Bangalore District Court
Kiran vs ) Ramachandraiah C.H on 12 January, 2023
1
KABC020002592021
BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, MEMBER PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(S.C.C.H. - 1)
Dated this the 12th Day of January, 2023
PRESENT
Sri T.N. Inavally, B.A.L., LL.B.,
Chief Judge,
Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl.MACT,
Bengaluru
M.V.C.No.129/2021
Petitioner : KIRAN,
S/o. Nataraju M.N.,
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Melekote, 4th Cross,
Someshwarapuram, Tumakuru,
(Represented by
Sri G.P. Shivaprasad, Advocate)
Vs
Respondent :1) RAMACHANDRAIAH C.H.,
S/o. Late Huchappa,
R/at Chikkamavathuru,
Doddamavathuru Post,
Huliyurudurga Hobli,
Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru Dist.
2 MVC 129/2021
(Exparte)
2) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD.,
D.O. 6th Floor, Krushi Bhavan.
Nrupathunga Road,
Hudson Circle,
Bengaluru 560 001.,
(Policy No.0714833120P105152423
Valid from 21.08.2020 to 20.08.2021)
(Represented by
Sri H.C.Nanjappa, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act for short) praying for an order to award compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., and also for costs in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.09.2020 at about 11.45 pm., he was travelling as pillion rider on two wheeler bearing registration No.KA.06/ES.9698 along with its rider Ramachandraiah from Tumakuru Town towards Melekote. While he was so travelling on Tumakuru Ring Road opposite Brahma Kumari Ashrama 3 MVC 129/2021 in Sadashivanagara, Tumakuru, the rider of the said Two Wheeler was riding the same in very high speed and rash and negligent manner, due to which, he lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle capsized resulting in an accident. Due to the accident, the petitioner fell down along with the Bike and sustained injuries. He lost conscious. Immediately after the accident, the public gathered near the spot of accident shifted him to the District Hospital, Tumakuru. Later he was shifted to Vinayaka Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru, wherein he was treated as an inpatient for the period of 1 month. He underwent surgery for bifrontal contusion with right FP SDH, left FT EDH with frontal sinus fracture, craniofacial unjuries, left clavical shaft displaced fracture, right ZMC, right condyle fracture, left parasymphysis fracture and mandible and other injuries. He was discharged with advice to take follow- up treatment periodically. Accordingly, he took follow-up treatment by spending huge amount. During 4 MVC 129/2021 hospitalization, he was looked after by 2-3 attendants and he spent Rs.800/- per day towards attendant charges. He spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for medical treatment and other incidental expenses. Prior to the accident, the petitioner maintained good health and he was aged 29 years. He was doing labour work and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and maintaining the family. Now due to the fracture injury and head injury, he is completely and permanently disabled and he is suffering from deformity and also mental pain and agony. He has to undergo one more surgery, for which he needs Rs.2 lakhs for his future medical expenses. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle No.KA.06/ES.9698 by its rider and the Tumkuru Taffic Police registered case against the rider of the said Motor Cycle as per their Crime No.139/2020 for offence under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said Motor Cycle. Hence, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and 5 MVC 129/2021 severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for allowing the petition and to grant compensation in the interest of justice.
3. In spite of service of notice on the petition, the respondent No.1 has not chosen to appear before the Court and hence, he is placed exparte.
4. In pursuance of service of notice on the petition, the respondent No.2 has appeared through its Counsel and filed its Statement of Objections submitting that the petition averments, which are not expressly admitted, are denied as false. It is denied that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent riding of the Motor Cycle and the petitioner sustained injuries.
5. It is further submitted that the issue of Insurance Policy and its validity is not confirmed. If the Policy is issued and valid as on the date of accident, the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy of Insurance and also subject to the rider of the 6 MVC 129/2021 Motor Cycle having valid and effective driving licence. It is denied that the petitioner suffered disability, much less, permanent disability. It is denied that the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.50,00,000/-. The compensation claimed is highly exorbitant and unrelated to the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner. The rider of the Motor Cycle is not responsible for the occurrence of the alleged accident. In fact, there was no any accident occurred on 02.09.2020 involving the Motor Cycle in question. Hence, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. It is also denied that the petitioner was working as Labourer and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and due to the injuries, he could not do any work. It is also denied that the petitioner incurred Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment and conveyance. The petitioner is quite alright and not having any problem at present. However, if this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation, the rate of interest awardable cannot be 7 MVC 129/2021 in excess of 6% p.a., in view of the settled principle of law. Therefore, the respondent No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the petition against it in the interest of justice.
6. On the pleadings of both the parties, this Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on 02.09.2020 at about 11.45 pm., opposite to Brahmakumari Ashrama, Ring Road, Sadashivanagara, Tumkur within the jurisdiction of Tumkur Traffic Police Station on account of rash an negligent riding of the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA.06/ES.9698 by its rider when the petitioner was travelling as Pillion rider in the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.KA.06/ES.9698?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3. What order?
7. In support of the case of the petitioner, two witnesses are examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. The petitioner has produced documents at Exs.P.1 to P.23. On the other hand, in spite of appearing and filing 8 MVC 129/2021 Statement of Objections, the respondent No.2 has not chosen to adduce any oral evidence and produce any document in support of its contentions.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the oral and documentary evidence forthcoming on record.
9. After hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for both the parties and on considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, my findings on the above issues are as hereunder:
1) Issue No.1: In the affirmative
2) Issue No.2: In the affirmative in part
3) Issue No.3: As per final Order, For the following:
REASONS
10. Issues No.1 : It is the contention of the petitioner that he being the Pillion Rider on the Motor Cycle bearing registration No.KA.06/ES.9698 had met 9 MVC 129/2021 with the accident on 02.09.2020 at about 11.45 pm., on Tumkuru Ring Road opposite Brahmakumari Ashrama, Sadashivanagara, Tumkuru due to rash and negligent riding of the said Motor Cycle by its rider. The rider of the Motor Cycle lost control over the vehicle and it capsized resulting in the accident. The petitioner has got himself examined as PW1. The petitioner has filed his affidavit as evidence in chief examination reiterating the facts averred in the petition. The evidence of P.W.1 in chief examination is in accordance with the petition averments regarding the accident and the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Moreover, the petitioner has produced certified copies of the FIR with Complaint, Spot Mahazar, Seizure Mahazar, Spot Sketch, IMV Report, Wound Certificate and Charge Sheet regarding the accident as per Exs.P.1 to P.8 respectively.
11. The FIR and Complaint at Exs.P.1 and P.2 would show that one Nataraju, the father of the petitioner gave complaint to the Police and the Police registered 10 MVC 129/2021 case against Ramachandraiah, the respondent No.1, who is the rider and Owner of the said Motor Cycle for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 337 IPC and Section 134 (A) & (B) and 187 of MV Act. Moreover, the Charge Sheet at Ex.P.8 would show that after completion of investigation, the concerned Police filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of IPC regarding the accident. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P.7 was issued by District Hospital, Tumakuru and as per the said document, the petitioner suffered injuries due to the road traffic accident occurred on 02.09.2020 at about 12.00 am., and on the same day at 12.20 am., the petitioner was examined by the doctor and found the following injuries:
"Multiple contusion over right fore arm and fore head"
As per the Discharge Summary issued by Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru, the petitioner suffered clavicle fracture, right ZMC, right condyle fracture, bifrontal 11 MVC 129/2021 contusion with right FP SDH, right FT EDH and sinus fracture and cranio frontal injuries. All the fracture injuries are stated to be grievous in nature.
12. In spite of appearance and filing of the written statement the respondent No.2 has not chosen to adduce any oral evidence or produce any documents. However, the copy of the insurance policy is produced and the same is marked at Ex.R.1 by consideration. Hence, there is no evidence forthcoming from the respondent No.2 to disprove the oral evidence of petitioner as P.W.1 and the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.8 and P.10 to P.13. Therefore, the evidence forthcoming on record clearly goes to prove that the petitioner being the pillion rider of the Motor Cycle bearing No.KA.06/ES.9698 sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the Motor cycle by its rider. The Wound Certificate at Ex.P.7 and the discharge summary at Ex.P.8 clearly would prove that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Consequently, the petitioner proves issue No.1 and hence the issue No.1 12 MVC 129/2021 is answered in the affirmative.
13. Issue No.2: From the discussion made in issue No.1, it is clear that the petitioner being the pillion rider of the Motor Cycle bearing No.KA.06/ES.9698 sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the said Motor Cycle by its rider. The evidence of PW 1 in his affidavit in chief examination regarding the accident and the injuries suffered by him is in accordance with the petition averments. It is undisputed fact that the respondent No.1 is the Owner/Insured and the respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said Motor Cycle. Hence, both the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent No.2 being the Insurer is vicariously liable to pay the compensation.
14. Now the point is as to what is the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner in the case on hand. As discussed herein above, the petitioner suffered grievous fracture injuries in the accident. The 13 MVC 129/2021 Discharge Summary document at Ex.P.10 issued by Siddaganga Hospital and Research Center, Tumkur would show that the petitioner was treated as inpatient in the said hospital for the period from 04.09.2020 to 29.09.2020 i.e., for the period of 26 days and he suffered Bifrontal contusion with right FP SDH, left FT EDH with frontal sinus fracture, craniofacial injuries, left clavicle shaft displaced fracture, right ZMC, right condyle fracture and left parasymphysis and fracture of mandible. Further, the petitioner has produced Ex.P.11, another Discharge Summary document issued by Siddaganga Hospital and Research Center, Tumkur. The said document would show that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for the period 03.12.2020 to 06.12.2020 i.e., for the period of 4 days regarding the injury suffered in the road traffic accident occurred on 2.9.2020 and the petitioner was diagnosed that he suffered Bifronto temporal bone defect following surgery for traumatic head injury and Bifronto temporal decompressive craniectomy and evacuation of 14 MVC 129/2021 hematoma with anterior cranial fossa repair using G- patch. This would show that the petitioner suffered grievous injuries such as above mentioned fracture injuries in the accident.
15. Even though the petitioner has produced one more Discharge Summary document at Ex.P.12, which would show that the petitioner was treated as inpatient at Siddaganga Hospital and Research Center, Tumkur for the period from 08.04.2021 to 12.04.2021 ie., for the period of 5 days, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, in the the said Discharge Summary, the reason for admission/history is 'alleged history of self fall on 08.04.2021 at around 1.00 pm., followed by two episodes of seizure and petitioner was admitted for further management'. In the said Discharge Summary, the past history is mentioned as 'RTA with head injury S/P decompressive craniotimy and cranioplasty in September, 2020'. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming in the said Discharge Summary at Ex.P.12 to show that the injuries 15 MVC 129/2021 for which the petitioner was treated as inpatient during the said period is in any way connected with the injuries suffered in the road traffic accident occurred as early as in September, 2020, i.e., about 7 months earlier to the treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient for the second time at Siddaganga Hospital and Research Center, Tumakuru.
16. Moreover, there is no material forthcoming from the petitioner to show that after December, 2020, the petitioner took any follow up treatment at Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru, till he was admitted at Siddaganga Hospital for the third time on 8.4.2021 ie., after more than 4 months from the date he was treated as inpatient for the second time in the said hospital regarding the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, the Discharge Summary at Ex.P.12 does not merit consideration to show that the petitioner took treatment regarding the injury suffered in the accident.
17. However, there is no reason to disbelieve 16 MVC 129/2021 the oral evidence of PW 1 and the documents, such as Discharge Summaries at Exs.P.10 and P.11 to prove that the petitioner suffered grievous fracture injuries and he was treated as inpatient in Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru for the period of 26 days and 4 days respectivel. Hence, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident and the period of treatment taken by him, the petitioner is awarded notional amount of Rs.80,000/- as compensation under the head Pain and Agony. The compensation is just and reasonable compensation to be awarded under the said head.
18. As discussed herein above, the petitioner was treated as inpatient twice for the period of 26 days and 4 days respectively, in all for 30 days, at Siddaganga Hospital, Tumakuru. It is the contention of the petitioner that he spent Rs.10,00,000/- towards his medical treatment and other expenses. The petitioner as PW 1 in his evidence has deposed the said fact. It is true that the petitioner has produced 56 Prescriptions 17 MVC 129/2021 and 135 Medical Bills as per Ex.P.14 and P.15 respectively. As per the Bills at Ex.P.15, the total amount spent by the petitioner is Rs.9,56,571/-. The petitioner has also produced 7 Prescriptions and Medical Bills at Ex.P.22 and P.23 respectively. The total amount regarding the Medical Bills at Ex.P.23 is Rs.46,711/-. The present petition is filed on 6.1.2021 i.e., after the treatment of the petitioner twice for the periods mentioned in the documents Discharge Summaries at Ex.P.10 and P.11. However treatment taken by the petitioner as inpatient for the period mentioned in Ex.P.12 is subsequent to the filing of the present petition.
19. Moreover, as discussed herein above, the reason for admission mentioned in Ex.P.12 would show that the petitioner took treatment as inpatient for third time is not regarding the injury suffered in the accident. On the other hand, it is mentioned as 'alleged history of self fall on 08.04.2021.' Therefore, the prescriptions at Ex.P.22 and Bills at Ex.P.23 do not merit consideration. 18 MVC 129/2021 Moreover, Bill at Sl.No.1 in Ex.P.23 is issued by Maruti Super Specialty Dental Clinic on 30.06.2022. It is not at all the case of the petitioner that he suffered any injury to the teeth in the accident. Hence, the Bills at Ex.P.23 do not merit consideration in the case on hand. Moreover Bills at Sl.No.1 in Ex.P.15 would show that medicine charges of Rs.1,85,400/- is included in the said Bill. Therefore, the tax invoice produced by the petitioner towards purchase of medicine at Sl.Nos. 4 to 54, 63 and 64, 67 to 130 and 133 of Ex.P.15 do not merit consideration as the amounts shown in those tax invoices are already covered in the Bill at Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.15. Therefore, as per the document produced by the petitioner, actual amount spent by the petitioner is Rs.5,95,105/- for his treatment.
20. The petitioner has produced the OPD Record, Neuro Psychological Assessment Report, Mini Mental State Examination Report document, one X ray Film and and one X ray report as per Exs.P.16 to 20 respectively. The petitioner has examined one Dr. 19 MVC 129/2021 Shailesh A.V. Rao, Senior Consultant Neuro Surgeon, Padmashree Diagnostics as PW 2. The PW 2 has filed his affidavit as evidence in chief examination. The evidence of PW 2 is regarding the physical disability of the petitioner. The documents at Exs. P.16 to 20 are produced through PW 2 and got marked. But, as admitted by PW 2 in his evidence, the PW 2 is not the doctor who treated the petitioner. He has examined the petitioner only for the purpose of assessment of disability. Therefore, the evidence of PW 2 and the documents at Exs.P.16 to 20 do not arise for consideration regarding the treatment taken by the petitioner.
21. The petitioner has produced one Discharge Summary, 7 Prescriptions and 18 Medical Bills as per Exs.P.21 to P.23 respectively. The Discharge Summary at Ex.P.21 would show that the petitioner was diagnosed with united fracture of left clavicle and surgery was done under general anesthesia for removal of implants. The petitioner was treated as inpatient at 20 MVC 129/2021 Siddaganga Medical College and Research Center for 2 days on 06.07.2022 and 07.07.2022 as per the Discharge Summary at Ex.P.21. The total amount spent by the petitioner for his treatment during the said period as per Medical Bills at Ex.P.23 is Rs.46,711/-. As the petitioner is treated as inpatient for 2 days at Siddaganga Medical College and Research Center, Tumakuru during the period mentioned in Ex.P.20 for removal of implants and the said injury is connected with the injury suffered by the petitioner in the accident, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.16,211/- regarding the Medical Bills at Sl.No.2 to 17 of Ex.P.23 towards expenses incurred by him for his medical treatment. However, the treatment taken by the petitioner as per Ex.P.12 - Discharge Summary is connected to teeth, which is unconnected to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.23 is the Medical Bill issued in connection with the treatment given as per Ex.P.12. Medical Bills at Sl.No.2 to 17 are in connection with the treatment taken by the 21 MVC 129/2021 petitioner on 6.7.2022 and 7.7.2022 as per Discharge Summary at Ex.P.21 i.e., for removal of implants to the injuries connected to the accident in question, which has to be allowed. Therefore, the amount shown in Sl.No.1 of Ex.P.23 to the extent of Rs.30,500/- should be disallowed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the total amount of Rs.6,11,316/- under the head medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for his treatment to the injuries suffered by him the accident.
22. Moreover, for the injuries suffered in the accident, the petitioner was treated thrice as inpatient at Siddaganga Medical College and Research Center, Tumakuru for the period of 26 days, 4 days and 2 days respectively i.e., for the total period of more than one month. During the period of treatment and also for some time after discharge from the hospital, the petitioner would require expenses towards conveyance, nourishment and attendant charges. In the circumstances of the case, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner in the accident for 22 MVC 129/2021 which he was treated thrice as inpatient for more than one month, a notional amount of Rs.25,000/- is allowed towards attendant charges, conveyance expenses and nourishment charges. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to the total amount of Rs.6,36,316/- towards medical treatment, attendant charges, conveyance, nourishment etc. the said amount is rounded off to Rs.6,36,500/-. The compensation is just and reasonable compensation to be awarded under the said head. Therefore, the petitioner is hereby awarded total compensation of Rs.6,36,500/- is hereby awarded under the head medical expenses, attendant charges, conveyance expenses and nourishment charges.
23. The contention of the petitioner is that he was working as labourer and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Even though it is the contention of the petitioner that he is aged 29 years, there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the petitioner except medical papers to prove the age of the petitioner. 23 MVC 129/2021 Further, there is no independent evidence forthcoming from the petitioner to prove that he was working as labourer and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. As discussed herein above, the petitioner has examined Dr. Shailesh A.V. Rao, Senior Consultant Neuro Surgeon, Padmashree Diagnostic Center, Bengaluru as PW 2 to prove the physical disability of the petitioner. As per the evidence of PW 2, the petitioner is suffering from intellectual disability of 25% and the said disability is pertaining to whole body and it is permanent in nature. The documents at Ex.P.16 to 20 are produced and got marked through the PW 2. But there is absolutely no material forthcoming from the petitioner to show that the said physical disability is functional disability of the petitioner.
24. As per the document at Ex.P.21, it would be clear that the implants inserted in the fracture injury are already removed during the pendency of this petition when the petitioner was treated as inpatient for 2 days on 06.07.2022 and 07.07.2022 at Siddaganga 24 MVC 129/2021 Medical College and Research Center, Tumakuru. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner has suffered any functional disability which rendered him unable to do any work such as labour work. Moreover, the petitioner has personally appeared before the Court and gave evidence in his case. Hence, there is no evidence from the petitioner to prove that the petitioner is suffering from any permanent disability. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the head loss of future income due to permanent disability.
25. However, the petitioner suffered the grievous injuries such as fracture injuries mentioned above and he was treated as inpatient thrice, in all for the period for more than a month. Hence, during the period of treatment and also for some time after discharge from the hospital, the petitioner could not do any work. Further, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner, at the least for the period of 4 months, the petitioner could not do any work and 25 MVC 129/2021 during the said period, the petitioner being the labourer, would suffer loss of income as he could not do any work. Therefore, considering the income of the petitioner as Rs.14,500/- as per the guidelines issued by the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.58,000/- under the head loss of income during the period of treatment. The said amount is just and reasonable compensation to be awarded under the said head.
26. Moreover, the petitioner was aged 29 years as on the date of accident and he suffered fracture injuries and he was treated as inpatient thrice for more than a month. As stated by PW 2 in his evidence, the petitioner is suffering from disability. Hence, there would be some inconvenience to the petitioner to do his activities subsequent to the accident. Hence, in the circumstances of the case, a notional compensation of Rs.40,000/- is awarded to the petitioner under the head loss of amenities in life. The said amount is just and reasonable compensation to be awarded under 26 MVC 129/2021 the said head.
27. As discussed herein above, the petitioner has already undergone treatment as inpatient for two days on 06.07.2022 and 07.07.2022 for removal of implants. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming on record to show that the petitioner would still require any treatment in future. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the head expenses towards future medical treatment.
28. In view of the reasons mentioned herein above, the petitioner is entitled to the total compensation under different heads as follows:
Sl. Particulars Amount in
No. Rs.
1) Pain and Agony 80,000.00
2) Medical expenses, including 6,36,500.00
attendant charges, conveyance
expenses and nourishment charges
3) Loss of income during laid up period 58,000.00
4) Loss of amenities in life 40,000.00
Total 8,14,500.00
Therefore the petitioner is entitled to the total
compensation of Rs.8,14,500/- with interest at 6% p.a. 27 MVC 129/2021 from the date of petition till realization.
29. As discussed herein above, it is undisputed fact that the respondent No.2 is the Owner/ Insured and the respondent No.1 is the Insurer of the offending Motor Cycle and the Insurance Policy was in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation amount to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner proves issue No.2 and consequently, the issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative in part accordingly.
30. Issue No.3: From the discussion made herein above, it is clear that this petition deserves to be allowed in part. In the result, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby allowed in part with costs against the respondents.
The petitioner is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.8,14,500/- with interest 28 MVC 129/2021 at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.
The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and the respondent No.1 being the Insurer shall indemnify the respondent No.2 and hence, the respondent No.1 shall deposit the compensation amount with interest thereon within 2 months from the date of award.
On deposit, as the petitioner has incurred huge amount for his treatment, the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit in the name of petitioner in any nationalized or scheduled bank of the choice of the petitioner for the period of 5 years.
The remaining amount of Rs.6,64,500/- with accrued interest on the entire compensation amount shall be released to the petitioner.
The Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
The award shall be drawn accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 12 th day of January, 2023) (T.N. Inavally) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE 29 MVC 129/2021 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner:
P.W.1 : Kiran P.W.2 : Dr.Shailesh A.V.Rao List of documents marked on behalf of the petitioner:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of FIR
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Complaint
Ex.P-3 Certified copy of Crime detail form
with panchanama
Ex.P-4 Certified copy of vehicle seizure
panchanama
Ex.P-5 Certified copy of Spot sketch
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of IMV Report
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of Wound Certificate
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of Chargesheet
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of Aadhaar Card of
petitioner
Ex.P.10 to 12 Discharge summaries (3) Ex.P.13 C.T.Scan report Ex.P.14 Prescriptions (56) Ex.P.15 Medical bills (135) Ex.P.16 OPD record Ex.P.17 Neuro psychological assessment report Ex.P.18 Mini mental state examination report Ex.P.19 X-ray film Ex.P.20 X-ray report Ex.P.21 Discharge summary Ex.P.22 Prescriptions(7) Ex.P.23 Medical bills (17) 30 MVC 129/2021 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the respondent:
-Nil-
(T.N. Inavally) Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes & Member, Prl. M.A.C.T. Bengaluru.