Bangalore District Court
Mr.Mohammed Arif Khan Makki vs Mr.C.Kanthilal on 23 April, 2016
THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU. (SCCH-18)
Dated: This 23rd day of April 2016
Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
B.Com, LL.B.,
III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE.
M.V.C.No.265/2015
PETITIONER: Mr.Mohammed Arif Khan Makki
S/o. Abdul Wahab Khan Mecci,
Aged about 22 years,
R/a No. 4,
L.4th Street, Ashok Nagar,
Bangalore-560 025.
(By Pleader Sri.KSH)
/Vs./
RESPONDENT: 1. Mr.C.Kanthilal
S/o.Chinnaraj
Aged about 41 years,
R/at.No.8,
D.K.Road, Ulsoor
Bangalore-560 008.
(By Pleader Sri.BRK)
2 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co.Ltd.,
No.89, SVR Complex, II Floor,
Hosur Main Road, Madiwala
Bangalore-560 068.
Rep. by its Head office at
ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Co.Ltd
ICIC Lombard House 414,
Veer Savarkar Marg,
Near Siddhi vinayaka Temple,
Prabhadevi
Mumbai-500 025.
(By Pleader Sri.SRK)
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has filed this claim petition against the respondents U/Sec.166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,55,000/- with interest for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 3 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
2. The brief contents of petition are as under:
On 05-02-2014, at about 1.00 p.m., the petitioner was riding the Honda Activa vehicle bearing registration No.KA-51-EE-207 and when he reached near LRDE Junction near Basava Bhavan, at that time, the rider of another motor bike bearing registration No.KA-03-HN-1699 was rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner's vehicle. As a result of the said accident, the riders of both the motor bike have fell down on the road along with vehicles and the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter the public gathered at the spot have shifted the injured to Vikram Hospital, wherein he has taken first aid and thereafter he was shifted to Hosmat hospital, Bangalore, wherein he has taken treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery. After discharge 4 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 from the hospital and as per the advice of the doctor, the petitioner has taken follow-up treatment as an outpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses. The contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has taken 6 months rest and during that period, he has appointing a male attendant to his personal needs by paying an amount of Rs.5,000/-p.m. as a salary to the said attendant.
3. The contention of petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time accident, aged about 22 years, studying in LLM. Further due to the accidental injuries, he has lost 1 years LLM course and as such, he has lost the bright future job prospective and as such, thereafter he 5 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 was enrolled as an advocate and at present, he is practicing as a junior advocate with difficulties. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, he has suffered permanent disablement and he has suffered lot and also he is not in a position to work as he was doing earlier to the accident.
The first respondent is the owner of the alleged motor bike and the second respondent is the insurer of the said bike and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. The accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motor bike and as such, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to grant for compensation of Rs.30,55,000/- with interest and cost. 6 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
4. In response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 & 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsel and filed the objection statement.
5. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.1 are as under:
The respondent No.1 has denied the contents of para No.1 to 7 and 9 to 14 of the petition in toto. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the entire accident. Further the respondent No.1 has denied the age and status of the petitioner and also disablement suffered by him and medical expenses incurred by him. Further he contended that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.KA-51-EE-207 i.e. petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him. 7 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
6. The brief contents of objection statement of respondent No.2 are as under:
The petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further the respondent No.2 has contended that, the owner of the vehicle and the concerned police have not complied the mandatory provisions as required U/Sec.134 (c) and 158 (6) of M.V.Act. Further he contended that, the rider of the alleged motor bike was not having valid and effective Driving License to ride the motor bike as on the date of accident. Further the respondent No.2 has admitted the issuance of policy to the alleged motor bike and the liability if any is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the policy. Further he contended that, the alleged motor bike was not at all involved in the accident and as such, the respondent No.2 8 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Further he contended that, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the owner and insurer of the other vehicle was not arrayed as respondents in the petition. Further he contended that, the alleged accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner. Further he has denied the age and status of the petitioner and also injuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by him and disablement suffered by him. Further the respondent No.2 has denied the alleged loss of 1 year LLM education as narrated in the petition by the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to dismiss the petition as against him.9 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he had sustained grevious injuries in an accident that was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the Honda Activa bearing Reg. No.KA-03-HN-1699 on 5-2-2014 at about 1.00.p.m., near Basava Bhavan, on L.R.D.E Junction, Bengaluru?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed?
If so, at what rate and from whom?
3. What order or award?
8. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex-P-1 to 17. In support of his evidence, he has examined the Dr.Krishan Prasad as PW-2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P.18 to 22.
9. To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove the defence, the respondent No.2 has examined its 10 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 official as RW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.R.1 & 2.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative Issue No.2: In the Partly Affirmative Issue No.3: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S
12. ISSUE NO.1:-. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued by reiterating the contents of petition averments and also evidence put forth by P.w.1 & 2. Further he argued that, at the time of accident, the petitioner is studying 2nd year LLM and due to the accidental injuries, he has not join the 2nd year LLM and as such, he has lost one year his higher education. Further he argued that, due to the accidental 11 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 injuries, the petitioner has left his higher education and on the other hand, he has enrolled as an advocate and started his advocate practice with difficulty. Further he argued that, the petitioner has sustained comminuted fracture of left patella (knee-cap) and comminuted fracture of left humerous and other fractures and as such, he has suffered disability and due to which, the petitioner has lost his bright future. Further he argued that, due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner has taken 3 months rest and during that period, the parents of the petitioner have taken care of him and also one attendant is appointed for look after the welfare of the petitioner and as such, the parents of the petitioner have spent huge amount towards attendant charges and also lost their 3 months income. Further he argued that, as per the version of the doctor, 12 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 18% to the whole body and the said disability is affects on the future life of the petitioner and also he has lost his marriage prospectus. Further he argued that, the petitioner needs two more surgery and as such, he might spent huge amount towards future medical expenses. Further he argued that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the petitioner has contributed some extent of negligence for occurrence of alleged accident. But to prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 has not produced any corroborative documents and as such, the oral version of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved the rash and negligent act of the rider of the alleged motor bike by producing oral evidence and also by producing the copy of police investigation papers 13 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 and on perusal of those copy of investigation papers, it reveals that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motor bike. Further he argued that, the petitioner has proved his case as contended in the petition by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following citations:
1. 2014 (11) SCC 178 (V.Mekala V/s. M.Malathi And another)
2. 2014 (1) SCC (Cri) 704 (G.Ravindranath Alias R.Chowdary V/s. E.Srinivas and another)
3. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC V/s. Mahadeva Shetty and another.14 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
13. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by Rw-1. Further he argued that, on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that, the accident has occurred due to contributory negligence and the petitioner has contributed higher extent of negligence for occurrence of accident. Further he argued that, when the evidence of Pw-1, itself shows that, he has contributed major extent of negligence for occurrence of alleged accident, then question of examine the independent eye- witness or the investigation officer by the respondent No.2 does not arise. Further he argued that, the version of the petitioner is contradictory to that off documentary evidence and as such, the version of the petitioner is 15 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 inconsistent one. Further he argued that, to prove the alleged disablement suffered by the petitioner, though he has examined the doctor as PW-2, but he is not a treated doctor and as such, the evidence of PW-2 is not acceptable one. Further he argued that, as per the version of the petitioner, due to the accidental injuries, he has lost his 2nd year LLM study. But to prove the said fact, he has not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand, on perusal of the documents produced by the petitioner, it appears that, within four months from the date of alleged accident, he has enrolled as an advocate and started practicing as an advocate and as such, the petitioner has not lost his earning capacity and also he is not suffering any disablement. Further he argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove his case as contended in the petition by 16 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 producing proper documents. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition as against the respondent No.2.
14. On rival contention urged by both the counsel, I intend to discuss the merits of the case.
On perusal of the records, it reveals that, to prove the case, the petitioner has examined himself as P.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition averments. Further in support of his evidence, he has produced some documents and get it marked as exhibits.
15. Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW-1 at length. In the cross- examination, the PW-1 has clearly stated at Page No. 17 & 18 that:
17 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18 "C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁ¬ÄvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÊUËæAqï ¥ÉÇðøï oÁuÉ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ¥Áè¤mÉÆÃjAiÀĪÀiï PÀqÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä CªÀPÁ±À EgÀzÀAvÉ gÉqï ¹UÀß¯ï ©¢ÝzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À ¤°è¸z À Éà ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨Às«¸À¨ÃÉ PÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrvÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀªÁgÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀAZÁj ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¹ ªÁºÀ£À ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ £Á£ÀÄ ¹UÀ߯ï dA¥ï ªÀiÁr ºÉÆÃzÀ PÁgÀt £À£Àß vÀ¦à¤AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ D¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."
On perusal of the above cross-examination, it appears that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the petitioner as he was riding his motor bike in a rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules.
16. To prove the said fact and also to disprove the version of the petitioner, the respondent No.2 has 18 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 examined its official as RW-1, who has stated in his evidence by reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the respondent No.2 and also the above said defence. On perusal of entire evidence of Rw-1, it reveals that, admittedly he is not an eye-witness to the accident and as such, his evidence is not much helpful to the contention taken by the respondent No.2.
17. On the other hand, to prove the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the alleged motor bike bearing registration No.KA-03-HN-1699, the petitioner has relied upon the copy of police investigation papers and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 5. On perusal of Ex.P.1 & 5 i.e copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet, it reveals that, High Grounds traffic police have registered a case against the rider of the alleged motor bike and after 19 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 completion of investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the alleged motor bike. Further on perusal of copy of complaint, it reveals that, there was a delay of 1 day in lodging the complaint.
But on perusal of contents of complaint, it reveals that, the petitioner has properly explained the said delay in lodging the complaint. Further as per the version of the respondent No.2, if at all the accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motor bike, then there was no hurdle for the rider of the motor bike to lodge the counter complaint before the concerned police. But the rider of the motor bike did not do so. Further as stated above that, in response to the petition notice, the respondent No.1 has appeared before the court through his counsel and filed the written statement, but he 20 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 has not contested the case. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if at all the accident has not occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motor bike, then it was no hurdle for the respondent No.1 to examine the rider of the motor bike. But the respondent No.1 did not do so. Considering the above facts and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the oral contention of the respondent No.2 is not acceptable one.
On the other hand, on perusal of the evidence of Pw-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved that, the accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the rider of the alleged motor bike by producing oral and documentary evidence.
21 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
18. Further on perusal of Ex.P-4 i.e., copy of Wound certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the above said accident.
19. On appreciation of evidence of PW-1 coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner has proved this issue by producing sufficient documents. Accordingly, I answer this issue is in the affirmative.
20. ISSUE NO.2:- The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 22 years, studying in LLM course. Further the contention of the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered permanent disablement and he has discontinued his 2nd year LLM and as such, he has lost his future job prospective. Further the contention of 22 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 the petitioner is that, due to the accidental injuries, he has delayed for enrolling as an advocate, but recently, he has enrolled as an advocate.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disputed the alleged disablement suffered by the petitioner and also denied regarding the lost of 1 year LLM education and other facts narrated by the petitioner.
21. To prove the disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined Dr.Krishan Prasad as PW-2, who has stated in his evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner and disablement suffered by him. Further the Pw-2 has stated that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 18% to the whole body.
Thereafter the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the Pw-2 at length. In the cross- 23 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18 examination, the PW-2 has clearly admitted at page No.5 that:
"UÁAiÀiÁ¼ÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ §AzÀÄ zÁR¯ÁzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ RÄzÁÝV aQvÉÀìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è CªÀgÀCÄ aQvÉì ¥Àqz É ÁUÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è."
On perusal of the above evidence, it reveals that, the PW-2 is not a treated doctor. On the other hand, on perusal of Ex.P.21 (a) i.e. X-ray report dated 21-02-2016, it shows that, the fracture of patella is non-united. Considering the above facts and looking to the nature of injuries and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner is considered as 15% to the whole body, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
24 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
22. Further on perusal of contents of petition and on perusal of evidence of Pw-1, it is clear that, at the time of accident, the petitioner is a student and as such, he is not an earning member. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner is not entitle for compensation under the head of loss of future income.
Further on perusal of Ex.P.14 i.e. copy of ID card issued by Karnataka State Bar Council, it shows that, on 06-06-2014, the petitioner was enrolled his name in the state bar counsel for starting practice as an advocate. Further on perusal of evidence of PW-1, it is clear that, at present, the petitioner is started practicing as an advocate. Looking to the occupation of the petitioner and considering the extent of disability suffered by the petitioner and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, the above 25 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 mentioned disability might affect some extent on the occupation of the petitioner. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if some amount is awarded under the head of disability, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
23. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 15%. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-is awarded under the head of disability, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
24. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 & 10 i.e. copy of Wound certificate and Discharge summary, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the following injuries.
a. comminuted fracture of left Patella. b. Comminuted GT fracture of Left humerus. 26 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18 c. surgical neck fracture.
Looking to the above nature of injuries, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.75,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
25. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 15% and he is a practicing advocate. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.30,000/-under the head of loss of amenities.
26. Further on perusal of Ex.P.10 i.e. Discharge summary, it reveals that, the petitioner has taken treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days at hosmat hospital, Bangalore. Looking to the period of Hospitalization, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for 27 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 compensation of Rs.5,000/-under the head of attendant & nourishment charges.
27. The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than Rs.5,00,000/-towards medical expenses. In support of the said contention, the petitioner has relied upon the documents at Ex.P.6, 12, 13 & 17 i.e. medical bills and ambulance charges receipt.
On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has disuted the genuineness of the said bills and to that effect, the counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the P.W.1 at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve those bills. Further on perusal of medical bills, it shows that, the petitioner has spent an amount of Rs.1,06,291/-towards medical expenses. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for 28 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 compensation of Rs.1,07,000/-under the head of medical expenses.
28. The contention of the petitioner is that, due to accidental injuries, he has discontinued his second year LLM study and as such, he has lost one precious academic year. To prove the said fact, the petitioner has not produced any documents. On the other hand, on perusal of Ex.P.15 i.e. copy of marks card, it shows that, in the month of December 2013, the petitioner had passed 1st year LLM. Further as stated above that, in the month of June-2014, he has enrolled as an advocate and the alleged accident has occurred in the month of February 2014. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, after the accident, the petitioner has discontinued his 2nd year LLM education and as such, he has lost one year higher education. 29 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18 Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.50,000/-is awarded under the head of 1 year education, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
29. Further due to the accidental injuries, the petitioner might have taken rest at least for a period of 3 months and during that period, the parents of the petitioner might have taken care of him and as such, they have lost their 3 months income. Considering the above facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation of Rs.25,000/-under the head of loss of income of parents of petitioner.
30. Further admittedly, the petitioner is a bachelor. Further as stated above that, the petitioner has sustained 30 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 comminuted fracture of left patella and also sustained comminuted fracture of humerous and fracture of surgical neck and the said injuries might effect some extent on the future life of the petitioner. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that, if some amount is awarded under the head of loss of future prospectus, certainly it would meet the ends of justice. Considering the above facts, I am of the opinion that if an amount of Rs.50,000/-is awarded under the head of loss of marriage prospectus, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
31. The PW-2 has stated that, the petitioner needs 2 more surgery for removal of implants and excision of upper pole left patella and muscle repair for non union, which will cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. In support of the said contention, the Pw-2 has not produced any supportive 31 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 documents. Considering the above facts and in the absence of positive documents regarding the future medical expenses, I am of the opinion that, if an amount of Rs.50,000/-is awarded under the head of future medical expenses, certainly it would meet the ends of justice.
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,52,000/-under the following heads:
Compensation heads Compensation
amount
1. Pain and suffering Rs. 75,000/-
2. Loss of amenities Rs. 30,000/-
3. Medical expenses Rs. 1,07,000/-
4. Towards disability Rs. 1,50,000/-
5. Loss of income of parents Rs. 25,000/-
6. Conveyance charges Rs. 10,000/-
7. Future medical expenses Rs. 50,000/-
8. Loss of one year education Rs. 50,000/-
9. Towards Marriage prospectus Rs. 50,000/-
10. Nourishment& attendant charges Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.5,52,000/-
32 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
32. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of
petition and contents of objection statement, it appears that, the respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the alleged motor bike bearing registration No.KA-03-HN-1699 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the rider of the alleged motor bike. Hence, the respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 being the insurer of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,52,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in the partly affirmative. 33 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
33. ISSUE NO.3: In view of above discussion on issue Nos.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R The petition filed by the petitioner U/s 166 of MV act is hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,52,000/-(future medical expenses does not carry interest) with interest @9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
The respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. However, in view of the policy, the respondent No.2 insurance company is directed to deposit the said compensation amount in this tribunal within a month from the date of this order.
After deposit of compensation amount, looking to the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-shall be kept in FD in the name of petitioner in any nationalized/schedule bank 34 MVC.No.265/2015 SCCH-18 of his choice for a period of 3 years and remaining amount with accrued interest shall be released in the name of petitioner through account payee cheque on proper identification.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this 23rd day of April 2016).
(VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & XXIX ACMM, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
P.W.1. Mr.Mohammed Arif Khan Makki P.W.2. Dr.Krishan Prasad List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex-P1 True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2 True copy of panchanama
Ex-P3 True copy of Hand Sketch
Ex-P4 True copy of Wound Certificate
Ex-P5 True copy of Charge Sheet
35 MVC.No.265/2015
SCCH-18
Ex-P6 Medical Bills (70 in Nos.)
Ex-P7 Medical Prescriptions (6 in Nos.).
Ex-P8 X-ray films (10 in Nos.)
Ex-P9 Lab Reports (2 in Nos.)
Ex-P10 Discharge Summary
Ex-P11 Certificate issued by Dr.Sudhakar
Ex-P12 Medical Bills (7 in Nos.)
Ex-P13 Receipts
Ex-P14 Notarized copy of ID Card issued by Karnataka State
Bar Council
Ex-P15 Notarized copy of LLM Marks Card
Ex-P16 X-ray films (3 in Nos.)
Ex-P17 2 Medical Bills
Ex-P18 Letter
Ex-P19 O.P.Record
Ex-P20 Inpatient Case Sheet
Ex-P21 X-ray film
Ex-P21(a) X-ray report
Ex-P22 2 Medical Bills
List of witnesses examined on respondents side:
RW-1 Jitin Kumar.K.G. List of documents exhibited on respondents side:
Ex.R.1 Authorisation Letter
Ex.R2 Copy of policy
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
& XXIX ACMM.