Bangalore District Court
Smt.Huccha Venkatamma @ vs The New India Assurance Co.Ltd on 27 July, 2015
Before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore
(SCCH-8)
Present: Shri P.J. Somashekar B.A., LL.B.,
XII Additional Small Causes Judge
and Member, M.A.C.T., Bangalore.
Dated this the 27th day of July 2015
M.V.C.No.3360/2014
Petitioner Smt.Huccha Venkatamma @
Venkatamma,
Wife of Shivanna,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at Gramadevathe beedi,
Maraluru,
Tumkur-572 105.
(Shri R.Chandrashekar, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents 1. The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
DO III, Mahalaxmi Complex,
M.G.Road,
Bengaluru-560 001.
Policy issued at:
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
No.87, M.G.Road, Fort,
Mumbai-400 001.
(Policy No.6710031140100008177
valid from 5.5.2014 to 4.6.2015)
(Shri K.M.Venkatesh Mouni,
Advocate)
2 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
2. Shri Paramesh,
Son of Mallappa,
No.603-10, Rajeshwarinagar,
Chamundipura, Laggere,
Bengaluru-560 058.
(Exparte)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner being said to be the injured in her claim petition has alleged that, on 16.6.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. herself and her husband were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-ED-3941 slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations towards Madure temple on Tumkur- 3 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
Bengaluru NH-4 road when they were reached near Bommanahalli, the rider of the bike bearing registration No.KA-41-EB-3626 has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against their bike from its behind. Due to the said impact they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, Nelamangala, wherein she took the treatment as inpatient for a period of 8 days by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy working as a tailor by getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries she could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor bike. Thereby, Nelamangala Rural Police have registered the case against the rider of the bike in 4 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 their police station crime No.171/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the insurer and respondent No.2 being the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and prays for allow the claim petition.
4. In response of the notice, the respondent No.2 did not appear nor file his written statement, as he was placed exparte.
5. The respondent No.1 has appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement in which he has alleged that the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts and he has no knowledge about the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-41- EB-3626 and the accident in question was taken place at Bommasandra within the jurisdiction of Nelamangala, Tumkur District. Therefore, this court has no jurisdiction 5 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 to entertain the petition. Either the owner of the vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions u/s 134© and S. 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing the better particulars and the second respondent being the owner of the vehicle has entrusted the vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving licence, so the second respondent has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and he is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and he has denied the column Nos. 2 to 6, 8 & 9 and 11 to 14 of the claim petition and he has denied that the petitioner was proceeding along with her husband as a rider and pillion rider in a motor cycle towards Madure Temple on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations and the rider of the offending vehicle came with zigzag manner and hit the bike from behind, due to the said impact she 6 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 was fell down and sustained grievous injuries and she took the treatment by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-41-EB-3626 who is none other than the husband of the petitioner and as on the date of alleged accident husband of the petitioner was not holding valid and effective driving license to ride the motor cycle and the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties since the petitioner has not impleading the owner and the insurer of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-ED-3941 and prays for reject the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate, in a road 7 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 traffic accident on 16.6.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, Bommanahalli, Kasabahobli, Nelamangala Taluk, due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-41-EB-3626?
2. Whether the respondent No.1 proves that this court has no jurisdiction to try this petition ?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
4. What Order or Award?
7. The petitioner in order to prove the claim petition has examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and she has examined one witness on her behalf as PW2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P22 to Ex.P25. The respondents have 8 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 not led any evidence nor marked any documents on their behalf.
8. Heard arguments on both side.
9. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly affirmative
Issue No.3: As per the final order for the
following.
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached the court on the ground that on 16.6.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. herself and her husband were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA- 06-ED-3941 slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations towards Madure temple on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, when they were reached 9 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 near Bommanahalli the rider of the bike bearing registration No.KA-41-EB-3626 has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against their bike from behind. Due to the said impact they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, Nelamangala, wherein she took the treatment as inpatient for eight days by spending huge amount. Thereby she has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents.
11. The petitioner in order to prove her case has filed her affidavit as her chief examination as PW1, in which she has stated that on 16.6.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. she was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-ED-3941 along with her husband slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations towards Madure temple on 10 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, when they were reached near Bommanahalli the rider of the bike bearing registration No.KA-41-EB-3626 has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations and hit their bike from behind. Due to the said impact they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as inpatient. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Thereby, Nelamangala Rural police have registered the case against the rider of the motor bike in their police station Cr.No.171/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. PW1 in her cross-examination has denied that as on the date of alleged accident her husband was not holding valid and effective driving license and he was unaware to ride the motor cycle, so he lost the control over the motor cycle and they have fell on 11 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 the road on the negligence of her husband and sustained grievous injuries and she has denied that the offending vehicle has not caused any accident, but the accident was occurred on the negligence of her husband only.
12. The petitioner in support of the oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P25. Ex.P1 is the information filed by one Shivanna who is none other than the husband of the petitioner in which he has stated that on 16.6.2014 himself and his wife were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-06-ED-3941 towards Madure Temple on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, when they were reached near Bommanahalli the rider of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-41-EB-3626 was came from Tumkur side with high speed and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle from behind. Due to the said impact they were fell down and his wife has sustained grievous 12 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 injuries. So, immediately she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, Bengaluru. So, based on the information Nelamangala Rural police have registered the case against the rider of the offending vehicle in their police station Cr.No. 171/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent has cross-examined the PW1, but nothing is elicited to disbelieve her evidence. Though he has suggested the PW1 that her husband was unaware of the riding of the motor cycle, so he lost the control over the motor cycle and they were fell down from the bike, thereby they were sustained injuries and the offending bike rider was not caused any accident for which she has denied the same. But whereas Ex.P5 is the motor vehicle report clearly reflects about the damages of the offending vehicle. If at all the petitioner and her husband themselves were fell down 13 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 from the bike, when the petitioner husband was lost control over the bike the question of damages of the offending vehicle as shown in Ex.P5 does not arise. So, one thing is clear that the offending vehicle rider has caused the accident. That is the reason why, the damages appeared on the offending vehicle as shown in Ex.P5. If at all the offending vehicle rider was not caused the accident, the accident was not taken place on his own negligence he would have lodge complaint against the petitioner husband on the ground that petitioner husband while proceeding in a motor cycle along with his wife has lost the control over the vehicle and fell down from the bike and sustained grievous injuries and filed the false complaint, if that is so, the matter would have different. But nothing is placed on record to show that rider of the motor cycle i.e., the petitioner husband has filed the false complaint against the rider of the 14 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 offending vehicle nor challenged the final report filed against the offending vehicle rider. In the absence of the materials on record it is clear that the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are remained unchallenged. Ex.P3 is the panchanama drawn by the I.O. clearly reflects that the accident was occurred on the negligence of the offending vehicle rider. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 16.6.2014. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are discharge summaries issued by M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, in which it is clear that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 10 days. Ex.P9, Ex.P14 to Ex.P25 clearly reflects that the petitioner has got admitted to the M.S.Ramaiah hospital and took the treatment and underwent surgery in connection of the 15 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 16.6.2014. The learned counsel for the respondent while canvassing his arguments has submitted that the respondent No.1 has filed its written statement in which has taken up the specific contention that the claimant is the resident of Tumkur District and the alleged accident was occurred near Bommanahalli within the jurisdiction of Nelamangala taluk and this court has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute. Therefore, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law or on facts. Thus, this court drawn its attention on the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 102 in between Subhadra and others Vs. Pankaj and another, which reads like thus;
B) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988-Section 166(2)-jurisdiction of the tribunal to entertain 16 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 the claim petition-claim petition to be filed at the option of the claimant-Held, from bare perusal of sub section (2) of Section 166 of the Act, it is clear that the claimant is having four options, where he can file claim petitions. He can file it either before the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the local limits of whose jurisdiction the "claimant resides" or "carries on business" or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the "defendant resides". The language employed in sub-section (2) make the intention of the Legislature very clear. It confers the jurisdiction to the Claim Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 'accident occurred", or "claimant resides' or "claimant carried on business" or "defendant resides". Further held, it does not confers jurisdiction to the tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant carries on business. The legislature could have used the expression "carries on business" even in case of defendant, as is used for the claimants. The option is given to the claimant to file claim petition within the local limits of whose 17 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 jurisdiction the defendant resides. Thus, the intent of the legislature is very clear which did not want to confer jurisdiction to the Claims Tribunal within whose local limits the defendant's "caries on business-on facts further held, the claim petition can be instituted before the tribunal within whose local limits the defendant/Insurance Company carried on business unless the other requirements, contemplated sub-Section (2) of Section 166 of the Act, stand complied with. A claimant can institute a claim petition before tribunal within whose local limits the respondent/defendant resides, such as driver or owner of the vehicle.
13. In the above said decision, their lordship held that the claimant can file claim petition before the tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or before the claims tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides.
18 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
14.In the instant case, admittedly the petitioner is the resident of Gramadevatha Beedi, Maraluru, Tumkur District. So, one thing is clear that the petitioner is not the resident of this court jurisdiction who is resident of Tumkur District. Column No.8 of the claim petition clearly reflects that the accident was taken place on Tumkur-Bengaluru NH-4 road, near Bommanahalli comes under the Nelamangala Taluk. But whereas the second respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, his address has been shown as Chamundipura, Laggere, Bengaluru. That itself is clear that the owner of the offending vehicle is the resident of this Tribunal jurisdiction. So, by virtue of the above said decision, this Tribunal having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter which is in dispute. Thus, the above said decision is directly applicable to the case on hand. The learned counsel for the respondent has much argued about the 19 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 jurisdiction, but the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect holds no water in view of the decision as cited above.
15.The learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the accident said to have been taken place on 16.6.2014 on account of rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle. But the reasons best known to the respondent has not examined the rider of the motor cycle to prove that the accident was not taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle, but it was taken place on the own negligence of the petitioner's husband. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved her case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle rider. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
20 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
16. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has stated that on 16.6.2014 at about 11.00 a.m. she was proceeding in a motor cycle slowly and cautiously by observing all the traffic rules and regulations towards Madure temple on Tumkur-Bengaluru road, when they were reached near Bommanahalli, the rider of the offending vehicle has ridden the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. As a result, she was fell down and sustained following injuries;
1)Fracture left femur
2)Fracture of mandible parasymphysis
3)Fracture between carvive and lateral incisor
4)Left ear pinna avulsion CLW 3/4th hanging
5)CLW over sternum measuring 15X 15 x 1 cm
6)Multiple CLW over face
7)Head injury with poly trauma 21 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
8)Fracture shaft left radius (as per discharge summary and letter dated 3.11.2014)
17. So, immediately she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, wherein she took the treatment as inpatient for a period of 8 days and she was underwent surgery on 17.6.2014 and she was discharged from the hospital with an advise to take regular follow-up treatment. She was initially treated with POP, but it went for delayed union with persistent pain, so, again she was admitted on 21.10.2014 and operated ORIF with plate and screws for left radius and discharged on 22.10.2014. Prior to the accident she was hale and healthy, aged about 35 years, doing tailoring work by getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries she could not do the work as before, as she is unable to walk, nor able to stand even for a short time and she is unable to sit cross-legged, unable 22 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 to squat on floor, not able to fold her left leg. PW1 in her cross-examination has denied that she has sustained only simple injuries, but she has admitted that she has not produced any documents to show that she was doing tailoring work by getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/- and she has denied that as on the date of alleged accident her age was 44 years and she has denied that she has sustained only injuries on her chest and left ear and she has not sustained any injuries on her right leg and she has denied that she has created the documents in order to get more compensation and she has denied that there was no nexus in between the treatment which was taken by her on 21.10.2014 and the alleged accident and she has not sustained any injuries on her left hand.
18.PW2 being the orthopaedic surgeon of M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital, Nelamangala in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has sustained 23 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 injuries in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 16.6.2014 and sustained the following injuries;
1)Fracture shaft left femur
2)Fracture of Mandible
3)Left ear pinna avulsion CLW with 3/4th hanging
4)CLW over sternum measuring 15x5x2 cm
5)Multiple CLW over face
6)Fracture shaft radius left forearm
19.So, she was underwent surgery and fracture which was treated conservatively, since the union was delayed, she was again admitted to the hospital on 21.10.2014 and ORIF with plate and screws was done and discharged on 22.10.2014. Recently on 9.4.2015 he has examined the petitioner and found the following difficulties;
1)pain over left hip
2)difficulty to walk fast, climb stair, squat, carry weight and sit cross-legged 24 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
3)Ugly scar formation over sternum with healing
4)Left forearm difficulty to carry weight
20.So, the petitioner has sustained disability of lower limb is 35%, left forearm is 13% and total body disability is 16% and she need two more surgeries for removal of implants and plastic surgery. PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has personally treated the petitioner when she has got admitted to their hospital and he was also one of the doctor to conduct surgery and he has admitted that in Ex.P22 Dr.Mahesh Surgeon name is reflected and his name has been shown as assistant and he has admitted that Ex.P24 petitioner age has been shown as 43 years as per the say of the petitioner and he has admitted that prior to 21.10.2014 the petitioner has took the treatment as outpatient for a period of 15-20 times and he has admitted that fracture is united and the injuries are heal up.
25 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
21.The learned counsel for the respondent while canvassing his arguments has submitted that the petitioner has took the treatment which was not sustained by her in a alleged accident and there was no nexus in between the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the alleged vehicle. While cross-examination of PW2 the learned counsel for the respondent has suggested that the injured has got admitted to the hospital on 21.10.2014 and took the treatment till 22.10.2014 for some other reason not for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident for which he has denied the same. Even the respondent has not taken any steps for production of documents to substantiate its defence. In the absence of the materials from the respondent, it is very difficult to believe that the treatment which was taken by the petitioner on 21.10.2014 is not relating to the alleged accident said to have been sustained in a 26 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 road traffic accident. PW1 being the injured in her evidence has clearly stated that prior to the accident she was hale and healthy working as tailoring by getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Due to the accidental injuries she could not do the work as before. PW2 being the orthopaedic surgeon has clearly stated about the complaints and disabilities of the petitioner due to the accidental injuries. So, the evidence of PW2 corroborate the evidence of PW1. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate reflects that the petitioner has sustained following injuries;
1)Fracture of mandible on left side displacement
2) Fracture shaft of left femur
3) CLW over sternum measuring 15x5x2 cms
4) CLW of left ear pinna avulsion upper half
5) mild head injury
6) Multiple CLW over face 27 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
22.The injury Nos. 1 to 4 are grievous in nature and the injury Nos. 5 & 6 are simple in nature. Ex.P5 is the discharge summary issued by M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital reveals that soon after the accident, the injured has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Ex.P8 is also clear that the fracture was not united. Thereby petitioner once again has got admitted to the Harsha hospital and underwent surgery as history of the injuries reflects that missed fracture shaft radius during first admission later treated conservatively with POP but went into delayed union with persistent pain, hence admitted for surgery and she was underwent surgery with ORIF with plate and screw for left radius under IVRA on 21.10.2014, that itself is clear that earlier she took conservative treatment POP was applied to the fracture shaft radius left side, due to non- 28 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 union of fracture, she again underwent surgery. Ex.P14 is the medical bills reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Ex.P20 is the photograph reflects about the scar marks and injuries sustained by the petitioner due to the accident said to have been taken place on 16.6.2014. Ex.P22 to Ex.P25 clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident as inpatient and outpatient. So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is just and necessary to grant just compensation to the petitioner for the following heads;
a)Pain and suffering:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has clearly stated about her difficulties due to the accidental 29 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 injuries. PW2 being the orthopaedic surgeon has clearly stated that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and underwent surgery and took the treatment as inpatient and outpatient. Ex.P4, P7 and P8 reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and she was underwent surgery. So, she might have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. Hence, Rs.50,000/- is awarded for the above head.
b) Loss of income during laid up period:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has stated that prior to the accident she was hale and healthy doing tailoring work by earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month. But the reasons best known to her has not examined any independent witness nor produced any documents to show that she was doing 30 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 tailoring work by getting monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. So, considering the present life condition and age of the petitioner, it is just and necessary to consider the notional monthly income of Rs.6,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P4 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained four grievous injuries and two simple injuries. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are reflects that soon after the accident the petitioner has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment for a period of 10 days, so she might have lost the income for a period of three months. So, loss of three months income comes to Rs.6,000X3=Rs.18,000/- is granted to the petitioner.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has stated that she has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient by 31 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 spending huge amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medicines and other incidental charges. But on record she has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.1,36,777/- only. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has disputed the medical bills produced by the petitioner, but nothing is placed on record to show that the medical bills produced by the petitioner are created nor fabricated documents or placed any document before the court to show that the petitioner has received the entire medical bills amount which was spent by her. So, in the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.1,36,777/- is granted for the above head.32 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has stated that due to the accidental injuries she could not do the work as before and she could not able to walk, stand for long time and unable to sit cross legged nor able to squat on floor and not able to fold her left leg and unable to climb stairs. PW2 being the orthopaedic surgeon has clearly stated that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and she was underwent surgery, so she has sustained permanent disability to the lower limb is 35% left forearm is 13%, total body disability is 16%. PW2 in his cross-examination has admitted that fracture is united. So, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record and the admission of the PW2 it is just and necessary to consider the whole body disability to the extent of 10% instead of 16% it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P4, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 reflects 33 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 that as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 40 years. The petitioner in her claim petition has shown her age as 35 years, but the medical records reflects as on the date of alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 40 years. So, her age is taken into consideration as 40 years as on the date of the alleged accident. Thus, as per Serlaverma V/s Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 15. So, loss of future income works out as under;
Rs.6,000X12X15X10/100= Rs.1,08,000/- So, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,08,000/- under this head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in her evidence has clearly stated that she took the treatment for a period of 34 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 10 days, even after discharge she took the treatment as outpatient. Inspite of the best treatment she is unable to do the normal activities. PW2 being the orthopaedic surgeon has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by the petitioner and duration of treatment as inpatient and outpatient. So, considering the injuries sustained by her and the treatment as inpatient and outpatient, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment it will meet the ends of justice. So, Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future Medication;
PW1 being the injured in her evidence has stated that she has sustained grievous injuries and underwent surgery, still she is suffering from pain and she is under treatment. PW2 being the orthopaedic surgeon in his evidence has stated that one more plastic surgery is 35 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 required for surgery of keloid scar and also required for two surgeries for removal of implants. So, considering the Ex.P4, Ex.P5 and Ex.P20, it is clear that there are scar marks due to the accidental injuries and implants in situ. So, Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.
23. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid Rs. 18,000-00 up period
3.Medical bills Rs.1,36,777-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs.1,08,000-00
5.Loss of amenities, Rs. 30,000-00 conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges etc.
5.Future Medication Rs. 30,000-00 Total Rs.3,72,777-00
24. The respondent No.1 being the insurer of the offending vehicle in its written statement has not stated about the policy number and its validity, but he has produced the policy copy in which it is clear about the policy number and the period of policy from 5.6.2014 to 36 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 4.6.2015. The accident was occurred on 16.6.2014. So, as on the date of alleged accident the policy was in existence. Even the respondent has not disputed the policy number and its validity as shown in the cause title. That itself is clear that as on the date of alleged accident the policy was in existence.
25.The respondent No.1 being the insurer has taken up the contention that as on the date of alleged accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence. But nothing is placed on record to show that as on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving license as the respondent No.1 has not taken any steps to examine the concerned authority i.e., RTO or ARTO to prove that as on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and moreover, Ex.P6 is 37 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 the final report filed by the I.O., nowhere appears that as on the date of accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. If at all the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving license, the I.O. would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable u/s 181 of IMV Act. But nothing is placed on record to show that as on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving license. So, one thing is clear that as on the date of alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving license and the policy was in existence. So, the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 being the insurer and the owner are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the 38 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
26. Issue No.3:
In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under section 166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed, with costs. The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,72,777/-
together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The expenses to be incurred for future medication shall not carry any interest.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.1 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 8% 39 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014 p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation within a period of 30 days from the date of this order.
On deposit of the compensation amount together with interest, 40% of the amount shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in any nationalised or scheduled bank of her choice for a period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to her by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on her deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of July 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
40 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Shri Huccha Venkatamma @ Venkatamma 19.3.2015 PW2 Dr.Mruthyunjaya T.D. 15.4.2015 List of the documents exhibited on behalf of petitioner:
Ex.P1 True copy of Complaint
Ex.P2 True copy of FIR
Ex.P3 True copy of Spot Mahazar
Ex.P4 True copy of Wound certificate
Ex.P5 True copy of IMV Report
Ex.P6 True copy of charge sheet
Ex.P7 Discharge summary
Ex.P8 Discharge summary
Ex.P9 M.S.Ramaiah Harsha hospital document
Ex.P10 OPD
Ex.P11 Ration card
Ex.P12 Election ID card
Ex.P13 Adhar card
Ex.P14 Medical bills
41 SCCH-8 MVC 3360/2014
Ex.P15 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P16 Advance receipt
Ex.P17 Lab reports
Ex.P18 X-ray film
Ex.P19 CT Scan
Ex.P20 Photographs and CD
Ex.P21 Photograph and CD
Ex.P22 Case sheet
Ex.P23 Case sheet
Ex.P24 OPD
Ex.P25 X-ray films
List of the witnesses examined on behalf of respondents:
None List of the documents marked on behalf of respondents:
Nil (P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.