Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.7091/11 Sujata @ Sujatamma vs In Mvc 1. The Reliance General Ins on 16 March, 2015
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: Basavaraj Chengti., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398
Dated this the 16th day of March 2015.
Petitioner in MVC No.7091/11 Sujata @ Sujatamma,
W/o Rangaswamy,
Aged about 35 years,
R/o No.10, Myadanahole,
Hiriyur Taluk,
Chitradurga District.,
(By pleader Sri KGB)
Petitioner in MVC No.7092/11 M.R.Shilpa
Aged about 20 years,
D/o M.D Rangaswamy
W/o Prakash,
R/o No.14,
Myadonahole,
Hiriyur Taluk,
Chitradurga Dist.,
Pin-577596.
(By pleader Sri KGB)
V/s
Respondents in MVC 1. The Reliance General Ins.,
No.7091/11 and 7092/11cases. Co.Ltd.,
No.28, East wing,
SCCH-14 2 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
Centanary Building,
5th floor, M.G road,
Bangalore-560 001.
By its Manager.
(Insurer of the lorry)
(By pleader Sri ANP)
2. Raghu.G.R
S/o G.N.Ramakrishna
Major,
R/at Balaji Nilaya,1st cross,
Ashoka Nagar,
Tumkur-572102.
(Owner of the lorry)
(Exparte)
3. The Managing Director,
N.E.K.S.R.T.C.
Gulbarga.
(Owner of the Bus)
( By pleader Sri MSB)
Petitioner in MVC No.4940/11 Adarsha G Sugara
S/o G.H.Sugara
Aged about 28 years,
R/at 3rd main,
3rd cross,
Subbanna Garden,
Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri CGB)
Petitioner in MVC No.4941/11 Savitha H.C
D/o Channa Naik,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.12, 7th main,
A.D.Halli, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 3 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
(By pleader Sri CG)
Petitioner in MVC No.1694/12 Prakash.K
S/o Sathish
Aged about 28 years,
No.1122, 16th main,
Srinagar, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri CGB)
Petitioner in MVC No.6070/11 K.Srinivasa @ Srinivasulu
S/o Venkataswaiah @
Venkkataswamappa
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.1, Appurayappa Lane,
Bangalore.
Permanently R/at 12-2-41,
Nimkampalli road,
Hindupura,
Andra Pradesh.
(By pleader Sri CGB)
Petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 Mr. Imram Khan
S/o Ibrahim Khan,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.16,
Jannath Amber,
Residency(ground floor)
1st main, Brindavan Extension,
Arekere Mico layout,
B.G.Road,
Bangalore-76.
(By pleader Sri TP)
V/s
Respondents in MVC 1. Raghu.G.R
No.4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, S/o G.N.Ramakrishna
6070/11 and 3398/13 cases. Major,
R/at Balaji Nilaya,1st cross,
Ashoka Nagar,
Tumkur-572102.
(Owner of the lorry)
SCCH-14 4 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
(By pleader Sri DLP)
2. The Reliance General Ins.,
Co.Ltd.,
No.28, East wing,
Centanary Building,
5th floor, M.G road,
Bangalore-560 001.
By its Manager.
(Insurer of the lorry)
(By pleader Sri ANP)
3. The Managing Director,
N.E.K.S.R.T.C.
Gulbarga.
(Owner of the bus)
( By pleader Sri MSB)
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT.,
BANGALORE.
SCCH-14 5 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
COMMON JUDGMENT
These claim petitions are filed by the petitioners
U/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident.
2. These petitions are arising out of same accident.
Hence, they are clubbed together for common evidence and
disposal by a common Judgment. The petitions at Sl.No.3 to 6
were pending before SCCH-2 and the last petition was pending
before SCCH-23. Except the last petition, the other petitions were
transferred during the trial, whereas the last one is transferred at
the stage of argument. Except the last petition, all the other
petitions were originally filed against the insurer and owner of
Lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759. The owner of Bus bearing
No.KA-35-F-78 is impleaded at the instance of the insurer of the
lorry as the respondent no.3 in those cases. The last petition is
filed against owner and insurer of lorry and owner of bus stating
that the accident was due to negligence of both the drivers. The
owner of lorry is made as the respondent no.1 in first two cases,
whereas he is made as the respondent no.2 in other cases.
3. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 31.05.2011 at about 04.00 A.M., all the petitioners
were traveling in K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.KA-35-F-78 as
passengers from Tumkur side towards Bangalore. When the bus
reached near S.L.V Hotel, on Bangalore-Tumkur road, Bangalore,
at that time, lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 was parked on the
road without parking lights and without taking precautionary
SCCH-14 6 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
steps. The driver of the bus was unable to observe the parked
lorry and dashed to the hind portion of the lorry. Due to the
impact, all the petitioners sustained grievous injuries. The
petitioners except the petitioner in MVC No.3398/13, were taken
to Mathrushree Hospital, Nelamangala wherein they were
admitted as inpatients. The petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 was
taken to Fortis Hospital wherein he has taken treatment as an
inpatient. The petitioners were treated and discharged with an
advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest. The petitioners
are still under treatment. They spent huge amount toward
medical expenses, nourishment and other incidental expenses.
All the petitioners were hale and healthy prior to accident.
The petitioner Sujatha @ Sujatamma and the petitioner Shilpa
were aged 35 years and 20 years and were doing agriculture
cum household work and earning Rs.8,000/- p.m., respectively.
The petitioner Adarsha was aged 28 years and was working as a
Technician in Emphasis Company, Bangalore and earning
Rs.9,000/- p.m., The petitioner Savitha was aged 25 years and
was working as a Computer Operator in Amrutha Synthetic Pvt.,
Ltd., Bangalore and was earning Rs.6,000/- p.m., The petitioner
Prakash was aged 28 years and was working as an Date Entry
Operator in Bangalore Club, Bangalore and earning Rs.9,000/-
p.m., The petitioner Srinivasa @ Srinivasula was aged 40 years
and was doing handicraft business and earning Rs.9,000/- p.m.,
The petitioner Imran Khan was working as staff Nurse at Manipal
Hospital, Bangalore and was earning Rs.13,800/- p.m., Due to the
accidental injuries, the petitioners sustained grievous injuries
which resulted in permanent disablement. They could not attend
SCCH-14 7 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
their work so far and as a result, they are put to loss of earning
and earning capacity. Nelamangala Rural police have registered
a case in Cr.No.185/2011 as against the driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-02-V-4759 for the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 of
IPC. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the owner, insurer of said
lorry and the respondent no.3 is the owner of bus bearing No.
No.KA-35-F-78. The petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 has contended
that the accident was due to negligence of both the drivers and
sought for compensation from all the respondents, whereas the
other petitioners have asserted that the accident was due to rash
and negligent act of the driver lorry and have sought for
compensation from the respondent no.1 and 2. Hence, the
petitions.
4. In pursuance of notices, the respondents have
appeared before the Court through their respective counsel and
filed their written statements separately in the petitions at
Sl.No.3 to 7, whereas in the first two petitions, the owner of the
lorry did not appear before the Court in spite of service of notice
and hence, he is placed exparte. The owner and insurer of the
lorry are hereinafter referred to as the respondent no.1 and 2
respectively. Though, owner of the lorry remained exparte in first
two cases, he has got his separate defence in the other cases. If
his defence in those cases is considered as his defence in the
first two cases, it will meet the ends of justice.
The respondent no.1 has admitted that he is the owner of
the lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759, but he has denied the other
averments of the petitions as false and contended that the
petitions are not maintainable. He has admitted that
SCCH-14 8 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
Nelamangala Rural Police have registered Cr.No.185/11 against
the driver of his lorry, but he has contended that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly arbitrary and
speculative, that his vehicle was duly insured with the
respondent no.2 and the policy was in force, that his driver was
holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident. Hence, he
has sought for dismissal of the petitions with exemplary cost.
The respondent no.2 has admitted the issuance of policy
in favour of respondent no.1 in respect of lorry bearing No.AP-02-
V-4759, but he has denied all the material allegations made in
the claim petitions as false. He has contended that the petition
is bad for non joinder of necessary and proper parties, that the
insured has failed to comply with his mandatory duty, that the
driver of the said lorry was not having a valid and effective
driving licence at the time accident, that the accident has taken
place due to negligence of the driver of KSRTC Bus bearing
No.KA-35-F-78, that the compensation claimed by the petitioners
is exorbitant, fanciful and has no nexus to the age, avocation and
earnings of the petitioners. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of
the petitions.
The respondent no.3 has denied the averments of the
petitions as false and contended that the petitions are not
maintainable either in law or on facts, that the petitions are bad
for mis-joinder of unnecessary parties, that the driver of the
N.E.K.R.T.C bus bearing No.KA-35-F-78 was not responsible for
the alleged accident, that the driver of the lorry was responsible
for the accident, that the lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 was so
parked on the middle of the road without displaying any signal of
SCCH-14 9 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
any nature and at that point of time there was drizzling and
vehicles were coming from the opposite direction with bright
light, that the lorry was not visible till the bus reached near it,
that the driver of the bus stopped the bus as soon as he saw the
parked lorry and in that process, the bus came in contact with
the lorry, that there were no parking lights or reflector fitted and
no top lights on the rear side of the parked vehicle and no road
barricade was put around the lorry, that the lorry was so left
unattended in the dark night and parked negligently on the road
in flagrant violation of traffic rules and regulations, that the
compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive,
exorbitant, imaginary and has no relation to the facts and
circumstances of the case. Hence, he has sought for dismissal of
the petitions as against him.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues
were framed:
COMMON ISSUES in MVC No. 7091/2011 and 7092/2011
1. Whether the petitioner prove that
the injuries caused in the accident
arising out of the use of the vehicle
lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 and
Stage Carriage bus bearing No.KA-
35-F-78 occurred on 31.05.2011 at
about 04.00 A.M., ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
compensation? If so, how much and
from whom?
3. What Order?
COMMON ISSUES in MVC No. 4940/11, 4941/11,
1694/12 and 6070/11
SCCH-14 10 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
sustained grievous injuries in a road
traffic accident on 31.05.2011 at about
04.00 a.m., at Bangalore-Tumkur road,
near SLV hotel, on account of rash and
negligent driving of the lorry bearing
No.
AP-02-V-4759 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
claim
compensation? If so, from whom?
3. What order or Award?
In MVC No. 3398/2013
1. Whether the petitioner proves that, he has
sustained grievous injuries in RTA that
alleged to have been occurred on
31.05.2011 at about 04.00 a.m., on
Tumkur-Nelamangala road, Budihal gate,.
Opp.SLC Hotel due to negligent parking of
Lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 by its
driver as alleged in the petition?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation as claimed ? If so, to what
amount and from whom?
3. What order or award?
6. At the instance of the parties, these petitions except
the last petition, are clubbed together for common evidence and
disposal by a common Judgment. The last petition is transferred
at the stage of arguments and it is clubbed with MVC No.7091/11
for common arguments and Judgment. After clubbing of last
petition, it is found marking of documents and numbering the
witnesses in the last petition is necessary to avoid confusion. It is
further noticed that two set of documents are marked as Ex.P46
and 47. Hence, marking of one set of document i.e., X-rays and
SCCH-14 11 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
MRI films is requires alteration. Accordingly, separate order is
passed for changing the numbering of witnesses and marking of
documents in MVC No.3398/13 and marking of X-rays and MRI.
7. During the evidence, the petitioners have examined
themselves as PW.1 to 5, 7 and 9. They have examined five
witnesses as PW.6, 8, 10 to 12. The petitioners have got marked
documents at Ex.P1 to 75. The respondent no.1 has not adduce
any evidence on his behalf. The respondent no.2 has examined
his officer as RW.2 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R1. The
respondent no.3 has examined his driver as RW.1 and got
marked copy of ordersheet and plea in CC No.20/2012 and copy
of evidence of RW.1 as Ex.R2 and 3.
8. Heard the arguments. The counsel for the
respondent no.2 and 3 have filed written arguments. The
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2013 Kar 5619:(The Oriental Ins., Co.
Ltd., Vs. Bannemma and Ors.,)
2. 1997 ACJ 304: United India Co., VS. Bella
Marya)
3. ILR 2013 Kar 3333:(V.Sudha Vs.
P.Ganapathi Bhat and Anr.,)
The counsel for the petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 has
relied upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2013 Kar 5619:(The Oriental Ins., Co.
Ltd., Vs. Bannemma and Ors.,)
2. 1997 ACJ 304: United India Co., VS. Bella
Marya)
3. ILR 2013 Kar 3333:(V.Sudha Vs.
P.Ganapathi Bhat and Anr.,)
SCCH-14 12 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
The counsel for the respondent no.2 has relied upon
following rulings:
1. 2008 ACJ 1617: (Sri Krishna Vishweshwar
Hegde Vs. General Manager, Karnataka State
Road Transport Corportaion)
2. 2009 ACJ 2003:(Raj Rani and Others Vs. Oriental
Ins., Co.Ltd., & Others)
3. 2008 ACJ 1165: (T.O Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and
others)
4. Mardras High Court: The Managing Director Vs.
Senthamaraj on 9th February 2015.
The counsel for the respondent no.3 has relied
upon following rulings:
1. ILR 2002 KAR 893: (Kumari Jyothi
and ors., Vs. Mohd.Usman Ali and
others)
2. 2009 ACJ 551 : (Rajani Soni and Ors.,
Vs. Hemraj and others)
3. ILR 2013 KAR 5619: (The oriental
Ins.,Co.Ltd., Hubli Vs. Bannemma
and Ors.,)
I have gone through the written arguments and
rulings and I have perused records.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.7091/11: In
Affirmative.
Rs.2,38,000/- from the
respondent
Insurance company.
[
SCCH-14 13 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
In MVC.No.7092/11: In Affirmative.
Rs.51,000/- from the respondent
Insurance Company.
In MVC.No.4940/11: In Affirmative.
Rs.76,000/- from the respondent
Insurance Company.
In MVC.No.4941/11: In Affirmative.
Rs.54,000/- from the respondent
Insurance Company.
In MVC.No. 1694/12: In Affirmative.
Rs.17,000/- from the respondent
Insurance Company.
In MVC.No.6070/11: In Affirmative.
Rs.18,000/- from the respondent
Insurance Company.
In MVC.No.3398/13: In Affirmative.
Rs.2,72,000/- from the respondent
Insurance Company.
Issue No.3 : As per final order:
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 IN ALL THE CASES : These issues are
interlined and common discussions is required to give finding. In
all 12 witnesses are examined and 75 documents are marked for
the petitioners. 2 witnesses are examined and 3 documents are
exhibited by the respondents. Among the same, evidence of
PW.1 to 5, 7 to 9 and of RW.1 and contents of documents at
Ex.P1 to 5, 14, 19 to 24, 32, 35, 41, 53 to 57, Ex.R2 and R3 are
relevant to this issue. Copies of FIR with complaint are at Ex.P1,
19, 20 and 53. Copies of spot Mahazar are at Ex.P2, 22 and 54.
Copies of chargesheet are at Ex.P3, 21 and 57. Copies of IMV
SCCH-14 14 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
report are at Ex.P4, 23 and 56. Copies of wound certificate of the
petitioners are at Ex.P5, 14, 24, 32, 35, 41 and 55.
11. PW.1 Sujata @ Sujatamma, PW.2 Shilpa,
PW.3 Adarsha, PW.4 Smt.Savitha, PW.5 Prakash and
PW.7 Srinivas have deposed that on 31.05.2011 at 4.00 A.M.,
near SLV Hotel, Nelamangala Taluk, the Bus bearing No.KA-35-F-
78 in which they were traveling has dashed to the hind portion of
parked lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759, that the accident was due
to negligent parking of the lorry without any signal, indicator or
precautionary measures, that the accident was due to
negligence of the driver of lorry who left his vehicle unattended,
that they have sustained grievous injuries in the accident and
took treatment in Mathrushree Hospital, Nelamangala. PW.9
Imran Khan has stated that the accident was due to negligence
of driver of lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 who parked his lorry
on the road without signal or indictor and also there was
negligence on the part of the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-35-F-78
in which he was traveling who drove the bus in rash and
negligent manner.
12. RW.1 Manjunatha is the driver of Bus bearing No.KA-
35-F-78 and he has deposed that he was driving his bus slowly
and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and due to negligent
parking of the lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 on the road without
indictor or signal, the accident has occurred. He blames the
driver of lorry as responsible for the accident.
13. The respondent no.2 has made efforts to examine
the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759, but could not
SCCH-14 15 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
succeed. Thus, there is no evidence on behalf of the respondent
no.1 and 2 to establish that the lorry was not parked on the
middle of the road, that it was parked with indicators and signals,
that the lorry was duly attended, that it was the driver of bus
who drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed
the bus to the hind portion of the lorry. There is no oral or
documentary evidence on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2
and to establish that the accident was due to sole negligence of
the driver of the bus or that there was contributory negligence of
the driver of bus for the accident. Though, the respondent no.2
has examined RW.2 Guruprasad on his behalf who
has deposed as per the defence of the insurer of lorry, but he is
not an eye witness to the accident. Hence, his evidence as to
manner of accident is inadmissible. The respondent no.2 has
tried to take advantage of some admissions of victims and of
pleading and evidence of the petitioner in MVC No.3398/13, but
the documentary evidence goes against the contention of the
respondent no.2.
14. It is an admitted fact that the Nelamangala police
have registered a case in respect of the accident, investigated
the matter and submitted final report to the concerned JMFC
court. Copies of police records namely FIR, complaint, spot
mahazar, IMV report and chargesheet reveal that the police have
chargesheeted the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 for
the offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 IPC. Ex.R2 is the copy of
order sheet and plea in CC No.20/2012 and it reveals that a
criminal case was registered and the driver of lorry was
summoned to answer the charges leveled by the police. The said
SCCH-14 16 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
driver has appeared before the court and admitted his guilt.
Accordingly, he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine. Result
of police investigation, plea of guilt by the driver of lorry and
order of conviction by the court establish the negligence on the
part of the driver of lorry. There is no evidence on record to
believe that the driver and owner of the lorry have colluded with
the petitioners to cause loss to the respondent no.2. There is no
foul play in the case. There was no delay in the admission of the
injured persons to the hospital and in reporting the matter to the
police. Both the vehicles were detained from the place of
accident. The damages found on the vehicles confirm the
collision between the bus and lorry in the manner as stated by
PW.1 to 5, 7 and 9. It is evident that the lorry was stationary and
the bus has dashed on the hind portion of lorry. The brake
system of the bus was in order. The IMV authority has opined
that the accident was not due to mechanical defects of the
vehicles. Therefore, the accident would have definitely occurred
due to human error.
15. PW.1 to 5, 7, 9 and RW.1 have deposed about
manner of accident. Except some stray admissions, nothing is
elicited from them in cross-examination by the counsel for the
respondent no.2. Only on the basis of evidence of PW.9, we
cannot hold that there was negligence of both the drivers for the
occurrence of the accident. There is nothing on record to reject
the evidence of RW.1. All the petitioners have categorically
admitted while under cross-examination by the counsel for the
respondent no.3 that it was wrong parking of lorry without
signals or indicators which lead the driver of the bus to dash his
SCCH-14 17 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
vehicle on the hind portion of lorry. None of them has stated that
the lorry was parked with signals and indicators and that there
were persons attending the lorry. Some of the petitioners have
stated that the lorry was parked on the Kachcha road, but their
evidence in that regard is against the contents of spot mahazar.
The driver of the lorry has not challenged the chargesheet.
Instead, he admitted his guilt before concerned magistrate court
and paid fine. The conduct of the said driver clearly indicates
that the lorry was parked on the road without signals or
indicators, that he has not taken any precautionary measures to
caution the other road users. The court can take judicial notice
that all the vehicles of the respondent no.3 have speed
governors, that Bus bearing No.KA-35-F-78 was also having the
one. Hence, it can be said that the driver of the bus was not
driving the same in high speed. Evidence of RW.1 that there was
drizzling and he could not locate the parked lorry due to high
beam light of opposite coming vehicles can be believed. If the
lorry was parked with indicators and signals, then the driver of
the bus could have located it. If the respondent no.2 has proved
that the lorry was parked with signals and indicators, then it
could be believed that the driver of the bus was at fault, but
there is no such evidence on record.
16. Copy of mahazar at Ex.P2, 22 and 25 reveal that the
lorry was parked in such a way that it was causing hurdle to the
other vehicles plying on the left side of the road. Portion of
mahazar reads as under:
" vÀ¤SÉUÁV ¸ÀݼÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ
¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ½AzÀ
£ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÀªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
SCCH-14 18 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
ºÁ° ¸ÀÞ¼ÀzÀ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ
¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV
¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¸ÀÞ¼ÀªÀÅ
vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® J£ïºÉZï-
4 gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ
GvÀÛgÀ zÀQëuÁ©üªÀÄÄRªÁVzÀÄÝ
gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ CUÀ® ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 30 Cr
CUÀ®¢zÀÄÝ ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÁV
£ÉÃgÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. F gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ
mÁgÀÄgÀ¸ÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄÄ
zÀQëtzÀ PÀqÉUÉ ¸Àé®à
E½eÁgÁVgÀÄvÉÛ ¸ÀzÀj PÀÈvÀå
¸ÀݼÀzÀ°è PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ ¸ÀA¨ÀsAzÀ¥ÀlÖ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ »qÁzÀ ¯Áj
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉJ¸ïDgïn¹ §¸ÀÄì ¸ÀݼÀzÀ°è
zÀQëuÁ©üªÀÄÄRªÁV ¤AwzÀݪÀ£ÀÄß
¥Àjò°¸À¯ÁV PÉJ¸ïDgïn¹ §¹ì£À §tÚ
PÉA¥ÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ©½AiÀÄ §tÚzÁVzÀÄÝ
F ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
JgÀqÀÄ PÀqÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁrAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉJ-
35-J¥sï-78 JAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ UÁè¸ï
ºÁUÀÆ §¹ì£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ
JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ ¨ÁrAiÀÄ°è qÉÆÃgïªÀgÉUÉ
dRBUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, JqÀ¨sÁUÀzÀ
¨ÁrAiÀÄ°è£À JgÀqÀÄ QnQUÁdÄUÀ¼ÀÄ
ºÉÆqÀzÀÄ ZÀÆgÁV ¸ÀÞ¼ÀzÀ°è ©
¢ÝgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. ÉÉÉ É
"PÀÈvÀå ¸ÀÞ¼ÀPÉÌ ZÉPÀÄÌ §A¢
GvÀÛgÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ J£ïºÉZï-4 gÀ¸ÉÛ
EzÀÄÝ, F gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀǪÀðzÀ
PÀqÉAiÀÄ mÁgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è PÀÈvÀå
£ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛ ¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ ºÉʪÉ
ªÁºÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤°è¸ÀĪÀ
¸ÀÞ¼ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ DZÉUÉ J¸ïJ¯ï« ºÉÆÃmɯï
EgÀÄvÉÛ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ gÀ¸ÉÛ «¨ÀsdPÀ
DZÉUÉ £É®ªÀÄAUÀ® vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ
J£ïºÉZï-4 gÀ¸ÉÛ EgÀÄvÉÛ F ªÀĺÀdgï C£ÀÄß
¨É½îUÉÎ 08-15 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 09-30
UÀAmɪÀgÉUÉ §gÉAiÀįÁAiÀÄÛÄ ".
17. The above portion makes it clear that the lorry was
parked on the road covering major left portion of road. Evidence
of RW.1 reveals that there was drizzling and vehicles were
coming from opposite direction with high beam light. It was
SCCH-14 19 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
04.00 A.M., So, there was no sun light. It was quite natural for
the driver of bus to driver his vehicle in normal speed. There was
no possibility for him to expect that a vehicle was parked on the
road. If there were signals and indicators, he could have stopped
the bus by applying brakes and avoided the accident. If the lorry
was parked on the mud road or parked with indicators, then the
accident would not have occurred.
Hon'ble High Court has held in ruling reported in ILR 2002
KAR 893 as under:
"MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 (CENTRAL
ACT NO.59 OF 1988) SECTION 122, 166 AND
168:- Accident occurred about one hour after
midnight when a Motorcycle driven by the
deceased crashed into an unattended lorry
parked without any sign or indication to warn
the other road users and in this accident both
the Motor-cycle driver and pillion rider died.
Tribunal apportioned negligence equally
between the driver of the Motor Cycle and the
negligence could be attributed only toe the
Driver of the Lorry in view of the provision of
Section 122 of the Act."
Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has laid down
following principle in ruling reported in 2009 ACJ 551as under:
"Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 122-
Negligence-Contributor negligence-Leaving vehicle in
dangerous poison-Tractor-trolley was left on the
highway without any indicator, a motorcyclist dashed
against it from behind and sustained fatal injuries-
Driver admitted that he stationed his tractor-trolley
as its tyre was punctured but no evidence that he
parked it properly with some indicators-Witness
deposed that there was darkness could not see the
parked tractor-trolley-Tribunal held that both the
deceased and tractor-trolley driver were equally
negligence-Appellate court reversed the finding and
held that there was no contributory negligence of the
deceased and driver of tractor-trolley was solely
responsible for the accident."
SCCH-14 20 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
Hon'ble High Court in ruling reported in ILR 2013 KAR 5619
has held as under:
Further Held,
(a) Since the place where is was parked, no
motorist could have expected it , the question of
the rider applying sufficient caution does not arise.
The precaution which the Insurance Company
expected the motorcycle riders to take was not
possible as they could not have expected the
vehicle parked. But so far as the driver and insurer
of the lorry is concerned, he ought to have been
conscious of the fact that he was abandoning the
vehicle on the road which had virtually covered half
the width and it was possible that motorist will find
it difficult to negotiate it if there is oncoming
traffic".
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in ruling reported in 2009
ACJ 2003 as under:
"Negligence- Contributory negligence-Leaving
vehicle in a dangerous position-Truck parked in
middle of the road without parking lights on -Car
driver driving at normal speed of 40 Kmph, owing to
lights of another vehicle coming from opposite
direction, sighted the truck only at last minute and
could not avoid the accident resulting in his death-
High Court held that drivers of both the vehicles
were equally negligent-Apex Court upheld the
findings".
Hon'ble Court has observed in the said ruling as follows:
"(8).... The question of contributory
negligence arises when there has been some act or
omission on the claimant's part, which has
materially contributed to the damage caused, and it
of such a nature that it may properly be described
as "negligence". Negligence ordinarily means
breach of a legal duty to care, but when used in the
expression "contributory negligence", it does not
mean breach of any duty. It only means the failure
by a person to use reasonable care for the safety of
either himself or his property, so that he becomes
blame-worthy in part as an author of his own
wrong".
SCCH-14 21 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
"17. The principle of 50:50 in cases of
contributory negligence has been discussed and
applied in many cases before this court. In Sri
Krishna Vishweshwar Hegde V. General Manager,
Karnataka State Road Trans.Corpn., 2008 ACJ 1617
(SC), this court upheld the judgment of the Tribunal
assessing the ratio of liability at 50:50 in view of
the fact that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the appellant and fixed the
responsibility for the accident in the ration of 50:50
on the driver of the bus and the appellant. IN this
case, truck was stationary. Some amount of
negligence on the par of the deceased cannot be
ruled out".
Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held
that amount of compensation in personal injury case
should be higher than in death cases, since it is the
claimant himself who utilizes the compensation amount
and it is he who has to suffer the impact of the accident
through out his remaining life.
The above rulings at Sl.No. 1 to 3 and 5 are aptly
applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. The 4 th
ruling which is relied by the respondent no.2 is not applicable to
the facts of this case as the vehicle in the said case was parked
on the right side of the road and the accident has occurred due
to negligence of both the drivers as observed by Hon'ble Court in
para no.8 and 17 as mentioned above. In this case, oral and
documentary evidence on record clearly establish that the
accident was due to sole negligence of the driver of lorry bearing
No.AP-02-V-4759. There is no evidence to believe that the
accident was due to negligence of RW.1 or that he has
contributed to the accident. Therefore, I hold that the accident
has occurred due to negligence of the driver of the lorry and
there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of
bus.
SCCH-14 22 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
18. Copy of wound certificates at Ex.P5, 14, 24, 32, 35,
41 and 55 corroborate the evidence of PW.1 to 5, 7 and 9 in
respect of injuries caused to them in the accident. History of
their injuries is mentioned as RTA in wound certificates. Evidence
of PW.8 supports the evidence of PW.1 as to injuries sustained by
her. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners
have sustained injuries as mentioned in wound certificates on
31.05.2011 at 04.00 A.M., near SLV Hotel, Nelamangala Taluk, in
the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of lorry
bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 and I answer the issues in affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.7091/11 (Petitioner name
Smt. Sujatha) : PW-1: Sujatha is the injured, PW-6: Pushpa is the
Medical Record Assistant of Mathrushree hospital and
PW-8: Dr. John Ebenezer is the treated doctor. Among them, PW-
1 has deposed about the injuries caused to her, treatment given
to her, effect of such injuries. She has claimed compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident.
Copy of wound certificate, Discharge summaries, referral letter
with test reports are at Ex.P-5 to 8. OPD discharge bill, Medical
bills, OPD advance receipt, prescriptions and RTC are marked as
Ex.P-9 to 13. Copy of rental agreement, wage slip and copy of
marks card of Prasanna Kumar, the son of the petitioner are at
Ex.P-47 to 49. PW-6 has stated about production of case sheets.
The case sheet pertaining to the petitioner is at Ex.P-39. PW-8
has deposed about the injuries caused to the petitioner,
treatment given to her, period of treatment. He has assessed the
disability of the petitioner @ 20% to spine and whole body and
stated that it is difficult for the petitioner to work as coolie. His
SCCH-14 23 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
evidence is corroborated by the contents of clinical notes at Ex.P-
44 to 46. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence produced
by the petitioner, it reveals that the petitioner took treatment in
Mathrushree hospital, Nelamangala and later, she was admitted
in Parimala Health Care Services, that she took follow up
treatment and bed rest, that she was treated conservatively, but
evidence of PW-1 as to injuries, treatment and difficulties is
corroborated by oral and documentary evidence, whereas her
evidence as to occupation and income remained uncorroborated.
Her evidence to extent of corroboration can be believable. The
counsel for the respondent no.2 pointed out the defects in
medical bills during the cross examination of PW-1. Bill at Sl.No.2
was issued in the name of Ranga Swamy and later, the name of
the petitioner is inserted by striking out the name of Ranga
Swamy. There is nothing on record to believe that the other bills
are created. The amount of bill at Sl.No.2 is Rs.95/- and same is
to be deducted from the total amount of bills. There is total
mistake pertaining to medical expenses. After such deduction
and rectification of total mistake, the net amount of medical
expenses comes to Rs. 82,075/-. The bills are supported by test
reports, prescriptions and case sheet. There is no rebuttal
evidence on behalf of the respondents to believe that the
medical bills are created for the purpose of this case. Hence, I
award a compensation of Rs.83,000/- towards medical expenses.
20. Wound certificate at Ex.P-5 reveals that the
petitioner sustained neck sprain and said injury was termed as
simple in nature, but the discharge summaries, test reports and
case sheet coupled with evidence of PW-8 disclose that the
SCCH-14 24 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
petitioner was an inpatient in Mathrushree hospital for 3 days
from 31-5-2011 to 2-6-2011 and later, she was admitted
in Parimala Health Care Services for 21 days from 3-6-2011 to
23-6-2011, that MRI report discloses that the petitioner sustained
compression fracture of 2 nd cervical vertebra with
monoparesis of the right upper limb, that the petitioner was
treated conservatively. The doctor has assessed permanent
disability of the petitioner @20% to the whole body from spine.
There is no evidence to believe that the petitioner was an
agriculturist and was earning Rs.8,000/- p.m., The RTC at Ex.P-13
goes to show that the land is standing in the name of the
husband of the petitioner. The occupation of the petitioner is
shown as housewife in the charge sheet and same can not be
disbelieved. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was a housewife.
She was not having any independent source of income.
Therefore, question of loss of income either past or future does
not arise. However, the petitioner suffered pain due to injury.
She might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and
attendant charges during the period of treatment and bed rest.
She is suffering from permanent disability of 20% to the whole
body from spine. She has got certain difficulties which may
persist in future. Therefore, I award a compensation of
Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.15,000/- towards
nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges, Rs.1,00,000/-
towards disability and loss of amenities. Thus, the petitioner is
entitled for just and reasonable compensation as under along
with interest @9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of
payment:
SCCH-14 25 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
1 Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.83,000/-
3 Nourishment, Rs.15,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4 Disability and loss of Rs.1,00,000/-
amenities
Total Rs.2,38,000/-
Liability aspect is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue
as above.
21. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO. 7092/ 11 (Petitioner
name Shilpa): The injured petitioner Shilpa has deposed before
the Court as PW-2 and her evidence is as per petition averments.
She has sought for awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. She
has produced copy of wound certificate, Discharge summary,
Medical bills amounting to Rs.5771/-, prescriptions and RTC
which are marked as Ex.P-14 to 18. PW-6: Pushpa has produced
case sheet pertaining to the petitioner which is marked as Ex.P-
40. The medical bills at Ex.P-16 are supported by prescriptions
and case sheet. The wound certificate and discharge summary
reveal that the petitioner sustained fracture of distal end of
clavicle on left side with abrasion over cheek. She was in the
Mathrushree hospital for 2 days. She was treated conservatively.
There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-2 that the
accidental injuries have caused permanent disability resulting
loss of earning capacity, that the petitioner was an agriculturist
and was earning Rs.8,000/-p.m., It is settled notion that fracture
of clavicle does not cause any disability. However, the petitioner
may feel some pain in the upper limb and difficulty in lifting
SCCH-14 26 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
heavy weight. The occupation of the petitioner is shown as
housewife in the charge sheet. Nothing is there to disbelieve the
same. The RTC at Ex.P-18 is pertaining to the land of father of
the petitioner, but the evidence of PW-2 reveals that she is
married and residing with her husband. Therefore, I hold that the
petitioner is a housewife and she has no independent source of
income. Then, there can not be any loss of income. She might
have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant
charges. Looking to the injuries caused to the petitioner, to the
nature of treatment given to her, to the effect of accidental
injuries, I award just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs.30,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 6,000/-
3 Nourishment, Rs. 5,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4 Loss of income Rs.10,000/-
Total Rs.51,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect
is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
22. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.4940/11 (Petitioner
name Adarsha): PW-3: Adarsha is the injured petitioner and he
has deposed as per his case. Copy of wound certificate, bus
ticket, copy of company ID, pay slip, medical bills for Rs.24,635/-,
prescriptions, CT scan report and eye hospital slip are got
marked as Ex.P-24 to 31 which collectively reveal that the
petitioner sustained 3 cut lacerated injuries and fracture of
SCCH-14 27 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
interior wall of right maxilla. He was admitted in Mathrushree
hospital for 2 days. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
medical bills which are supported by prescriptions. However,
those bills contain ambulance bills worth Rs.2,000/-. So,
expenses made towards treatment come to Rs.22,635/-. There is
no corroboration to the evidence of PW-3 that he took follow up
treatment for 4 months and took complete bed rest for 6 months,
that he spent Rs.45,000/- towards treatment and Rs.15,000/-
towards nourishment, conveyance and other incidental charges,
that the accidental injuries have caused permanent disability.
However, his evidence as to occupation and income is supported
by company ID and salary slip. On the basis of salary slip at Ex.P-
27, we can assess the income of the petitioner @ Rs.9,000/-
p.m., after statutory deductions. It further reveals that the
petitioner has lost his salary to the extent of Rs. 6,000/-in the
month June 2011. It is not his case that he lost his job after the
accident or that he is demoted in designation. There is no
evidence to believe that the earning of the petitioner is reduced
and his earning capacity is affected by the accidental injuries.
Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner continued to do the
same job in the same company. Looking to the injuries caused to
the petitioner, to the nature of treatment given to him and to the
effect of accidental injuries, I award just and reasonable
compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs. 40,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 23,000/-
3 Nourishment, Rs. 7,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
SCCH-14 28 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
4 Loss of income Rs. 6,000/-
Total Rs.76,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect
is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
23. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.4941/11 (Petitioner
name Savitha): PW-4: Savitha is the injured petitioner and she
has deposed as per her case. Copy of wound certificate, medical
bills for Rs.8,421/- and prescriptions are got marked as Ex.P-32
to 34 which collectively reveal that the petitioner sustained a cut
lacerated wound over nose and fracture of nasal bone. She was
admitted in the hospital for a day. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the medical bills which are supported by prescriptions.
However, there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-4 that
she took follow up treatment for 4 months and on complete bed
rest for 6 months, that she spent Rs.45,000/- towards treatment
and Rs.15,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and other
incidental charges, that the accidental injuries have caused
permanent disability to the petitioner. However, her evidence as
to occupation is supported by the contents of charge sheet, but
there is no documentary evidence as to income of the petitioner.
It is not her case that she lost her job after the accident or that
she got demotion. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner is
continued to work in the same job under the same private
employer. She might have taken bed rest for about 15 days and
lost income. The income from salary as stated by PW-4 is
acceptable. Looking to the injuries caused to the petitioner, to
SCCH-14 29 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
the nature of treatment given to her, to the effect of accidental
injuries, I award just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 9,000/-
3 Nourishment, Rs. 2,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4 Loss of income Rs. 3,000/-
Total Rs.54,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect
is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
24. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.1694/12 (Petitioner
name Prakash): PW-5: Prakash is the injured petitioner and he
has deposed as per his case. Copy of wound certificate, medical
bills for Rs.2,700/-, prescriptions and payslip are got marked as
Ex.P-35 to 38 which collectively reveal that the petitioner
sustained a cut lacerated wound over eye brow and an abrasion
on the left leg. He was admitted in Mathrushree hospital for a
day. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the medical bills
which are supported by prescriptions. However, there is no
corroboration to the evidence of PW-5 that he took follow up
treatment for 4 months and was on bed rest for 6 months, that
he spent Rs.15,000/- towards treatment and Rs.5,000/- towards
nourishment, conveyance and other incidental charges, that the
accidental injuries have caused permanent disability. However,
his evidence as to occupation and income is supported by the
SCCH-14 30 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
contents of charge sheet and pay slip at Ex.P-3 and 38. He was
drawing a salary of Rs.7,000/- p.m., excluding statutory
deductions at that time. It is not his case that he lost his job or
that he is demoted after the accident. Therefore, it can be said
that the petitioner is continued in the same job under the same
employer. He might have taken bed rest for about a week. The
salary slip at Ex.P-38 is believable. Looking to the injuries caused
to the petitioner, to the nature of treatment given to him, I award
just and reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 3,000/-
3 Nourishment, Rs. 2,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4 Loss of income Rs. 2,000/-
Total Rs.17,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect
is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
25. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.6070/11 (Petitioner
name Srinivasa): PW-7: Srinivasa is the injured petitioner and
he has deposed as per his case. Copy of wound certificate,
medical bills for Rs.3,150/-, prescriptions are got marked as Ex.P-
41 to 43 which collectively reveal that the petitioner sustained
two cut lacerated wounds. He was admitted in Mathrushree
hospital for a day. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
medical bills which are supported by prescriptions. However,
there is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-7 that he took
SCCH-14 31 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
follow up treatment for 4 months and was on complete bed rest
for 6 months, that he spent Rs.15,000/- towards treatment and
Rs.5,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance and other
incidental charges, that the accidental injuries have caused
permanent disability. However, his evidence as to occupation is
supported by the contents of charge sheet, but there is no
documentary evidence as to income of the petitioner. The
injuries were simple in nature and they do not cause any
disability. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has
continued the same business and getting the same income.
Under the facts of the case, I am inclined to assess his income
@7,000/- p.m., He might have taken bed rest for about a week.
Looking to the injuries caused to the petitioner and to the nature
of treatment given to him, I award just and reasonable
compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.4,000/-
3 Nourishment, Rs.2,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4 Loss of income Rs. 2,000/-
Total Rs.18,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect
is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
26. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.3398/13 (Petitioner
name Imran Khan) : PW-9: Imran Khan is the injured petitioner
and he has deposed as per his case. Copy of wound certificate,
SCCH-14 32 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
discharge summary, lab reports, MRI reports, physiotherapy
forms, deposit receipts, IP and OP bills totally amounting to
Rs.36,304/-, certificate of doctor, requisition slip, estimate sheet,
physiotherapy bills amounting to Rs.40,600/-, x-rays, MRI films,
follow up records and IP records are got marked as Ex.P-55, 58 to
72 and 75. The petitioner has examined two dental surgeons by
name Dr. M.M. Baig and Dr. Raghvendra as PW-10 and 11 and a
medico legal consultant of Fortis hospital by name Dr. Sree
Hamsa as PW-12. The certificate issued by PW-10 is at Ex.P-66.
PW-11 has produced case sheet at Ex.P-72 and PW-12 has
produced authorization letter, MLC intimation and IP records at
Ex.P-73 to 75.
27. PW-11: Dr. Raghavendra has deposed about the
treatment given to the petitioner. He has stated that the
petitioner underwent surgery for wound debridement and repair
of soft tissue injuries of lower jaw as he lost 5 teeth, that
removable partial denture was inserted. PW-10 Dr. M.M. Baig has
stated about fixation of seven units of ceramic bridge by
replacing removable partial denture. He has stated that he
charged Rs.20,000/- for the ceramic bridge. PW-10 and 11 have
stated about the difficulties of the petitioner due to loss of teeth.
PW-12 Dr. Sree Hamsa has stated about treatment given to the
petitioner in Fortis hospital, about knee problem of the petitioner,
about MRI report pertaining to knee. He has stated that Dr.
Srinivas has suggested the petitioner to go for Diagnostic
Athroscopy level 2 which costs about Rs.50,000/-. Estimation
given by Dr. Srinivas is at Ex.P-68.
SCCH-14 33 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
28. On perusal of oral evidence of PW-10 and 11 and
contents of wound certificate and discharge summary at Ex.P-55
and 58, it reveals that the petitioner sustained lacerated wound
over chin and lower lip and loss of 5 teeth of his lower jaw, that
he took treatment in Fortis hospital. Ex.P-64 to 66 bills disclose
that the petitioner spent Rs.36,304/- towards IP and OP
treatment at Fortis, Rs.20,000/- towards artificial permanent
denture consists of 7 ceramic units. Ex.67 is MRI bill dt. 10-3-
2014 pertaining to knee joints amounting to Rs.7,500/-, Ex.P-68
is estimate in respect of future surgery i.e., diagnostic
arthroscopy pertaining to both knee, Ex.P-61 and 69 are
physiotherapy bills and receipts amounting to Rs.40,600/- issued
by Rajashri Gandhim Specialty hospital, Bangalore. Oral evidence
of PW-9 and 12 and contents of Ex.P-60, 61, 67 to 69 and 71
pertaining to knee injury and requirement of future surgery are
inconsistent with contents of wound certificate and discharge
summary at Ex.P-55 and 58. The initial medical records of the
petitioner do not disclose causing of any injury to both knees of
the petitioner. If the petitioner sustained any injury to his knees
in the accident, he should have disclosed it before the doctors
during his first admission in Fortis hospital and it should have
been noted in the wound certificate and discharge summary.
Though, the physiotherapy bills and receipts are pertaining to
the period from 2011 to 2014, but MRI of knee was taken and
treatment was suggested for it only in the year 2014. Looking to
wound certificate and discharge summary, it can be said that the
petitioner has got developed the knee problem subsequently in
the year 2014 and it has nothing to do with the accident.
SCCH-14 34 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
Therefore, I am of the opinion that oral and documentary
evidence pertaining knee problem are liable to be rejected. The
petitioner is not entitled for any compensation towards medical
expenses pertaining to knee problem including the expenses
made for physiotherapy. However, he is entitled for a
compensation towards expenses made for his teeth. Evidence of
PW-9 in that regard is corroborated by the evidence of PW-10
and 11. The petitioner lost 5 teeth of his lower jaw. He went for
removable partial denture in the first occasion, but later he opted
for seven units of ceramic bridge. For fixing the bridge, two teeth
at both edges were cut and shortened. He would face difficulty in
cutting hard food. Therefore, I award a compensation of
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.50,000/- towards loss
of 5 permanent teeth and Rs.57,000/- towards
medical expenses.
29. The petitioner was in the hospital for 2 days. He
might have taken follow up treatment and bed rest for about two
month. During the said period, he would have incurred expenses
towards nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges. It is
quite natural that he was unable to take normal food for several
days and spent amount for liquid food and special diet. PW-9 has
stated that he spent Rs.20,000/- for traveling, Rs.30,000/- for
nourishment and attendant charges, but there is no
corroboration to his evidence as to those expenses. Hence, I
award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards nourishment and
Rs.5,000/- towards conveyance and attendant charges.
SCCH-14 35 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
30. The petitioner may face problem in cutting hard food
which results in loss of amenities. The petitioner is stated to be a
bachelor. Loss of natural permanent teeth may affect his
marriage prospectus. Hence, I award a compensation of
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.25,000/- for loss of
marriage prospectus.
31. PW-1 has stated that he is a staff nurse and he was
studying M.Sc.(nursing) at the time of accident, that he could not
take up his examination due to accidental injuries, that he lost
one academic year and he could complete the course only in the
year 2013, that had he completed his course by 2012, there was
greater chance of getting better employment. Hence, he has
sought for awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of
earning during laid up period, Rs.10,000/- for loss of future
earnings due to accidental injuries and Rs.10,000/- for loss of life
expectancy. Oral evidence of PW-1 remained uncorroborated. He
has admitted in cross examination that the accident has
occurred after completion of his 1st year Nursing examination. He
has not produced any testimonials to prove that he could not
take up his 2nd year examination in time and he was able to
complete the course after delay of one year in 2013. There is no
evidence to believe that the petitioner was having income prior
to the accident and he lost income due to the accidental injuries,
that such injuries have caused permanent disability resulting in
loss of his earning capacity. The petitioner lost 5 teeth of his
lower jaw. Artificial permanent ceramic bridge is already fixed. It
may affect his food cutting capacity, but it does not affect his
earning capacity. It has nothing to do with life expectancy. If
SCCH-14 36 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
properly maintained, the ceramic bridge needs no replacement.
Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation
towards loss of income either past or future, for future medical
expenses and for loss of life expectancy. However, he might not
have attended classes for few months resulting in loss of study.
The petitioner might not have scored well in the examination and
might have lost career opportunities. Therefore, I award a
compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of career
opportunities. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under:
1 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs.57,000/-
3 Loss of 5 permanent Rs.50,000/-
teeth
4 Nourishment Rs.10,000/-
5 Conveyance and Rs. 5,000/-
attendant charges
6 Loss of marriage Rs.25,000/-
prospectus
7 loss of career opportunities Rs.50,000/-
8 Loss of amenities Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.2,72,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @9% p.a.,
from the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect
is discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
LIABILITY
32. The petitioners are the injured passengers of bus
bearing no.KA-35-F-78. They are entitled for compensation and
interest as calculated above. The respondent no.1 and 2 are the
SCCH-14 37 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
owner and insurer of lorry bearing no.AP-02-V-4759. The
respondent no.3 is the owner of above said bus. It is held above
that the accident has occurred due to sole negligence of the
driver of the lorry who parked his vehicle on the road without
signals or indicators and without taking any precautionary
measures. Therefore, the owner and insurer of lorry are jointly
and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as
stated above. The respondent no.3 is not liable to pay any
compensation and claim against him is liable to be dismissed.
33. The respondent no.2 has contended that the owner
of the lorry has violated the terms and conditions of the policy,
that the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence on the date of accident. He has examined RW-2
and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R-1. The respondent no.1
has not adduced any evidence on his behalf. The respondent
no.2 has made efforts to examine the driver in respect of
negligence, but failed to secure his presence. Ex.R-2 clearly goes
to show that the driver of lorry admitted his guilt before
concerned magistrate Court and paid fine. The respondent no.2
has not issued any notice to the owner and driver regarding
licence, FC and permit. He has not examined IO or RTO to prove
that the lorry was not having valid FC and permit and the driver
was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident.
The police have not charge sheeted the driver of lorry for driving
the vehicle without holding valid driving licence, FC and permit.
Ex.R-1 reveals that the policy was in force on the date of
accident. Thus, the respondent no.2 has failed to prove his
defence and hence, he is liable to indemnify the respondent no.1
SCCH-14 38 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12,
6070/11 and 3398/13
and to compensate the petitioners. I hold that the respondent
no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to
the petitioners as calculated above with interest. In view of
policy, the respondent no.2 is liable to deposit the amount
before the Court. Hence, I answer the issues as above.
34. Issue No.3 in all the cases : In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed U/sec. 166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation as shown below with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment:
The petitioner in MVC No.7091/11 : Rs.2,38,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.7092/11: Rs. 51,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.4940/11: Rs. 76,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.4941/11 : Rs. 54,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.1694/12: Rs. 17,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.6070/11 : Rs. 18,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 : Rs.2,72,000/-
The respondent no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest to the said petitioners as mentioned above. In view of insurance policy, the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.SCCH-14 39 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 After deposit, out of compensation amount of the petitioners in MVC No.7091/11 and 3398/13, Rs.75,000/- each shall be deposited in their respective names in nationalized or schedule bank for a period of 3 years. Their balance amount with interest and entire amount and interest of the remaining petitioners shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claims as against the respondent no.3 stand dismissed.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.7091/11 and copies of the same in remaining cases.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 16th day of March 2015.) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 40 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Sujata @ Sujatamma
PW.2 M.R Shilpa
PW.3 Adarsha G Sugura
PW.4 Smt. Savitha
PW.5 Prakash.K
PW.6 Pushpa
PW.7 Srinivasa @ Srinivasulu
PW.8 Dr.John Ebnezar
PW.9 Imran Khan
PW.10 Dr.M.M Baig
PW.11 Dr.Raghavendra
PW.12 Dr.Sree Hamsa.H.N
Respondents :
RW.1 Manjunatha
RW.2 Guruprasad
ExP1 Copy of FIR
ExP2 Copy of Mahazar
ExP3 Copy of chargesheet
ExP4 Copy of IMV report
ExP5 Copy of wound certificate
ExP6 and 7 Copies of discharge summary
SCCH-14 41 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 ExP8 MRI reports Exp9 OPD discharge bill ExP10 15 medical bills ExP11 OPD advance bill ExP12 10 prescriptions Ex.P13 Copy of RTC Ex.P14 Copy of Wound certificate Ex.P15 Copy of Discharge summary Ex.P16 15 medical bills Ex.P17 6 prescription Ex.P18 Copy of RTC Ex.P19 Copy of FIR Ex.P20 Complainant Ex.P21 Copy of Chargesheet Ex.P22 Mahazar Ex.P23 IMV report Ex.P24 Wound certificate Ex.P25 Bus ticket Ex.P26 ID card of Hofincons Ex.P27 Salary slip Ex.P28 17 medical bills Ex.P29 2 prescriptions Ex.P30 CT Scan report Ex.P31 Slip issued Honathi eye Hospital with lessor Ex.P32 Wound certificate Ex.P33 11 Medical bills Ex.P34 6 prescriptions Ex.P35 Wound certificate Ex.P36 Medical receipt Ex.P37 2 prescription Ex.P38 Salary slip Ex.P39 and 40 2 outpatient records Ex.P41 Copy of wound certificate Ex.P42 2 medical receipt Ex.P43 2 prescriptions Ex.P44 Case sheet Ex.P45 2 receipt examined report Ex.P46 2 X-ray films with report Ex.P47 5 MRI films Ex.P48 Wage slips Ex.P49 Copy of SSLC marks card Ex.P50 Election ID Card of Shilpa SCCH-14 42 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Ex.P51 Cash bills Ex.P52 Copy of agreement Ex.P53 CC of FIR with complaint Ex.P54 Mahazar Ex.P55 Wound certificate Ex.P56 IMV report Ex.P57 Chargesheet Ex.P58 Discharge summary Ex.P59 Lab reports Ex.P60 MRI reports with consultation slips Ex.P61 Physiotherapy form Ex.P62 Deposit receipts Ex.P63 Settlement receipts Ex.P64 IP Bills Ex.P65 OP bills and cash bills Ex.P66 Certificate by Dentist Ex.P67 Requisition slip Ex.P68 Estimation sheet Ex.P69 Physiotherapy bills Ex.P70 5 X-rays Ex.P71 8 MRI films Ex.P72 Follow up records Ex.P73 Authorisation letter Ex.P74 Copy of MLC intimation Ex.P75 IP records.
Respondent 's
Ex.R1 Copy of policy
Ex.R2 Copy of order sheet and of accusation of driver
Ex.R3 Copy of evidence
XVI ADDL.JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.SCCH-14 43 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Dt.16.03.2015 P-KGB R1-ANP R2-Exparte R3-MSB For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec. 166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 are hereby partly allowed with cost.SCCH-14 44 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 The petitioners are entitled for compensation as shown below with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment:
The petitioner in MVC No.7091/11 : Rs.2,38,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.7092/11: Rs. 51,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.4940/11: Rs. 76,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.4941/11 : Rs. 54,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.1694/12: Rs. 17,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.6070/11 : Rs. 18,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 : Rs.2,72,000/-
The respondent no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest to the said petitioners as mentioned above. In view of insurance policy, the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, out of compensation amount of the petitioners in MVC No.7091/11 and 3398/13, Rs.75,000/- each shall be deposited in their respective names in nationalized or schedule bank for a period of 3 years. Their balance amount with interest and entire amount and interest of the remaining petitioners shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claims as against the respondent no.3 stand dismissed.SCCH-14 45 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.7091/11 and copies of the same in remaining cases.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each. Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE, Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398 Petitioner in MVC No.7091/11 Sujata @ Sujatamma, W/o Rangaswamy, Aged about 35 years, R/o No.10, Myadanahole, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District., (By pleader Sri KGB) SCCH-14 46 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Petitioner in MVC No.7092/11 M.R.Shilpa Aged about 20 years, D/o M.D Rangaswamy W/o Prakash, R/o No.14, Myadonahole, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga Dist., Pin-577596.
(By pleader Sri KGB) V/s Respondents in MVC 1. The Reliance General Ins., No.7091/11 and 7092/11cases. Co.Ltd., No.28, East wing, Centanary Building, 5th floor, M.G road, Bangalore-560 001.
By its Manager.
(Insurer of the lorry) (By pleader Sri ANP)
2. Raghu.G.R S/o G.N.Ramakrishna Major, R/at Balaji Nilaya,1st cross, Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur-572102.
(Owner of the lorry) (Exparte)
3. The Managing Director, N.E.K.S.R.T.C. Gulbarga.
(Owner of the Bus) ( By pleader Sri MSB) SCCH-14 47 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Petitioner in MVC No.4940/11 Adarsha G Sugara S/o G.H.Sugara Aged about 28 years, R/at 3rd main, 3rd cross, Subbanna Garden, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri CGB) Petitioner in MVC No.4941/11 Savitha H.C D/o Channa Naik, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.12, 7th main, A.D.Halli, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri CG) Petitioner in MVC No.1694/12 Prakash.K S/o Sathish Aged about 28 years, No.1122, 16th main, Srinagar, Bangalore.
(By pleader Sri CGB) Petitioner in MVC No.6070/11 K.Srinivasa @ Srinivasulu S/o Venkataswaiah @ Venkkataswamappa Aged about 40 years, R/at No.1, Appurayappa Lane, Bangalore.
Permanently R/at 12-2-41, Nimkampalli road, Hindupura, Andra Pradesh.
(By pleader Sri CGB) SCCH-14 48 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 Mr. Imram Khan S/o Ibrahim Khan, Aged about 25 years, R/at No.16, Jannath Amber, Residency(ground floor) 1st main, Brindavan Extension, Arekere Mico layout, B.G.Road, Bangalore-76.
(By pleader Sri TP) V/s Respondents in MVC 1. Raghu.G.R No.4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, S/o G.N.Ramakrishna 6070/11 and 3398/13 cases. Major, R/at Balaji Nilaya,1st cross, Ashoka Nagar, Tumkur-572102.
(Owner of the lorry) (By pleader Sri DLP)
2. The Reliance General Ins., Co.Ltd., No.28, East wing, Centanary Building, 5th floor, M.G road, Bangalore-560 001.
By its Manager.
(Insurer of the lorry) (By pleader Sri ANP)
3. The Managing Director, N.E.K.S.R.T.C. Gulbarga.
(Owner of the bus) ( By pleader Sri MSB) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) SCCH-14 49 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in a motor Accident by vehicle No. WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. ORDER The petitions filed U/sec. 166 of M.V Act by the petitioners in MVC No.7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioners are entitled for compensation as shown below with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment:
The petitioner in MVC No.7091/11 : Rs.2,38,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.7092/11: Rs. 51,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.4940/11: Rs. 76,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.4941/11 : Rs. 54,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.1694/12: Rs. 17,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.6070/11 : Rs. 18,000/- The petitioner in MVC No.3398/13 : Rs.2,72,000/-
The respondent no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation with interest to the said petitioners as mentioned above. In view of insurance policy, the respondent insurance company is directed to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.SCCH-14 50 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 After deposit, out of compensation amount of the petitioners in MVC No.7091/11 and 3398/13, Rs.75,000/- each shall be deposited in their respective names in nationalized or schedule bank for a period of 3 years. Their balance amount with interest and entire amount and interest of the remaining petitioners shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The claims as against the respondent no.3 stand dismissed.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.7091/11 and copies of the same in remaining cases.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2015.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. SCCH-14 51 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 52 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11, 4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 Perused the records, These 7 cases are clubbed together for common disposal. MVC No.7091/11 and 7092/11 were originally allotted to this court. MVC No.4940/11, 4941/11, 6070/11 and 1694/12 were pending before SCCH-2 and later, they are transferred this court. The said 5 cases were clubbed with MVC No.7091/11 for common evidence and for common disposal. Then, the petitioners have been examined as PW.1 to 5 and 7. They have examined two witnesses as PW.6 and 8. They have got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P50 among them two documents are allotted same numbers which needs rectification. The insurer and the owner of lorry bearing No.AP-02-V-4759 are the respondents and the owner of KSRTC Bus bearing No.KA-35-F-78 is impleaded as respondent no.3 at the instance of the respondent no.1. The respondent no.3 has examined his driver as RW.1. The respondent no.1 has examined his officer as RW.2 and got marked copy of policy as Ex.R1. The respondent no.3 has got marked copy of ordersheet and plea in CC No.20/2012 as Ex.R2 during the cross-examination of RW.2. When these 6 cases are posted for Judgment, MVC No.3398/13 is transferred to this court from SCCH-23. Then, the hearing of other cases was reopened and MVC No.3398/13 is clubbed with MVC No.7091/11 for common arguments and for disposal of common Judgment.SCCH-14 53 MVC No. 7091/11, 7092/11,
4940/11, 4941/11, 1694/12, 6070/11 and 3398/13 It is noticed that in MVC No.3398/13, the petitioner has examined himself as PW.1 and examined three witnesses as PW.2 to 4. He has got marked documents as Ex.P1 to 23. The respondents have not adduced any oral evidence in the said cases, whereas the respondent no.3 has got marked copy of evidence of RW.1 recorded in the other clubbed matters as ExR.1. So, it is necessary to alter the numbering of the witnesses examined and marking of the documents in MVC No.3398/13 with marking of X-rays and MRI films in MVC No.7091/11 to avoid confusion while passing judgment. Therefore, I pass following:
ORDER PW.1 to 4 examined in MVC No.3398/13 are renumbered as PW.9 to 12.
The X-rays and MRI films which are marked as Ex.P 46 and 47 in MVC No.7091/11 are renumbered as Ex.P51 and P52 respectively.
The documents at Ex.P1 to 23 in MVC No.3398/13 are renumbered as Ex.P53 to P75. Ex.R1 marked in MVC No.3398/13 is renumbered as Ex.R3.
Necessary alterations regarding numbering of witnesses and documents are made.
For further arguments of both parties, if any by 03.00 P.M.,