Bangalore District Court
Sri M. Prabhu Kiran vs Sri Mohammed Munawar Pasha on 3 June, 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 03rd day of June 2015
M.V.C.No.4299/2014
Petitioner Sri M. Prabhu Kiran,
S/o Mathaiah @ madaiah,
Aged about 21 years,
R/o No.100, Chinnappa Garden,
MRS Palya, Benson Town,
Bengaluru - 560 046.
(Sri R.V. Hegde, Advocate)
V/s
Respondents 1. Sri Mohammed Munawar Pasha,
S/o Sabulal,
R/o No.11, 2nd Cross, Ganganagar,
Gramatham, R.T. Nagar Road,
Bengaluru - 560 032.
(Owner of Tata ace No.KA-07-6941)
(Exparte)
2. The Reliance General Ins. Co. Ltd.,
No.28, 5th Floor, Centenary Building,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 01.
By its Manager.
(Sri K.M. Ravi, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, for 2 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident.
2. The brief facts of the claim petition are as under:
The petitioner in his claim petition has alleged that, on 02- 08-2014 at about 11.00 p.m., he was proceeding as a pillion rider in a Honda Activa bearing No.KA-04-HR-1530 and the rider has ridden the same slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations on Nandi Durga road, when they were reached near Bishop Church, Jayamahal, Bengaluru, the driver of the Tata ace bearing No.KA-07-6941 was came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result himself and the rider were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted to V. Care Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount.
3. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a Delivery Executive at ADECCO India Pvt. Ltd., FLIPKART.Com, Online Shopping Co., Benson Town, Bengaluru and getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 3 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 Tata Ace vehicle. Thereby, R.T. Nagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their police station Crime No.130/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer 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.1 did not appear nor file his written statement, as he was placed exparte. The respondent No.2 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 either in law or on facts, but he has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of the offending vehicle in favour of the first respondent and its liability subject to terms and conditions of the policy and he has alleged that the first respondent being the owner has entrusted the offending vehicle to the person who was not holding valid and effective driving licence. So, he has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and either the owner of the offending vehicle nor the jurisdictional police have not complied the mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of the M.V. Act in furnishing better particulars and he has denied the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and he has also denied that the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle, the 4 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 driver of the tata ace has drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result the rider and the petitioner were fell down and sustained grievous injuries and got admitted to the Bowring Hospital and V. Care Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount and he has alleged that the accident was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle and the petitioner has not impleaded the owner and insurer of the motor cycle as party to the proceedings. So, the petition is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties and prays for reject the claim petition.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed.
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate, in a road traffic accident on 02-08-2014 at about 11.00 p.m., near Bishop Church, on Nandi Durga road, Jayamahal, Bengaluru, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tata ace bearing registration No.KA-07-6941?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?
3. What Order or Award?
5 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014
6. The petitioner in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and he has examined one witness on his behalf as PW2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P17 to Ex.P19. The respondent No.2 has not examined any witness nor marked any documents in its favour.
7. Heard arguments on both side.
8. 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
9. Issue No.1:
The petitioner being said to be the injured has approached the court on the ground that on 02-08-2014 at about 11.00 p.m., he was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations, but the driver of the tata ace was came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result himself and the rider were fell down and he has sustained grievous injuries and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount. Thereby, he has filed the instant claim petition against the respondents. 6 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014
10. The petitioner in order to prove his case has filed his affidavit as his chief examination as PW1, in which he has stated that on 02-08-2014 at about 11.00 p.m., he was proceeding as a pillion rider in a Honda Activa bearing No.KA-04-HR-1530 and the rider has ridden the same slowly and cautiously by observing all traffic rules and regulations on Nandi Durga road, when they were reached near Bishop Church, Jayamahal, Bengaluru, the driver of the Tata ace bearing No.KA-07-6941 was came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result himself and the rider were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. So, immediately he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted V. Care Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount. The accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle. Thereby, R.T. Nagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their police station Crime No.130/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that the tata ace was came in a opposite direction and the accident was taken place on the negligence of the driver of the tata ace and as on the date of the alleged accident one 7 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 Prasad was the rider of the motor cycle and he has denied that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle and the accident was not taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tata ace.
11. The petitioner in support of his oral evidence has produced the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19. Ex.P1 is the information filed by the petitioner in which he has stated that on 02-08-2014 at about 11.00 p.m., himself and his friend Prasad were proceeding in a motor cycle bearing No.KA-04-HR-1530 as a pillion rider and rider, when they were reached near Canara Bank, the driver of the tata ace bearing No.KA-07-6941 was came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result they were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The public who are gathered on the spot and the tata ace driver were took him to the Bowring Hospital, wherein he took the first aid treatment and later on he was shifted to V. Care Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient. So based on the information R.T. Nagar Traffic Police have registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle in their police station Crime No.130/2014 for the offences punishable u/s 279 and 337 of IPC. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the PW1, but nothing 8 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 is elicited to disbelieve his evidence. Though, he has suggested the PW1 that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle for which he has denied the same. If at all the accident was taken place on the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle nothing is prevented to the driver of the tata ace nor the respondents to lodge the complaint against the rider of the motor cycle, but the reasons best known to the offending vehicle driver nor the respondents have not filed any complaint nor challenged the charge sheet filed against the offending vehicle driver. In the absence of the materials on record, it is clear that the Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are remained unchallenged. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the panchanama and sketch prepared by the I.O., clearly reflects that though there is a sufficient space towards southern side of the road to avoid the accident, but the reasons best known to the offending vehicle driver has not taken minimum care to avoid the accident, but he took the tata ace towards northern side where the petitioner and rider were proceeding in a motor cycle. So, on the negligence of the tata ace driver, the accident was taken place and the petitioner has sustained injuries. Ex.P6 is the motor vehicles accident report clearly reflects that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner 9 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident. Ex.P8 is the order sheet relating to Criminal Court and the Ex.P9 is the plea recorded by the Criminal Court reflects that the offending vehicle driver has appeared before the Criminal Court and pleads guilty and paid the fine, that itself goes to show that the accident in question was taken place on his own negligence, that is the reason why, he has appeared before the Criminal Court and pleads guilty and paid the fine. Ex.P11 to Ex.P19 are clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got admitted to the hospital and took the treatment as an inpatient by spending huge amount. So, the documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P19 are coupled with the oral evidence of PW1. Though, the respondent No.2 being the insurer has disputed the accident, but the reasons best known to him has not lead any rebuttal evidence to disprove the oral and documentary evidence of the petitioner. On the other hand, the petitioner has proved his case through oral and documentary evidence that the accident in question was taken place on the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle driver. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
12. Issue No.2:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that on 02-08-2014 at about 11.00 p.m., he was proceeding as a pillion rider in a motor cycle, the driver of the tata ace was came 10 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result they were fell down and he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Contusion over the right leg in the lower 1/3rd on medial aspect, measuring 2x2 cms. X-ray of right leg shows fracture of tibia and fibula at the junction of upper 2/3rd with lower 1/3rd.
2) Abrasion over the left forearm on lateral aspect in the middle 1/3rd, measuring 2x1 cms.
13. So, he was shifted to Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took the first aid treatment, later on he was shifted to V-Care Hospital, Bengaluru, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 03-08-2014 to 06-08-2014. During the hospitalization he was underwent surgery implants were fixed to his right leg and other injuries were treated conservatively and at the time of discharge, the doctor has advised for regular follow up treatment. So, as per the advise of the doctor, he took the follow up treatment at V-Care Hospital and Santhosh Hospital by spending huge amount.
14. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a Delivery Executive at ADECCO India Pvt. Ltd., FLIPKART.Com, Online Shopping Co., Benson Town, Bengaluru and getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he 11 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 could not do the work as before and he took the treatment as outpatient after the discharge. After completion of his treatment has approached the company for the continuation of his avocation, but the company has denied and stating that somebody has been already appointed in his place and there is no vacancy left over. So, he lost the job due to the accidental injuries. So, one more surgery is required for removal of implants which may cost of Rs.30,000/-. The PW1 in his cross examination has admitted that soon after the accident he got admitted to the Bowring Hospital and took the treatment, wherein he has stated that he has sustained the injury in a road traffic accident, later on he was shifted to V-care Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 3 days, as he was sustained fracture of right leg and underwent surgery and he has denied that the medical bills placed before the court are created in order to get the compensation and the injuries sustained by him are heal up and he has not facing any difficulties.
15. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon at V-care Hospital, in his evidence has stated that the petitioner has met with an accident said to have been taken place on 02-08-2014, as he has sustained the following injuries;
1) Abrasion-medial aspect of right leg 2x2 cms and 4x4 cms.
12 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014
2) Swelling proximal tibia and fibula.
3) Comminuted fracture both bones right leg mid 3rd.
16. So, the petitioner was underwent surgery on 04-08-2014 with closed reduction and interlocking nail for tibia and he was discharged on 06-08-2014 and suture removal done after two weeks. On 14-04-2015 recently he has examined the petitioner and found the following disabilities;
Inability to walk on plain surface, inability to walk on slope, inability to climb steps, inability to stand on both legs, inability to stand on affected leg, inability to squat, inability to sit on cross legs, inability to sit on knees and inability to turn.
17. So, the petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability to the whole body from right lower limb = 28.7+09=37.7=12.5. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that they have written in the discharge summary that patient is in speedy recovery, thereby they have discharged from the hospital, but he has denied that the fracture is united and he has admitted that the petitioner was not underwent second surgery and the fracture still is not united and it is premature stage to say about the disability and he has admitted if the petitioner underwent both bone grafting, there is a chances of 13 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 reducing of disability and he has also admitted that if the petitioner is underwent bone grafting and the fracture is united there is no difficulty to the petitioner to do the earlier work, if the fracture is united there is no need for underwent bone grafting and he has denied that he has deposing false facts in order to help the petitioner to get more compensation.
18. The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated about the injuries sustained by him in the accident and also stated about the difficulties facing by him after the accident. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So, the evidence of the PW2 corroborate the evidence of the PW1. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate issued by the V-care Hospital, Bengaluru clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained the following injuries;
1) Contusion over the right leg in the lower 1/3rd on medial aspect, measuring 2x2 cms. X-ray of right leg shows fracture of tibia and fibula at the junction of upper 2/3rd with lower 1/3rd.
2) Abrasion over the left forearm on lateral aspect in the middle 1/3rd, measuring 2x1 cms.
19. So, the above said injury No.1 is grievous in nature and injury No.2 is simple in nature. Ex.P10 is the discharge summary clearly reflects that the petitioner soon after the accident has got 14 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 admitted to the V-care Hospital, wherein he took the treatment as an inpatient from 03-08-2014 to 06-08-2014 for a period of 4 days and he was underwent surgery. Ex.P14 and Ex.P15 are clearly reflects that the petitioner has took the treatment in connection of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Ex.P16 to Ex.P19 are clear that the petitioner has sustained the fracture of right tibia and fibula and underwent surgery, still implants in situ. So considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident and the evidence of PW1 and PW2 as well as duration of treatment, it is just and necessary to grant just compensation to the petitioner in the following heads;
a)Pain and suffering.
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 02-08-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days and he has underwent surgery. PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner as well as the duration of treatment he would have sustained pain and agony for which, it is just and necessary to award compensation of 15 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 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 his evidence has stated that prior to the accident he was hale and healthy working as a Delivery Executive at ADECCO India Pvt. Ltd., FLIPKART.Com, Online Shopping Co., Benson Town, Bengaluru and getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-, due to the accidental injuries, he could not do the work as before. Though, he has produced the salary certificate and letter of employment as per Ex.P11, but the reasons best known to him has not examined the author of the document to show that prior to the accident he was working as a Delivery Executive by getting monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-. So, non examination of the author of the document, it is very difficult to believe the income of the petitioner as alleged in the claim petition. So considering the age and skill of the petitioner and the present life condition, it is just and necessary to consider the monthly notional income of Rs.7,000/- it will meet the ends of justice. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate clearly reflects that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury. Ex.P10 is the discharge card clearly reflects that he has sustained the grievous injury and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days. So, the petitioner might have lost income for a period of three months. So three
16 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 months income comes to Rs.21,000/-. So Rs.21,000/- is granted for the above head.
c) Medical expenses The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has stated that he has sustained the injuries in a road traffic accident and took the treatment as an inpatient and he was underwent surgery by spending huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but on record the petitioner has produced the medical bills worth of Rs.47,169/-. 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 in order to get the compensation. 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 him in a road traffic accident. Therefore, Rs.47,169/- is granted for the above head.
d) Loss of future earning:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 02-08-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days and he was underwent surgery. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and
17 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 disability of the petitioner after the accident. According to him the petitioner has sustained permanent physical disability to the whole body to an extent of 12.5%. The PW2 in his cross examination has admitted that still the fracture is not united and it is a premature stage to say about the disability. If the petitioner underwent bone grafting, there is a chances of reducing of disability. If the fracture is united question of undergoing a bone grafting does not arise. So, considering the admission of the PW2 during his cross examination and the materials on record and the evidence of the PW1 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner and duration of treatment as well as his avocation, it is just and necessary to consider the disability of 10% of the whole body instead of 12.5%, it will meet the ends of justice. So, his income is already considered as Rs.7,000/- per month. Ex.P5, Ex.P10 and Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 are clearly reflects that as on the date of the alleged accident the petitioner was aged about 21 years. The petitioner in his claim petition itself has clearly stated that as on the date of the alleged accident his age was 21 years. Therefore, his age is taken into consideration as 21 years as on the date of the alleged accident. So by virtue of the Sarlaverma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation Ltd., reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 the multiplier applicable is 18. So the loss of future earning is works out as under;
18 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 Rs.7,000X12X18X10/100=1,51,200/-.
Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1,51,200/- for the above head.
e) Loss of amenities, conveyance, food and nourishment, attendant charges:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula in a road traffic accident said to have been taken place on 02-08-2014 and took the treatment as an inpatient for a period of 4 days and he has also took the treatment as an outpatient and underwent surgery. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has clearly stated about the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident. So considering the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and duration of treatment as well as the complaints and disability of the petitioner after the accident, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.30,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.30,000/- is granted for the above head.
f) Future medical expenses:
The PW1 being the injured in his evidence has clearly stated that he has sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula and underwent surgery and implants are in situ. The PW2 being the Orthopaedic Surgeon in his evidence has stated that one more
19 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 surgery is required for removal of implants and it may cost of Rs.30,000/-. So considering the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident and the evidence of the PW1 and PW2, it is just and necessary to grant Rs.15,000/- for the above head, it will meet the ends of justice. So Rs.15,000/- is granted for the above head.
20. Thus the total award stands as follows:
1.Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
2.Loss of income during laid up Rs. 21,000-00 period
3.Medical bills Rs. 47,169-00
4.Loss of future earning Rs. 1,51,200-00
5.Loss of amenities, conveyance, Rs. 30,000-00 food and nourishment, attendant charges etc.
6.Future medical expenses Rs. 15,000-00 Total Rs. 3,14,369-00
21. The respondent No.2 being the insurer in its written statement has admitted about the issuance of the policy in respect of the tata ace bearing No.KA-07-6941 in favour of the first respondent, but he has not stated about the validity of the policy, but whereas the petitioner in his claim petition in column No.16 has clearly stated about the policy number and its validity from 29-03-2014 to 28-03-2015, but the respondent No.2 has not disputed the validity date as shown in the column No.16 of the claim petition, that itself goes to show that the policy was valid from 29-03-2014 to 28-03-2015 and the accident was occurred on 20 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 02-08-2014. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence.
22. The respondent No.2 has taken up the contention that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. But the reasons best known to the respondent No.2 has not placed any materials on record to show that as on the date of the alleged accident the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. Ex.P7 is the charge sheet filed by the I.O., nowhere discloses that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. If at all the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid and effective driving licence, the I.O., would have charge sheeted against the offending vehicle driver for the offence punishable under Section 181 of MV Act. So on record there is no material to show that the offending vehicle driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the alleged accident. So one thing is clear that as on the date of the alleged accident the policy was in existence and the offending vehicle driver was holding valid and effective driving licence. So, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. But in view of the 21 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2012 (5) KAR LJ 292 from the date of petition till its realization. In the result, the issue No.2 is answered as partly in the affirmative.
23. 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.3,14,369/- together with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till its realisation.
The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of the valid insurance policy the respondent No.2 being the insurer shall pay the compensation amount with interest at the rate of 6% 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 his choice for a 22 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 period of three years and the remaining 60% shall be released to him by means of A/c payee cheque on proper identification. The petitioner is at liberty to withdraw the periodical interest accrued on his deposit amount from time to time.
The expenses to be incurred for future medication shall not carry any interest.
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 03rd day of June 2015.
(P.J. Somashekar), XII Addl. Judge-Member, MACT, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of petitioner:
PW1 Sri M. Prabhu Kiran PW2 Dr. Ateeq Ur Rahman
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 Spot Sketch Ex.P5 True copy of Wound Certificate Ex.P6 True copy of IMV Report 23 (SCCH-8) M.V.C.No.4299/2014 Ex.P7 True copy of Charge sheet Ex.P8 Certified copy of Order sheet in CC No.3238/2014 Ex.P9 Certified copy of Plea in CC No.3238/2014 Ex.P10 Discharge summary Ex.P11 Letter of Employment Ex.P12 Bank statement Ex.P13 Notarised attested true copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.P14 15 Medical Prescriptions Ex.P15 25 Medical bills totally amounting to Rs.47,169/- Ex.P16 5 X-ray films Ex.P17 Case Sheet Ex.P18 6 X-ray films Ex.P19 Clinical Notes
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.