Bangalore District Court
Smt. Radhamani.K.A vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 29 January, 2016
BEFORE THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU.
(SCCH.13)
DATE: THE 29th DAY OF JANUARY 2016.
PRESENT :
SMT.B.PUSHPANJALI, B.A., LL.M.
II Addl. Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
M.V.C.No.6263 of 2013.
PETITIONER: Smt. Radhamani.K.A
W/o Sri Shivashankaran Nair
Aged about 46 years
R/at. 211, Nanjudeshwara Nilaya,
8th cross, 3rd block,
Viswapriya Layout,
Bengaluru-560068
Previous address:
No.12-2, Bommanahalli,
Bengaluru South.
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1.National Insurance Co. Ltd
Marathahalli Divsional Office:XI
NO. 86/80, 2nd floor,
Marthahalli main road,
Bengaluru-560037
2. Sri. Ravikumar K
S/o Keshava Reddy,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No. 143, 2nd cross,
H. Krishan Reddy building,
Near Kaverappa Building,
Marathahalli,
Bengaluru-560037
SCCH.13 2 MVC.6263/2013
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this petition under Sec.166 of M.V.Act., claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are that:
On 04.05.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., when she was crossing the road with care and caution, near HGS Company, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru, after finishing the duty at "Radhamani Exports", at `1that time, a Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-HH-2001 driven by its rider, at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Electronic city and dashed against her. Due to the impact, she fell down and sustained injuries all over the body and she took treatment at various hospitals by spending huge amount towards medical, conveyance etc. Prior to the accident, she was working at Radhamani Exports as a Quality Checker and getting salary of Rs.6,000/- p.m. Due to the accidental injuries, she is not able to do any work as before and SCCH.13 3 MVC.6263/2013 suffering great mental shock and agony and financial difficulties. Hence, she prays to allow the petition.
3. In response to the notices, respondents No.1 and 2 placed their appearance through the counsel and but only 1st respondent filed written statement with the following contentions:-
1st Respondent-insurance company is disputing that the accident was on account of rash and negligence of the rider of the vehicle bearing Reg.NO.KA-03-HH-2001 (Yamaha Motor cycle), and contended that the accident was on account of the sole negligence of the petitioner. It has admitted issue of policy in respect of the offending vehicle and policy was in force on the date of accident. However, it has contended that its liability if any is subject to terms & conditions of the policy. It has disputed the physical impairment suffered on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident. It has also disputed the age, income of the petitioner, reduction of her working capacity and amount spent towards medical treatment. It is also SCCH.13 4 MVC.6263/2013 contended that the compensation claimed in the petition is exorbitant, therefore, the instant petition may be dismissed.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 04.05.2013 at about 6 p.m. when she was crossing the road near HGS company, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent riding of the Yamaha Motor cycle bearing Reg.NO.KA-03-HH-2001 by its rider as alleged in the petition ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so to what extent & from whom?
3. What order ?
5. In order to prove the petition claim, the petitioner and two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to 32. The 2nd respondent examined the rider/owner of the offending vehicle, its Administrative officer and HDFC Bank Executive as RWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to R6.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:- SCCH.13 5 MVC.6263/2013
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative. Issue No.2: In the affirmative. Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 :- It is the case of the petitioner that she sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.05.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., when she was crossing the road with care and caution, near HGS Company, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru, after finishing the duty at "Radhamani Exports", at `1that time, a Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-03-HH-2001 driven by its rider, at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner while coming from Electronic city and dashed against her.
9. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has filed her affidavit in lieu of her oral evidence, reasserting the petition averments. Apart from her oral evidence, she also produced the documents marked at Exs.P1 to P32.
10. A careful perusal of the records, it reveal that though the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the SCCH.13 6 MVC.6263/2013 offending vehicle appeared before the court, but neither filed written statement nor cross examine the witnesses.
1st respondent who is the insurer of the offending vehicle filed written statement inter-alia contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The accident is on the negligence of the petitioner who was crossing the road where there was no Zebra crossing . The petitioner is negligent in causing the accident, since, she was crossing in a heavy traffic road without observing the flow of the traffic. Despite, the accident is her negligent, only with an oblique motive to get compensation, a false complaint is filed. These amongst the other grounds, the 1st respondent requested to dismiss the claim petition.
In order to substantiate its specific assertion, the 1st respondent examined 2nd respondent who is the rider of the offending vehicle as RW1, who also deposed the same in the affidavit. However, in the cross examination, he has admitted that I.O. has filed charge SCCH.13 7 MVC.6263/2013 sheet and he appeared before the Traffic court-VI ACMM and he paid fine amount in a criminal cause for the offences leveled against him. He has not challenged the final report or filed counter complaint against the petitioner.
11. In the light of evidence of both the parties, a careful perusal of the records, it reveals that 1st respondent has not disputed the involvement of the vehicle and the accident. 1st respondent had only disputed the cause of the accident. The 2nd respondent who is the rider of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, though he deposed that the petitioner herself is negligent in causing the accident, to substantiate his specific assertion, except a self serving testimony of RW1 absolutely, no iota of evidence is placed before the Tribunal. Though RW1 is the rider of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, deposed that the petitioner is negligent in causing the accident, but his own evidence is quite contrary to the defence taken up by him. Because, RW1 had appeared before the criminal court for the offences leveled against him SCCH.13 8 MVC.6263/2013 pertains to this accident. In the said criminal case, he pleaded guilty and paid fine amount. If according to him, the accident is not on his negligent and it is on the negligence of the petitioner, definitely, he could have challenged the final report or could have resisted the FIR. Since, he paid fine amount for the offences, his evidence is quite contradictory to the proceedings of the criminal court. No doubt, before this Tribunal, he has set up specific defence that the petitioner is negligent in causing the accident. The 1st respondent to substantiate the self serving testimony of RW1, neither examined eyewitness nor produced any rebuttal evidence before the court. The medical records of the Nimhans hospital reveals that petitioner was treated with an history of RTA when she was a pedestrian, hit by two wheeler. So, in the absence of any cogent evidence, this Tribunal cannot believe the assertion of the 1st respondent /RW1 that the petitioner is negligent in causing the accident, but not the rider of the offending vehicle.
SCCH.13 9 MVC.6263/2013
12. On the other hand, the petitioner has produced the copy of FIR at Ex.P.1, which reveals that a case has been registered against its driver on account of his rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle. Ex.P.2 is the true copy of the charge sheet, which reveals that during the course of the investigation, the concerned IO have confirmed the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its rider. Ex.P.5 is the true copy of the wound certificate, which reveals that the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries in the motor vehicle accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with the documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.6 convince the Tribunal in holding that the accident was on account of the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and in the said accident, the petitioner had sustained grievous injuries. Consequently, issue No.1 is answered in affirmative.
13. Issue No.2 :- It is needless to say that the age, income, nature of injuries, its impact on the working capacity of the claimant and medical expenses incurred towards her treatment are the considering factors to ascertain the quantum of compensation. SCCH.13 10 MVC.6263/2013
In the petition, it is contended that the petitioner was aged about 46 years. Ex.P.5 is the wound certificate, wherein the age of the petitioner is shown as 46 years. In the absence of any age proof documents, this tribunal could believe the age of the petitioner as 46 years as on the date of the accident.
14. Now, coming to the income of the petitioner, in the petition, it is contended that the petitioner was working as Quality Checker at Radhamani Exports and getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. To substantiate her avocation and income, she has produced salary certificate and 3 Pay slips which are marked at Exs.P7 and P8. A careful perusal of these two documents, it reveals that the petitioner was working as Quality Checker at Radhamani Exports and her gross salary was Rs.5,900/- per month. Though, the 1st respondent has denied the nature of avocation and salary of the petitioner, to substantiate the same, except a denial suggestion to pW1, nothing is placed on record. So, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this Tribunal cannot believe the assertion of the 1st respondent that SCCH.13 11 MVC.6263/2013 the petitioner was unemployed and she was not having any earnings. On the other hand, the salary certificate and salary slips clinchingly evidenced that she was working as a Quality Checker at Radhamani Textiles Pvt. Ltd. and drawing salary of Rs.6,100/-.Hence, this Tribunal feels to take the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- p.m.
15. Injury, Pain & suffering:- According to the petitioner, she had sustained grievous injuries in the accident, therefore she has under gone treatment, during which she had suffered injury, pain and suffering. On looking to Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate and Ex.P.19 & P22- discharge summaries, Exs.P29,, 30 & 31, IP record, case sheet and x-ray. it reveal that the petitioner had sustained Fracture of tibia/fibula of left leg, dislocated right knee, fracture of left clavicle, T5 transverse process fracture, fracture of mandible, fracture of pelvis, right 3rd cranial nerve palsy, hemorrhage in left superior cerebellar peduncle.
16. According to the petitioner soon after the accident she was shifted to Prasanth Hospital,where SCCH.13 12 MVC.6263/2013 first aid treatment was given and thereafter she was referred to NImhans hospital and from there, she was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital and to Health India Hospital and P.D.Hinduja Sindhi Hospital and then to Sparsh Hospital and during hospitalization in Sparsh Hospital, she undergone ORIF for para-sympahysis and left ankle fracture and left tibia external fixator application and discharged with an advise of follow-up treatment. Apart from her evidence, she has examined Manjunath, working as an Administrator at Health India Hospital as PW.2 who has produced copy of police intimation and IP records marked at Ex.P28 and P29. Besides, she also examined Mr.Sebastain Peter, Medical Record In charge at Sparsha Hospital as PW3 who also produced Case sheet and X-ray marked at Exs.P31 and P32.
17. Hence, having regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and nature and period of treatment undergone by her, this tribunal could believe that the petitioner herein has undergone treatment, during which she had suffered injury, pain and suffering. Therefore, this tribunal feel that it is just and SCCH.13 13 MVC.6263/2013 proper to award compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards injury, pain and suffering.
18. Loss of earnings during the medical treatment:- No doubt, the petitioner has produced Pay slip for the month of May 2013 marked at Ex.P8 and as per this document, she was absent for 23 days and paid a sum of Rs.681/-. As per the salary slips for the months of March and April 2013, her gross salary is Rs.6,100/-. Since, she was not paid full salary for the month of May 2013, she is entitled for the balance amount of Rs.5,419/- towards loss of earnings during May 2013.
Though, the petitioner contends that she was not paid salary subsequently for which she had not produced any documents before the Tribunal. As per Ex.P8-Pay slips, her salary was credited to IOB Bank. At least, the petitioner ought to have produced bank statement to show that she was not paid salary with effect from June 2013. Besides, she has not examined her employer to show that she has been terminated from the service. So, in the absence of any cogent SCCH.13 14 MVC.6263/2013 evidence, this Tribunal cannot believe that she sustained loss of earnings during laid up period. Therefore, this tribunal feel that it is just and proper to provide Rs.5,419/- towards the loss of earnings during the medical treatment during the period of May 2013, which is the just and fair compensation.
19. Medical expenses:- So far as the medical expenses is concerned, the petitioner has produced Medical bills of Prasanth Hospital to the tune of Rs.15,000/- along with Prescriptions marked at Ex.P10. A careful perusal of Ex.P10, the bill at Sl.No.1 is an IP Bills of Prasanth Hospital supported by IP records, discharge summery and Lab records. The petitioner has taken treatment initially at Prasanth Hospital, therefore, she is entitled for the said amount of Rs.15,000/-.
Ex.P11 is a Receipt of CD Scan & X-ray charges of Rs.1,200/- of NIMHANS Hospital. Since,the petitioner was shifted to NImhans Hospital from Prasanth Hospital and as per Emergency Case record of NImhans SCCH.13 15 MVC.6263/2013 Hospital, CD Scan and X-ray was taken to brief the injuries. Hence, she is entitled for the same.
The receipts at Ex.P12 pertains to Blood bank, but these two documents are Xerox copies, no explanation is forth coming for non production of original bills. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the amount claimed at Ex.P12.
Ex.P14 is Ambulance service charges issued by Ramakrishna Hospitals to the tune of Rs.990/-. Since, the petitioner was also taken treatment by shifting to one hospital to another hospital, definitely, she has spent some amount towards ambulance charges. Therefore, she is entitled for the same.
The bill at Sl.No.1 of Ex.P14 is an advance receipt of Health India Hospital for Rs.20,000/- pertains to payment of IP Bill. This amount is already subjected in the main IP bill of sl.No.1 of Ex.P18. Since, the bill at Sl.No.1 of Ex.P14 is already subjected in Ex.P18 of sl.No.1, the petitioner is not entitled for the same. The rest of the bills are pharmacy bills supported by authorized medical prescriptions and these bills are not included in main IP bill at sl.No.11 of Ex.P14. SCCH.13 16 MVC.6263/2013 Therefore, petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed at Sl.No.2 to 7, 10 and 11 to the tune of Rs.34,932/-. Exs.P15 and P17 are pharmacy bills issued by Health India Hospital and supported by authorized medical prescriptions. The bill at Ex.P15 is not subjected in the main IP bill at sl.No.1 of Ex.P18. The bill at Ex.P17 is already included at sl.No.10 of Ex.P14. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the bill amount claimed Ex.P17 and she is only entitled for the amount claimed at Ex.P15 to the tune of Rs.607/-.
Sl.No.1,7,8,9,11 and 13 of Ex.P20 are the bills of pharmacy, blood receipt and IP bill of Hinduja Sindhi Hospital. The IP bill is supported by detailed bill and discharge summery. Besides, it is also supported by Advance Deposit Receipt at Ex.P24. The bill at Sl.No.94 of Ex.P23 to the tune of Rs.4,127.30 and Ex.P24 are the advance receipt for having paid IP bill to the Hinduja Sindhi Hospital. Since, these two bills are included in the main IP bill, the petitioner is not entitled for the said amount. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed at sl.No.1,7 to 9 ,11 and 13 of Ex.P20 to the tune of Rs.36,886/-. SCCH.13 17 MVC.6263/2013
Ex.P25 is an Ambulance bill of Rs.4500/- of Akarsha Ambulance Services. Since, the petitioner was admitted to Sparsh Hospital , she is entitled for the same.
A careful perusal of bills at Ex.P26, it reveals that the bills at Sl.No.1, 4, 5 to 8, 10 to 14, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 to 30, 34, 36, 38 to 40, 53 to 56, 63 to 65 and 70 to 75 are pertains to pharmacy, X-ray , consultancy, ambulance, plaster cost charges etc. and these bills are not included in the main IP bill, Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the amount claimed at Sl.No.1, 4, 5 to 8, 10 to 14, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 to 30, 34, 36, 38 to 40, 53 to 56, 63 to 65 and 70 to 75. The rest of the bills are included in the main IP bill of Sparsh Hospital.
The 1st respondent has produced Statement letter issued by HDFC Ergo. A careful perusal of this letter, it reveals that the petitioner had medi-claim with the insurance company. So, after consideration, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and other two IP bills are paid by the Insurance company. PW1 also admitted that entire medical bills of sparsh hospital are paid except non SCCH.13 18 MVC.6263/2013 medical bills amount of Rs.69,130/-. Since, this amount is paid by the petitioner, she is entitled for a sum of Rs.69,130/- along with the amount of Rs.1,45,754/- referred 1, 4, 5 to 8, 10 to 14, 18, 19, 24, 26, 28 to 30, 34, 36, 38 to 40, 53 to 56, 63 to 65 and 70 to 75. Considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and nature and period of treatment undergone, definitely she had spent said amount for pharmacy and other expenses. Though 1st respondent has denied the medical bills produced by the petitioner, but no rebuttal evidence is placed by him. Hence, this Tribunal feels to provide in all a sum of Rs.3,09,000/- by rounding of Rs.3,08,999/- towards the medical expenses, which is the just and fair compensation.
20. Loss of future earnings :- Now I have to ascertain reduction of the working capacity on account of the accidental injuries, perhaps permanent disability coming in the way of her future earnings. While the petitioner has filed her affidavit in lieu of her oral evidence she has stated that due to the accidental injuries, she suffered permanent disablement and can SCCH.13 19 MVC.6263/2013 not do her routine work and pursue her work as she was pursuing earlier and her working capacity has been reduced. She cannot stand, walk or to do any work. In order to prove the above said physical impairment, the petitioner examined MRO of Sparsha Hospital as PW3 who produced Case sheet and X-ray marked at Exs.P31 and P32. The petitioner neither examined treated doctor nor produced any medical certificate regarding above said disability by the authorized medical officer. So, in the absence of any documents, this Tribunal cannot believe the assertion of the petitioner regarding her disability. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of loss of future income due to disability .
21. Loss of amenities:- On looking to the wound certificate and disability certificate, the petitioner had sustained Fracture of tibia/fibula of left leg, dislocated right knee, fracture of left clavicle, T5 transverse process fracture, fracture of mandible, fracture of pelvis, right 3rd cranial nerve palsy, hemorrhage in left superior cerebellar peduncle. She had taken prolonged SCCH.13 20 MVC.6263/2013 treatment in the above said hospitals. Therefore, taking note of all these material facts this tribunal feels it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head loss of amenities. The said amount is awarded keeping in mind regarding the age of the petitioner as 46 years, she had a long future and loss of enjoyment in her future life.
22. Conveyance, Nourishment food and attending charges:- Petitioner has undergone treatment as inpatient in the Health India Hospital for two days, thereafter two days at P.D.Hinduja Sindhi Hospital and 10 days at Sparsh Hospital in all for 14 days and she has taken regular follow-up treatment atleast for two months. Though there is no definite evidence on the record regarding the amount spent towards the nourishment, conveyance, food and attendant charges, having regard to the nature and severity of injuries sustained by the petitioner and duration of the treatment, this tribunal feels to provide Rs.14,000/- (Rs.1000 per day x 14 days) which is the just and fair compensation.
Hence, the following calculation:-
SCCH.13 21 MVC.6263/2013
1. Injury pain & sufferings: Rs. 80,000/-
2. Loss of earnings during 5,419,/-
Medical treatment:
3. Medical Expenses: 3,09,000/-
4. Loss of amenities: 20,000/-
5. Conveyance, Nourishment, Food 14,000/-
and attending charges:
Total 4,28,419/-
Hence, this tribunal that feel it is just and proper to award the compensation of Rs.4,23,500/- by rounding of Rs.4,28,419/- which is the just and fair compensation.
23. So far as interest is concerned, under Sec.171 of Motor Vehicle Act tribunal is empowered to grant interest from date of claim at simple interest at such rate as it deems reasonable. The Division Bench ruling of the Karnataka High Court in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Limited Vs. Geeta and the Division Bench ruling in P.Rama Devi Vs. C.B. Sai Krishna and others are of the view that the rate of interest to be awarded should be at the rate of 6%. In AIR 1994 Kar.8, it was observed that "
Compensation is an amount paid in advance for any loss of life or loss of dependency or loss of earnings. It SCCH.13 22 MVC.6263/2013 is not a debt. Therefore, the interest to be awarded under Section 110-CCC of the Motor Vehicles Act could only be at 6% per annum." Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest at 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the petition till deposit of the entire compensation amount.
24. So far as liability is concerned, the petitioner has proved beyond probability that the accident occurred due to rash & negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. It is not in dispute that on the date of accident the vehicle was duly insured with 1st respondent and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle which caused the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid DL on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. However, in view of subsistence of insurance policy, 1st respondent-insurance company shall deposit compensation amount in the court with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 accordingly. SCCH.13 23 MVC.6263/2013
25. Issue No.3:- In view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,23,500/-to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
1st respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount in the court within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount, forty percent (40%) shall be invested in the name of Petitioner in FD for a period of five years in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of her choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest and remaining amount SCCH.13 24 MVC.6263/2013 of shall be paid to her through account payee cheques on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-. Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed & pronounced in open court on 29th January 2016.) (B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for petitioner :
PW.1 : Smt.Radhamani PW.2 : Manjunath PW.3 : Sebastain Peter.
List of documents marked for petitioner :
Ex.P-1 : CC of FIR with complaint Ex.P-2 : Charge sheet Ex.P-3 : Mahazar Ex.P-4 : Statement of witnesses (3 in Nos) Ex.P-5 : Wound Certificate Ex.P-6 : IMV report Ex.P-7 : Salary certificate Ex.P-8 : 3 pay slips Ex.P-9 : Emergency case records of NIMAHANS Hospital Ex.P-10 : Medical Bills of Prashanth Hospital for Rs.
15,000/- with Prescriptions and lab reports Ex.P-11 : Medical Bills of NIMAHNS Hospital for Rs.
1200/-
Ex.P-12 : 2 blood bank receipt for Rs. 1800/- with Prescriptions SCCH.13 25 MVC.6263/2013 Ex.P-13 : Ambulance bill for Rs. 990/- Ex.P-14 : Advance receipt for Rs. 20000/-
Ex.P-15 : 14 Medical Bills with Prescriptions
Ex.P-16 : LAB reports & ECG reports
Ex.P-17 : Bill with Prescriptions for Rs. 40
Ex.P-18 : IP bill of Health India Hospital
Ex.P-19 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P-20 : 7 Medical Bills with Prescriptions including IP
bill and blood bank receipt
Ex.P-21 : Lab, CT scan and X-ray reports
Ex.P-22 : Discharge Summary
Ex.P-23 : Letter written to ESI, CMO
Ex.P-24 : IP advance receipts for Rs. 25,000/-
Ex.P-25 : Ambulance bill for Rs. 4500/-
Ex.P-26 : 73 bills including ambulance bill for Rs.
5,07,616/-
Ex.P-27 : 2 Discharge Summaries
Ex.P-28 : Xerox copy of police intimation (compared with
original and returned back to the witness) Ex.P-29 : IP record Ex.P-30 : Authorisation Letter Ex.P-31 : Case sheet Ex.P-32 : X-ray List of witnesses & documents for respondents :
RW1 : Mr.Ravi Kumar
RW2 : G.Shivakumar
RW3 Syed Faruk
Ex.R-1 : Policy copy
Ex.R-2 : Bill with letter
Ex.R-3 : Sketch
Ex.R-4 : Authorisation
Ex.R-5 : Settlement letter
Ex.R-6 : Discharge summary
(B.PUSHPANJALI)
II Addl.Small Causes Judge &
XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.
SCCH.13 26 MVC.6263/2013
AWARD
SCCH.NO:13
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA: BANGALORE CITY M.V.C.No.6263 of 2013.
PETITIONER: Smt. Radhamani.K.A
W/o Sri Shivashankaran Nair
Aged about 46 years
R/at. 211, Nanjudeshwara Nilaya,
8th cross, 3rd block,
Viswapriya Layout,
Bengaluru-560068
vs.
RESPONDENTS: 1.National Insurance Co. Ltd
Marathahalli Divsional Office:XI NO. 86/80, 2nd floor, Marthahalli main road, Bengaluru-560037
2. Sri. Ravikumar K S/o Keshava Reddy, Aged about 22 years, R/at No. 143, 2nd cross, H. Krishan Reddy building, Near Kaverappa Building, Marathahalli, Bengaluru-560037 WHEREAS, this petition filed on __________by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.110-A/166 of the M.V.C. Act praying for the compensation of Rs._________ (Rupees _________________________________for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of ___________in a Motor Accident by Vehicle No.___________.SCCH.13 27 MVC.6263/2013
WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Smt.B.Pushpanjali, II Addl. Judge, Member, Bengaluru, in the presence of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt.________________ Advocate for respondent. The claim petition is decreed as under :-
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,23,500/-to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
1st respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount in the court within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount, forty percent (40%) shall be invested in the name of Petitioner in FD for a period of five years in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of her choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest and remaining amount of shall be paid to her through account payee cheques on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-. Given under my hand and seal of the Court this_the .......... day of ................2016) MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: BENGALURU.
SCCH.13 28 MVC.6263/2013 COST OF PETITION By the Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 Court fee paid on Petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee Total Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinized by Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR MEMBER, M.A.C.T, METROPOLITAN AREA, BENGALURU. SCCH.13 29 MVC.6263/2013 ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner under Sec.166 of M.V. Act is partly allowed.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.4,23,500/-to the petitioner with interest at the rate of Rs.6% P.A., from the date of the petition till the date of deposit in court.
1st respondent-insurance company shall deposit the entire compensation amount in the court within two months from today.
After deposit of the compensation amount, forty percent (40%) shall be invested in the name of Petitioner in FD for a period of five years in any Nationalised or Scheduled Bank of her choice with a liberty to withdraw the periodical interest and remaining amount of shall be paid to her through account payee cheques on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.500/-. Draw award accordingly.
(B.PUSHPANJALI) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.SCCH.13 30 MVC.6263/2013
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, AT BENGALURU (SCCH-13) DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JUNE 2014 M.V.C.No.6263/2013 PETITIONER/S : Smt. Radhamani K.S. V/s RESPONDENT/S : National Ins.Co.Ltd. & another ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that she had sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident that alleged to have been occurred on 04.05.2013 at about 6 p.m. when she was crossing the road near HGS company, Bommanahalli, Bengaluru, due to rash and negligent riding of the Yamaha Motor cycle bearing Reg.NO.KA-03-HH-2001 by its rider as alleged in the petition ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so to what extent & from whom?
3. What order ?
(B.Pushpanjali) II Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXVIII ACMM, Bengaluru.