Bangalore District Court
Ramanna vs Reliance Gen Ins Co Ltd on 12 June, 2024
KABC020078592020
BEFORE MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE CITY.
SCCH6
Dated this the 12th day of JUNE 2024
Present: Smt.Chetana S.F.
B.A., L.L.B.,
IV Addl., Small Cause Judge &
ACMM, Court of Small Causes,
BENGALURU.
MVC No.1561/2020 and 1562/2020
Petitioner/s 1. Sri.Ramanna
in MVC No. S/o Huchaiah
Aged about 56 years
1561/2020
2. Smt.Chikkamma
W/o Late Ramanna
Aged about 46 years
Both are r/at No.340/1
12th main road, Pipe line road
Srinivasanagaa, Sunkadhakatte
Bangalore560091
(Sri.G.H.Channa Gangaiah )
Petitioner/s Sri.Ramanna
in MVC No. S/o Huchaiah
Aged about 56 years
1562/2020 12th main road,
Pipe line road
Srinivasanagaa,
Sunkadhakatte
Bangalore560091
2 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
(By Sri.G.H.Channa Gangaiah
Advocate)
Vs
Respondent/s 1. The Reliance Gen.Insurance
in both company Ltd.,
Having its Regional office
cases : 5th floor, Senchunary building
M.G.road, Bangalore560001
Policy No.140321923340009835
(Valid from 7102019 to 610
2020) (Insurer)
(By Sri.Aruna V.Advocate)
2. Smt.Asma Banu
W/o Nazrulla Khan
R/at No.198, 2nd stage
EWS Hanumanthnagara
Mysore, Pin570015.
(RC owner)
Exparte
* * *
COMMON JUDGMENT
These petitions are filed under Section 166 of M.V Act seeking compensation for the death of Lokesh R. and injuries caused in a road traffic accident. As both petitions are arising out of the same accident, they were clubbed together for recording of common evidence and judgment. 3 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 4112019 at about 9.45 a.m. when Lokesh R. was proceeding as a pillion rider on the Hero honda motor cycle bearing reg.No.KA02 HE4828 on the extreme left side of the road, near Srigandhkaval junction, Magadi road, at that time, driver of Eicher goods vehicle bearing reg.No.KL08AE9218 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the back side of the Hero honda cycle, due to which Lokesh along with petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1561/2020 and petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 are fell down and sustained grievous injuries and were took treatment at Muilty speciality hospital, Sunkadhakatte, Bangalore wherein took treatment and Lokesh R. was succumbed to the head injury on 8112019. It is further stated that Lokesh R was shifted to Victoria hospital, Bangalore wherein Post mortem was conducted and body was shifted in private vehicle to their native place by paying rent of Rs.10,000/ and spent Rs.1 lakh for funeral and obsequies ceremonies. It is further stated that Lokesh R was working as a senior Associate in Genpact India Private Limited and was earning Rs.31,971/p.m. and he s the bread 4 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 earning member in the family and petitioners lost their son and facing financial difficulties.
3. It is further stated that petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 sustained grievous injuries and took treatment as inpatient at Sri.Lakshmi Multi Speciality hospital, Sunkadhakatte, Bangalore and spent Rs.5 lakhs towards medical expenses and due to accidental injuries, he si suffering from permanent disability. Further stated that prior to the accident, petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 was hale and healthy and working in Sri.Kushi Creations and getting salary of Rs.17,500/p.m. and due to accidental injuries, lost his earning capacity and was put to great financial hardship. Hence petitioners prays to award compensation of rs.1 in MVC No.1561/2020 and Rs.20 lakhs in MVC No.1562/2021 from the respondents.
4. In response of Tribunal process, the respondent No.2 remained absent and placed exparte. The respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement.
5 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
5. Respondent No.1 filed objections which is common in both cases, has contended that, the petition filed by the petitioners are not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further contended that, there was no rashness or negligence on he part of the driver of the Eicher goods vehicle bearing No.KL08AE9218 at the time of accident and the accident caused due to sole negligence on the part of petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1561/2020 and petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 himself who was riding the motor cycle unmindful of the movements of other motor vehicles. There is no claim intimation by the first respondent in respect of alleged accident even though this respondent has issued a notice u/s 149(4) of MV Act. He has not furnished the claim form vehicle documents and DL of the driver of the LGV for scrutiny as required under the terms and conditions of the policy and mandated as per Sec.134 of MV Act and investigating officer also not complied the records as per section 158(6) of MV Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly exorbitant and without any basis. Hence prays to dismiss the petitions with costs. 6 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
6. The Tribunal in all the cases had framed the following issues:
ISSUES IN MVC No.1561/2020
1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Lokesh R S/o Ramanna sustained grievous injuries in an accident occurred due to rash and neglgient driving of the driver of the Eicher goods vehicle bearing No.KL08AE9218 on 4112019 at about 9.45 a.m. near Srigandhadakavalu junction, Magadi main road, near Kottigepalya, Bangalore560091 he succumbed to the said injury ?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation ? If so, how much and from whom?
4. What order or award?
ISSUES IN MVC No.1562/2020
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grievous injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of theEicher goods vehicle bearing reg.No.KL08AE 9218 on 4112019 at about 9.45 a.m. near 7 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 Srigandhadakavalu junction, Magadi main road, near Kottigepalya, Bengaluru ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed for? If so, at what rate?From whom?
3. What order or award?
7. The petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1561/2020 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked ExP1 to 37 and petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 got examined himself as PW2 and got marked ExP38 to Ex.P.49. One Chetan Kumar T. MRO at Sri.Lakshmi Multispeciality hospital got examined as PW2 and got marked ExP50 to ExP54. One Aparna Srinivas got examined as PW3 and got marked ExP55 to 57 and Dr.S.Ramachandra got examined as PW4 and got marked ExP58 and ExP59. The respondent No.1 got examined G.N.NageshPolice inspector as RW1, one R.RoshniLegal Manager got examined as RW2 and got marked ExR1 and ExR2.
8. The findings on the above issues in both cases are as follows : 8 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 MVC NO.1561/2020: Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order MVC NO.1562/2020: Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3 : As per final order for the following REASONS
9. Issue No.1 in MVC.No.1561/2020 & 1562/2020:
It is the case of the petitioners of each case that on 4112019 at about 9.45 a.m. Ramanna in MVC No.1562/2020 who was riding the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA02HE4828 along with Lokesh R. in MVC No.1561/2020 as his pillion rider, on the extreme left side of Sunkadhakatte to sumanahalli, near Srigandhkaval junction, Magadi road towards west to east carefully by observing vehicles movements, at that time, Eicher goods vehicle bearing No.KL08AE9218 driven by its driver came with 9 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 high speed and in a rash and negligent manner without following any traffic rules and regulations, so as to endanger human life dashed the back side of the motor cycle. Due to impact, Lokesh R. and petitioner No.1 in MVC No.1561/2020 and petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 fell down along with motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries and took treatment at Sri.Lakshmi Multi Speciality hospital and doctor examined declared Lokesh died and Ramanna took treatment as inpatient in the hospital. The respondents No.1 and 2 are said to be the insurer and owner of the offending vehicle and therefore both are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and have sought for compensation.
10. In order to prove the Road Traffic Accident the FIR register has been produced which is marked as Ex.P1, the complaint is marked as Ex.P2. The charge sheet Ex.P5 has been filed for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC. The petitioners have produced 22 documents marked at ExP1 to 49 i.e., FIR, complaint, spot mahazar, rough sketch, charge sheet, IMV report, PM report, death certificate, medical bills and prescriptions, adhaar 10 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 card, pan card, ration card, certificates, appointment letter, income tax returns, wound certificate, discharge summary, medical bills, prescriptions, doctor report, salary slips, pan card, adhaar card, DL.
11. The evidence on record reveals that after the receipt of the complaint lodged by one Ramanna/father of the deceased Lokesh R, Kamakshipalya traffic police station has conducted the through investigation and filed the charge sheet against the driver of the Eicher goods vehicle bearing reg.No.KL08AE9218 for the offences punishable u/s 279, 337, 338 and 304A of IPC by holding that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher goods vehicle bearing No.KL08AE9218. There is nothing on record to believe that the charge sheet filed by the police is defective or collusive. Apart from this on perusal of ExP 3 spot mahazar and ExP4 sketch, it clearly shows that the accident had been taken place in the Magadi main road, near junction. Further it reveals that when Ramanna petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 was riding his motor cycle on the left side of the road, the rider of the Eicher vehicle 11 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 who was coming behind the motor cycle hit to the motor cycle from the hind portion and thereby caused the accident. If at all the driver of the Eicher goods vehicle have maintained safe distance between his vehicle and the motor cycle the accident would have certainly not taken place. Even though respondent has examined the Investigation Officer as RW1 and cross examined at length but nothing worth was elicited from his mouth. Even RW1 clearly stated that no CC footage have been installed near the spot of the accident and denied all other suggestions made by the respondent counsel.
12. Apart from this, PM report produced as per ExP7 reveals that the death of Lokesh R. had been occurred due to the multiple injuries sustained in the accident.
13. According to me the important witness to prove the negligence of the driver of the Eicher vehicle is the petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 who is injured and the eye witness. PW1 has clearly deposed that on the said day when he and the deceased were going on the motor cycle on the left side of the road carefully by observing vehicle movements from 12 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 Sunkadakatte to Sumanahalli near Srigandakavalu junction, Magadi main road, the driver of the Eicher goods vehicle drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the back side of his motor cycle and as a result of that both of them fell down and sustained the injuries. The said evidence of PW1 is not challenged by the respondent No.2. Nevertheless the respondent No.1 cross examined the PW1 it was not able to elicit any kind of innocence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
14. At this juncture, It is necessary to apply the citation reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 between Parmeshwari vs Amir Chand & Ors wherein it has been held that "In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied."
13 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
15. Thus, the oral evidence of PW1 discussed with the above documentary evidence are sufficient for the purpose of the actionable claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the respondents have denied the cause of the accident, it has not let in any cogent evidence to prove their defence or to disprove the evidence led by the petitioners. Mere taking of defence is not sufficient to dislodge the testimony of other side, which has no sanctity in the eyes of Law. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 which is supported by police documents has to be accepted. Consequently I hold that the accident is proved to have been caused due to the actionable negligence of the driver of Eicher goods vehicle bearing reg.No.KL08AE9218 and in the said accident, Lokesh R. in MVC No.1561/2020 died and petitioner in MVC No.1562/2021 sustained grievous injuries and as such issue No.1 in both cases is answered as 'In the Affirmative.
16. Issue No.2 and 3 in MVC No. 1561/2020 :
The petitioner No.1 has filed affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and produced ExP27Adhaar card, ExP28pan 14 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 card, ExP29ration card, ExP30 and 31two Bangalore university degree certificates which reveals that petitioner No.1 is shown as father and petitioner No.2 is the mother of the deceased and they are the parents of the deceased Lokesh R. The said relationship is not disputed by the respondent No.1. Therefore I can safely hold that the said petitioners No.1 and 2 are the legal representatives and they were depending on the deceased. Therefore petitioners No.1 and 2 being the father and mother of the deceased Lokesh R. are the legal representatives of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation under the following heads :
17. LOSS OF DEPENDENCY INCLUDING FUTURE PROSPECTS : In the Aadhaar card (Ex.P 27) the date of birth of deceased is reflected as 1982. This indicates that deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. ExP7PM report reveals that the age of the deceased was 27 years at the time of accident. Therefore the appropriate multiplier as per Sarla Verma's case for the said age group of 26 to 30 is '17'. this fact has not been disputed by the respondent. Though 15 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 petitioners stated that deceased Lokesh R. was working as a Senior Associate at Genpact India Private limited and getting the salary of Rs.31,971/p.m., The petitioners have produced ExP34appointment letter issued by Genpact India private limited, ExP35 to ExP37pay slips. The petitioners have got examined one Aparna Srinivas as PW3 who has produced ExP55authorization letter, ExP56Annexure I salary relating to Lokesh R., ExP57salary revision letter. On perusal of the above said documents and from the evidence of PW3 who is the legal officer in Genpact India private limited has produced the salary slip of the deceased and also salary revision letter as per ExP56 and 57, it is clear that the deceased was working as Senior Associate in Genpact India private limited company and at the time of the accident, as per ExP37 he was drawing the salary of Rs.31,971/p.m. the income of the deceased as on the date of accident is after deducting Professional Tex (31971200)=Rs.31,771/.p.m.
18. In a decision reported in 2018 ACJ 5 (Hem raj V/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & others), the Hon'ble Apex 16 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 Court held that addition on account of future prospects is admissible where minimum income is determined on guesswork in the absence of proof of income. In the case on hand the deceased was aged 27 years. As per dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2017 SCC 5157, 50% of income is to be added towards future prospects in case of salaried persons. 50% of Rs.31,771/ works out to Rs.15,886/. Therefore the total income comes to Rs.47,657/ (31,771+15,886). Admittedly, the deceased was bachelor and as such in view of the proposition of Law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case, half of his income needs to be deducted towards personal & living expenses. 1/2 of Rs.47,657/ works out to Rs.23,829/. Income for consideration is Rs.23,828/ (47,657- 23829). Annual income works out to Rs.2,85,936/ (23,828 X 12). Appropriate multiplier is '17'. Thus loss of dependency works out to Rs.48,60,912/ (2,85,936 X 17).
19. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM: In view of the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2021) 11 SCC 780 between 17 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others, each of the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.48,400/ (in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of Rs.40,000/ has to be enhanced for every 3 years from 2017) on account of loss of spousal consortium, parental consortium and loss of love & affection.
20. LOSS OF ESTATE: Petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,150/ ( in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of Rs.15,000/ has to be enhanced for every 3 years from 2017) towards loss of estate.
21. FUNERAL EXPENSES: Petitioners are entitled for Rs.18,150/ ( in view of the Pranay Sethi case, 10% of Rs.15,000/ has to be enhanced for every 3 years from 2017) towards funeral expenses.
22. MEDICAL EXPENSES : The petitioners have produced ExP9 and 10medical prescriptions, ExP11 to 26 medical bills for Rs.81,641/ for the treatment of Lokesh R. Hence, by considering the nature of injuries sustained by Lokesh R. 18 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 and medical bills produced by the petitioners, awarding of Rs.81,641/ towards medical expenses.
23. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Loss of Dependency : 48,60,91200 2 Loss of Consortium : 96,80000 3 Loss of Estate : 18,15000 4 Funeral Expenses : 18,15000 5 Medical expenses :
81,64100 Total Rs.50,75,653=00
24. The said total amount of Rs.50,75,653/ is rounded off to Rs.50,75,700/. Hence, petitioners are entitle for compensation of Rs.50,75,700/.
25. ISSUE NO.2 IN MVC NO.1562 OF 2020 : As already discussed above the petitioner has proved that the accident took place due to the actionable negligence of the driver of Eicher goods vehicle bearing reg.No.KL08AE9218. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for compensation.
26. AGE, AVOCATION AND INCOME : So far as the age of petitioner is concerned, the petitioner contended that at 19 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 the time of accident he was aged 56 years. ExP46Adhar card, ExP47DL, ExP48pan card. From the said documents, it reveals that petitioner's date of birth is 87 1962, hence as on the date of accident the petitioner is aged 57 years.
27. The petitioner has deposed that prior to the accident he was working as Ironer in Kushi Creation, Sunkadhakatte, Bangalore and getting salary of Rs.17,500/ p.m. The petitioner has produced ExP43 and ExP44 salary slips. But the petitioner has not examined the person who issued the said salary slips to substantiate its contents. Therefore, the income of the petitioner has to be taken into consideration as notional income. In the absence of proof taking into consideration the date of accident, age of the petitioner and nature of his work, if his income is assessed at Rs.14,000/ p.m, it would meet the ends of justice.
28. LOSS OF FUTURE INCOME DUE TO DISABILITY: As per the medical records the petitioner has sustained the following injuries : i.e., 1. Irregular bone deep laceration over 20 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 left hand, xray of left hand shows dislocation of index and middle finger 2. Abrasion over right hand, measuring 2 x 2 cms 3. Abrasion over right side of face, measuring 2 x 1 cm. The doctor has mentioned in the wound certificate that the said injuries No.2 and 3 are simple in nature and injury No.1 is grievous in nature. It is needless to say that the said injuries are grievous and simple in nature. Ex.P39discharge summary discloses that for the aforesaid injuries, the petitioner has taken treatment as inpatient at Sri Lakshmi Multi speciality hospital from 4112019 to 7112019 for four days and in the said hospital petitioner underwent debridement tendon repair suturing and K wiring under br.block on 4112019
29. It is the specific case of the petitioner that owing to the accidental injuries he has become disabled and has lost his earning capacity. Therefore he got examined one Chetan Kumar T. as PW2 who has produced ExP50authorization letter, ExP51MLC register, ExP52police intimation, Ex P53inpatient record and ExP54Xray. Further petitioner 21 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 has got examined Dr.S.Ramachandra as PW.4 who stated that as per the oral statement of petitioner, xerox copies of wound certificate and discharge summary from Sri.Lakshmi multi speciality hospital, petitioner underwent operation of wound debridement, tendon repair, suturing and K wiring done on 4112019 and discharged on 7112019. PW4 assessed the disability of permanent residual physical disability at 46.44% of left upper limb which is about 15.48% to the wholebody.
30. Be that as it may, the law is well settled that it is the impact of the physical disability on the particular avocation of the petitioner which is relevant for the purpose of assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future income as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajkumar's case reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. With regard to the disability in RTA cases, the same has to be assessed on the principles laid down in 2011(1) Supreme Court cases 343 in between Rajkumar vs Ajay Kumar and Another.
22 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
31. Considering the nature of injuries, line of treatment and on appreciation of the clinical findings noted by the doctor, the possibility of the fact that the petitioner being Ironer can do work with some disability. Further considering the age of the petitioner and the nature of his work and injuries, economical or functional disability to the extent of 12%, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I consider the functional disability of petitioner at 12%. As per Sarla Verma's case, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age group of above 56 to 60 age is '9'. This Tribunal has already assessed the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.14,000/ p.m. Hence a sum of Rs.1,81,440/ (Rs.14,000 X 12 X 9 X 12/100) is awarded under this head.
32. PAIN & SUFFERINGS :
As per the medical records the petitioner has sustained the grievous injuries in the accident and he has sustained severe pain and sufferings due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and he has taken the treatment as inpatient for 4 days and had sustained debridement tendon 23 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 repair suturing and Kwiiring under Br.Block on 4112019. The petitioner has stated that due to accident, he was not able to sit and cannot do his nature call cannot walk properly, cannot lift or carry weight, cannot chew cannot board the bus due to grievous injuries, giddiness often undergoes deep mental shock, pain and sufferings and the injuries caused are permanent in nature. Hence looking into the age and the nature of injuries, certainly, petitioner has undergone severe physical and mental pain and agony due to the injuries sustained by her. On account of the accidental injuries the petitioner being 56 years, certainly undergone severe pain and mental agony. Looking into the nature of the wounds and age of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards a sum of Rs.75,000/ under this head.
33. LOSS OF INCOME DURING LAIDUP PERIOD: By considering the nature of injuries sustained by petitioner and treatment taken by him and duration of his stay in the hospital for 4 days as inpatient, it is quite natural that petitioner could not have carried out her avocation for at least 24 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 3 months. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner it is quite natural that he could not have carried out his avocation for at least 3 months. Thus by taking into account the notional income of the petitioner, this Tribunal awards Rs.42,000/ (14,000 X 3) under the head loss of income during the laid up period.
34. ATTENDANT CHARGES, EXTRA NUTRITIOUS FOOD & CONVEYANCE CHARGES: Admittedly as per the materials available on record, petitioner is residing at Pipe line road, Srinivasanagara, Sunkadhakatte, Bangalore and have taken the treatment in the Sri Lakshmi Multi speciality hospital, Bangalore and certainly he would have hired the cab for traveling to the hospital. Admittedly, petitioner has taken the treatment as inpatient for 4 days and underwent debridement tendon repair suturing and K wiring under Br.Block on 4112019 and certainly, it cannot be disputed that petitioner is dependent on the others and during the course of his treatment the petitioner might have spent more amount towards attendant charges, conveyance, extra 25 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 nutritious food etc. Hence a sum of Rs.15,000/ under this head.
35. LOSS OF FUTURE AMENITIES AND HAPPINESS:
The disability referred above would have necessarily caused physical deformity with which the petitioner has to live the rest of his life. Thereby the petitioner would obviously face depression, anxiety, disappointment & frustration and also suffer discomfort in enjoying the normal pleasures & joys of human life. Hence a sum of Rs.25,000/ is awarded under this head.
36. MEDICAL EXPENSES.
As regard to claim of medical expenses, the petitioner got marked the document as per Ex.P.40 i.e., 29 medical bills for Rs.1,11,410=62 and ExP41prescriptions. Upon considering the above bills and injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, the resultant disability suffered by the petitioner due to such injuries, I proceed to award Rs.1,11,410=62 under the head of medical expenses. 26 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
37. The calculation table stands as follows :
1 Attendant charges, extra : 15,00000 nutritious food & conveyance charges 2 Pain & sufferings : 75,00000 3 Loss of income during laid : 42,00000 up period 4 Loss of future income due : 1,81,44000 to disability 5 Loss of future amenities & : 25,00000 happiness 6 Medical expenses : 1,11,41062 Total Rs.4,49,850=62 The said total amount of Rs.4,49,850=62 is rounded off to Rs.4,49,900/. Hence, petitioners are entitle for compensation of Rs.4,49,900/.
38. REGARDING INTEREST & LIABILITY: Having regard to the nature of the claim and current bank rate of interest, this Tribunal is of the view that if interest at the rate of 6% p.a, is awarded it would meet the ends of justice.
39. There is no dispute with regard to the issuance of insurance policy and its validity as on the date of accident. Therefore, the respondent No.2 being the owner of the 27 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 offending vehicle and respondent No.1 being the insurer thereof are jointly & severally liable to pay the aforesaid award amount to the petitioners together with interest @ 6% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire amount. However the respondent No.1 being the insurer is primarily liable to satisfy the award amount together with interest within one month from the date of this order. Accordingly issue No.3 in MVC No.1561/2020 and issue No.2 in MVC No.1562/2020 is answered as 'Partly in the Affirmative'.
40. ISSUE NO.4 in MVC No.1561/2020 and ISSUE No.3 in MVC No.1562/2020 : In view of the discussion made supra, this Tribunal proceeds to pass the following :
: O R D E R : The petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle's Act 1988, are hereby partly allowed with costs in the following terms:
The petitioners in MVC No.1561/2020 are entitled for compensation of Rs.50,75,700/ and petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 is entitled for 28 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 compensation of Rs.4,49,900/ with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization of the entire award amount.
The respondent No.1 is liable to pay and directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of award.
In MVC No.1561/2020, on deposit together with interest, the claimants are entitled for the compensation amount by way of apportionment as follows :
Petitioner No.1 20 % Petitioner No.2 80 %
Out of the share amount of Petitioner No.1 and 2 a sum equal to 40% shall be deposited in their names in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of their choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 60% shall be released to them through Epayment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioner No.1 and 2 are at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on their deposit amount from time to time.
Out of the share amount of Petitioner in MVC No.1562/2020 a sum equal to 40% shall be 29 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020 deposited in his name in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank of his choice for a period of 3 years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him through Epayment on proper identification and verification. However the said petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/ in each case.
Draw an award accordingly.
The original judgment shall be kept in MVC No.1561/2020 & copy thereof may be maintained in other cases for reference.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 12th day of June, 2024).
(CHETANA S.F.) IV ADDL. JUDGE, Court of Small Causes, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of petitioners:
PW1 : Ramanna
30 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
PW2 : Chetan Kumar T.
PW3 : Aparna Srinivas
PW4 : Dr.S.Ramachandra
List of documents marked on behalf of petitioners:
Ex.P1 : Copy of FIR
Ex.P2 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P3 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 : Sketch
Ex.P5 : Charge sheet and its enclosures
Ex.P6 : IMV report
Ex.P7 : PM report
Ex.P8 : Death certificate
Ex.P9 & 10 : Medical prescriptions
Ex.P11 to 26 : Medical bills
Ex.P27 : Adhaar card
Ex.P28 : Pan card
Ex.P29 : Ration card
Ex.P30 and 31 : Bangalore university certificate
Ex.P32 to 33 : Two certificates
Ex.P34 : Appointment letter
Ex.P35 to 37 : 3 Income returns
Ex.P38 : Wound certificate
Ex.P39 : Discharge summary
Ex.P40 : 29 medical bills
Ex.P41 : 18 Medical prescriptions
Ex.P42 : Doctor report
Ex.P43 and 44 : Salary slips
Ex.P45 & 46 : Pan card and adhaar card
Ex.P47 to 49 : DL, pan card
Ex.P50 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P51 : MLC register extract
Ex.P52 : Policy intimation
Ex.P53 : Inpatient record
Ex.P54 : Xray
Ex.P55 : Authorisation letter
Ex.P56 : Annexure I
31 MVC.NO.1561/2020 & 1562/2020
Ex.P57 : Salary revision letter
Ex.P58 : OPD record
Ex.P59 : Xray
List of witnesses examined on behalf of respondents: RW1 : G.N.Nagesh RW2 : R.Roshni List of documents marked on behalf of respondents: Ex.R1 : Authorization letter Ex.R2 : Policy terms and conditions (CHETANA S.F.) IV Addl. SCJ & ACMM., Bengaluru.