Tanishq, Pheonix Mail, Whitefield, Bangalore, and earning an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month. Due to accident she sustained injury, underwent treatment, even though she cannot walk, sit, stand, squat, work and earn an amount of Rs.35,000/-p.m. Respondent is liable to pay compensation and prayed for compensation.
7 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25
12. PW.2 stated that, the petitioner was admitted to their hospital with the history of RTA on 21.04.2014. On examination petitioner has sustained deep wound in the dorsum of the left6 ankle with exposure of the underlying tendons with partial tear of tibialis anterior. Deep wound over the left knee. The wound debridement on left ankle and left knee and split skin grafting over the left ankle and left knee and discharged on 25.04.2014.
Again he examined the petitioner on 20.02.2015 for the assessment of disability. The petitioner complained that, difficulty in squatting, kneeling and sitting cross-legged, she feel her left knee and left ankle are stiff and opined 11% of whole body disability.
In support of their oral evidence petitioner has filed 11 documents under Exs.P.1 to P.11.
13. On perusal of the wound certificate under Ex.P.5, discharge summary under Ex.P.6, shows that the petitioner has sustained deep wound in the dorsum of the left6 ankle with exposure of the underlying tendons with partial tear of tibialis anterior. Deep wound over the left knee. The wound 8 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 debridement on left ankle and left knee and split skin grafting over the left ankle and left knee and discharged on 25.04.2014.
Whereas the Respondent examined its official as RW.1. RW.1 stated that, it is false that, the driver of the offenidng vehicle drover the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Petitioner drove her Scooty in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and prayed for rejection of the application. He helped them to took her to the hospital and prayed for rejection of the application with cost.
14. During treatment as well as laid up period she got pain and suffering. Therefore, the tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- under the heads of pain and suffering and loss of beauty.
PW.1 has stated that as on the date of the accident the petitioner was aged about 28 years working as a Retail Sales Officer and earning an amount of Rs.35,000/-p.m. Ex.P.10 reveals that, the Petitioner was getting basic salary of Rs.6,700/-, HRA Rs.4,020/-, total Rs.10,720/- is the salary of the Petitioner. PW.2 opined 11 % disability to the whole body. As on the date of the accident petitioner was aged about 28 9 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 years. As per the Sarala Verma's case, multiplier applicable is
17. Considering the petitioner evidence, tribunal has awarded just compensation as such Rs.10,720 x 12 x 17 x 11% = Rs.2,40,557/- is awarded under the heads of loss of future income. Another 10% out of loss of future income i.e. Rs.24,055/- is awarded under the heads of loss of amenities and happiness. Due to accident the wound required 1 month for healing up. Therefore during that, period he lost income, it has to be compensated. Rs.10,720/-x1=Rs.10,720/- is awarded under the heads of loss of income during laid up period.
PW.1 stated that, she has spent huge amount towards medical expenses, Ex.P.13 reveal that the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.2,130/-, the evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the evidence of PW.2 and it is awarded towards medical expenses.
Considering evidence of PWs.1 & 2, the tribunal is awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment. So the petitioner is entitled total compensation as under:
10 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25
1. Pain and suffering : Rs. 20,000/-
2. Loss of future income : Rs.2,40,557/-
3. Loss of amenities & happiness : Rs. 24,055/-
4. Loss of income during Laid up period : Rs. 10,720/-
5. Medical expenses : Rs. 2,130/-
6. Attendant, conveyance, food and nourishment : Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL : Rs.3,02,462/-
Respondent is the RC holder cum employer of the offending vehicle. Hence he is liable to pay compensation with interest. Accordingly I have answered issue No.2 in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.3:
In view of answering issue nos.1 and 2, as above, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for total compensation an amount of Rs.3,02,462/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition 11 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 till the date of depositing the amount.
Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
Respondent is order to deposit the compensation amount within sixty days from the date of award.
On deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- order to deposit in the name of the Petitioner for a period of 2 years in any N/S bank and remaining amount shall be released in favour of the petitioner by way of account payee cheque after obtaining vouchers, receipts and proper identification as per finance rules.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of August 2015).
(DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXI A.C.M.M.& XXIII A.S.C.J., Bengaluru.
12 MVC 1953//2014 SCCH-25 .....
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for petitioner:
PW.1 Miss.Sheela.R. PW.2 Dr.Krishan Prasad
List of Documents marked for Petitioner:
Ex.P.1 FIR with complaint,
Ex.P.2 Sketch & Mahazar,
Ex.P.3 IMV report,
Ex.P.4 Charge sheet
Ex.P.5 Wound certificate
Ex.P.6 Discharge summary,
Ex.P.7 Inpatient file
Ex.P.8 Outpatient file
Ex.P.9 Loss of pay certificate
issued by TITAN Company Ltd.
Ex.P.10 Attested payslip for the month of April 2014 Ex.P.11 Attested payslip for the month of May 2014 Ex.P.12 Attendance register extract For the month of April & May 2014 Ex.P.13 Medical bills (2) List of Witnesses examined for respondent/s:
RW.1 Subramanya.K.V.
13 MVC 1953//2014
SCCH-25
List of documents exhibited for Respondent:
Nil (DHARMAGIRI RAMASWAMY) XXI A. C.M.M.,& XXIII ASCJ Bengaluru.