Bangalore District Court
In Mvc No.3173/2014 Nagarajaiah @ ... vs In Both The Cases The Manager on 15 June, 2016
BEFORE THE COURT OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.
SCCH-14
PRESENT: BASAVARAJ CHENGTI., B.Com.,LL.B.,(spl)
Member, MACT,
XVI ADDL. JUDGE,
Court of Small Causes,
BANGALORE.
MVC No.3173/2014 and 3174/2014
Dated this the 15th day of JUNE 2016.
Petitioner in MVC No.3173/2014 NAGARAJAIAH @ NAGARAJ
S/o Narasimaiah
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Chaluvayanapalya,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
(By pleader Sri KM)
Petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 SANTOSH KUMAR
S/o Nagarajaiah
Aged about 21 years,
R/at Chaluvayanapalya,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
(By pleader Sri KM)
V/s
Respondent in both the cases THE MANAGER
K.S.R.T.C
Shanthi Nagara,
Double road,
Bangalore-560 010.
(By pleader Sri SB)
SCCH-14 2 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two petitions are filed U/Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act
by the claimants for compensation for the injuries sustained by
them in a road traffic accident. Since, both the petitions are arising
out of same accident, they are clubbed together for common trial
and disposal by a common Judgment.
2. Brief averments of the claim petitions are as under:
On 29.03.2014 at about 06.00 p.m., the petitioners were
proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.KA-02-G-8117 from
Rajanapalya towards Chaluvayanapalya on the left side of the road
by following all the traffic rules. When they reached near Maramma
Temple cross, Kothaganahalli, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District, at that time, KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01-
F-7954 driven by its driver at high speed, in rash and negligent
manner which endangers human life, without observing traffic
rules came and dashed against the petitioners' motorcycle. Due to
impact, both the petitioners fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. Immediately, the petitioner Nagarajaiah was taken to
Victoria Hospital, Bangalore wherein he was admitted as an
inpatient for 17 days. The petitioner sustained grievous injuries
over right leg, neck, foot and all over the body. He underwent
surgery for his right leg and rod was inserted. He was discharged
with an advice to take follow up treatment and bed rest. He spent
more than Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance, food and
nourishment charges and other for his incidental charges. Prior to
SCCH-14 3 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy, was aged
45 years, was a lorry driver and agriculturist and was earning
Rs.25,000/- p.m., Due to accidental injuries, he cannot attend to
his work as a result loss of earning and earning capacity. The
petitioner Nagarajaiah is still suffering from pain in the right leg
and he suffering deep mental agony and has become disabled and
dependent.
The petitioner Santhosh Kumar has sustained grievous
injuries over left hand, shoulder and all over the body.
Immediately, he was taken to S.S.G Hospital, Anjananagar,
Bangalore wherein he was admitted as an inpatient for 2 days. He
underwent several medical, clinical, radiological examinations,
laboratory tests, X-rays were taken and discharged with an advice
to take bed rest with regular follow up treatment up to 3 months.
The doctors have advised the petitioner for further operation to his
left hand. He spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance,
food and nourishment charges and other for his incidental
charges. Prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy,
was aged 21 years, was a student and agriculturist and was
earning Rs.10,000/- p.m., Due to accidental injuries, he cannot do
his work as he was doing earlier and he cannot do his regular
activities as a result loss of earning capacity and has become
disabled and dependent. The petitioner Santhosh Kumar suffered a
lot mentally, physically and financially.
Tavarekere police have registered Cr.No.232/2014 against
the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-7954 for the
SCCH-14 4 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
offences punishable U/Sec.279, 337 of IPC and have investigated
the matter and filed charge sheet against the driver of the bus.
The respondent is owner of the said bus and he is liable to pay
compensation. Therefore, the petitioners have claimed
compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- and 5,00,000/- respectively with
cost and interest.
3. In pursuance of the notice, the respondent has
appeared before the court through his counsel and filed common
objection statement in both the cases denying the averments of the
petitions as false and contended that the petitions are not
maintainable either in law or on facts. He has denied the age,
occupation, income of the petitioner Nagarajaiah, amount of
medical expenses. He has contended that the compensation
claimed by the petitioners under various heads is not sustainable
in law. He has further contended that when the said bus reached
Kotthaganahalli, it was parked, that it was about to proceed
towards City Market, Bangalore, that the conductor of the bus got
down and went to rest room and at that time, rider of the motor
bike bearing no.KA-02-HP-8117 came from opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner with a terrific speed and dashed
against the said bus which was parked, that the rider of the
motorcycle has consumed alcohol, that with the help of public, the
driver of the bus sent the petitioner Nagarajaiah to Victoria
Hospital and then, he went to police station to give complaint
against the rider of motorcycle, but the police officials refused to
take complaint by saying that there is no fault from the driver's
SCCH-14 5 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
side. He has further contended that there was no pillion rider on
the motorcycle and the rider was alone on it who was under the
influence of alcohol, that the accident has occurred due to sole
negligence of the rider of the motorcycle, that the petitioners have
filed a false case by concocting the documents with the help of
police with an intention to extract huge amount from him, that the
petitions are bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Hence, he
has sought for dismissal of the petitions with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, the following common
issues were framed:
COMMON ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that he
has sustained grievous injuries as
mentioned in Column No.11, in a road
traffic accident on 29.03.2014 at
about 06.00 p.m., near Maramma
temple cross, Kothaganahalli, Solur
hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagara,
due to the rash and negligent driving
of the driver of the KSRTC bus bearing
registration No.KA-01-7954?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for any
compensation?
3. What order or Award?
5. At the instance of the petitioners, these two petitions
are clubbed together for common evidence and disposal by a
common Judgment. During the evidence, the petitioners have
examined themselves as PW.1 and 2 respectively and have
examined a doctor as PW.3. They have got marked documents as
SCCH-14 6 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
Ex.P1 to 23. The respondent has examined his driver as RW.1 and
got marked documents as Ex.R1 to 3.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In both cases: In Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.3173/2014: In Affirmative
for Rs.3,26,000/-.
Issue No.2 : In MVC.No.3174/2014: In Affirmative
for Rs.87,000/- .
Issue No.3 :In both cases: As per final order:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 IN BOTH THE CASES:: The respondent
is the owner of KSRTC bus bearing no.KA-01-F-7954. There is no
dispute that Tavarekere police have registered Cr.No.232/14
regarding accident on the basis of information given by
PW-2:Santhosh Kumar, investigated the matter and filed charge
sheet against RW-1:Siddaraju for the offences punishable
U/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. The said RW-1 was an employee of
the respondent and he was holding a valid and effective driving
licence as per Ex.R-2 and 3, whereas the petitioner Nagarajaiah
was holding licence to drive a LMV, LMV transport and PSV Bus
and he was not holding a licence to ride a motorcycle as on the
date of accident as per Ex.R-1. Failing to hold a valid and effective
driving licence by itself is not a ground to hold that petitioner
Nagarajaiah was negligent and contributed to the accident. There
SCCH-14 7 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
must be some believable evidence in that regard to hold him
negligent.
9. PW-1:Nagarajaiah and PW-2:Santosh Kumar are the
petitioners and they have reiterated the averments of the petitions.
Copies of police records at Ex.P-11 to 15 and 17 corroborate their
evidence regarding manner of accident, whereas medical records at
Ex.P-1 to 11, 16, 18 to 23 support their evidence as to injuries
caused to them in the accident. RW-1:Sidda Raju is the driver of
the respondent and he has deposed as per the defence of the
respondent, but his evidence remained uncorroborated. Contents
of Ex.R-1 to 3 do not corroborate the evidence of RW-1 as to
manner of accident, consumption of alcohol by the petitioner
Nagarajaiah and absence of the petitioner Santhosh Kumar in the
place at the time of accident. However, wound certificate at Ex.P16
discloses that there was alcoholic smell from the petitioner
Nagarajaiah when he was taken to Hospital. History sheet of case
sheet at Ex.P19 discloses that the petitioner Nagarajaiah is alcohol
since 10 years. But, the said facts by themselves do not indicate
that the petitioner Nagarajaiah was in a position to control his
motorcycle and he himself went and dashed against the bus. The
police have not charge sheeted him for riding the motorcycle under
the influence alcohol. There is no evidence to believe that the
petitioner Nagarajaiah was not knowing the skill of riding a
motorcycle, that the bus was stationed at the time of accident, that
the petitioner Nagarajaiah rode his motorcycle alone in rash and
negligent manner and dashed against the stationed bus and got
SCCH-14 8 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
injured, that the petitioner Santosh Kumar was not present at that
time, that the police have not received the complaint of RW-1. The
evidence of RW-1 is self serving. If the petitioner Nagarajaiah was
under the influence of alcohol, then the police would have filed
charge sheet against him for riding the motorcycle under such
influence of alcohol. If the petitioner Santhosh Kumar was not a
pillion rider on motorcycle bearing no.KA-02-HP-8117, then
contents of his wound certificate would not have tallied with the
contents of wound certificate of the petitioner Nagarajaiah.
Therefore, evidence of RW-1 is unacceptable.
10. The copies of police records are at Ex.P-12 to 15
and 17. There was a delay of 3 days in lodging complaint. An
explanation is given by PW-2 regarding delay while lodging
complaint. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the said
explanation. There was no delay in admitting the petitioners to
hospitals. Thus, the delay in lodging complaint is not fatal.
11. The police have investigated the matter, detained the
bus and motorcycle, subjected them to inspection and filed charge
sheet against the driver of the bus for the offences punishable
U/s 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. IMV report reveals that both the
vehicles were damaged and brake system of the same was in order.
It is opined that the accident was not due to mechanical defect of
the vehicles. The evidence of RW-1 as to negligence of PW-1 for the
occurrence of accident is unacceptable and uncorroborated. On
the other hand, evidence of PW-1 and 2 as to negligence of RW-1
SCCH-14 9 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
for the occurrence of accident is believable and is corroborated by
the contents of Ex.P-12 to 15 and 17. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the contents of charge sheet which indicate the
negligence of RW-1. Hence, I hold that the accident has occurred
due to sole negligence of the driver of KSRTC bus bearing no.
KA-01-F-7954 and there was no negligence on the part of the
petitioner Nagarajaiah for the occurrence of the accident.
12. Evidence of PW-1 to 3 and contents of wound
certificates, discharge summary, OPD books, case sheet and x-rays
at Ex.P-1, 4, 7, 9, 11, 16, 18 to 23 disclose that the petitioners
have sustained simple and grievous injuries in the accident, that
the petitioner Nagarajaiah underwent surgery and the petitioner
Santosh Kumar was treated conservatively, that the petitioners are
suffering from disability due to accidental injuries. The respondent
has disputed the extent of disability suffered by the petitioners as
stated by PW-3. Extent of disability can be assessed while
discussing the issue no.2. There is no evidence to believe that the
medical records are created for this case and the petitioners have
not sustained any injuries as shown in wound certificates and
have not suffered disability as stated by PW-3. Evidence of RW-1 is
not sufficient to rebut the evidence of PW-1 to 3 and contents of
medical records. X-rays confirm the causing of fracture injuries to
the petitioners. Hence, I hold that the petitioners have sustained
simple and grievous injuries in the said accident which led them to
suffer permanent disability. Thus, the petitioners have succeeded
to prove the issues by oral and documentary evidence. The
SCCH-14 10 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
respondent has failed to prove his defence regarding manner of
accident by producing cogent evidence. Hence, I answer the issues
in affirmative.
13. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.3173/2014: The petitioner
Nagarajaiah is claiming compensation of Rs.14,00,000/- from the
respondent for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The
respondent is the owner of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-7954
and he has denied the claim petitions as false and contended that
the compensation claimed by the petitioners is not sustainable in
law.
14. The petitioner has pleaded that he was aged 45 years,
was a lorry driver and agriculturist and was earning Rs.25,000/-
p.m., as on the date of accident, that he suffered grievous injuries
leading to permanent disability due to accident, that he has got
several difficulties and his unable to do his work as doing earlier as
become permanently disabled.
15. PW.1:Nagarajaiah has reiterated entire averments of
the petition. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from him to
disbelieve his evidence regarding his age, occupation and income.
In cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that he is aged 47 years.
Copy of voter ID is at Ex.P6 in which the date of birth of the
petitioner is shown as 14.06.1969. Ex.R1 is copy of licence of the
petitioner Nagarajaiah. The date of birth shown in Ex.R1 tallies
with the date of birth shown in voter ID at Ex.P6. There is nothing
SCCH-14 11 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
on record to disbelieve the contents of Ex.P6 and Ex.R1 regarding
date of birth of the petitioner. Documentary evidence prevails over
oral evidence. Hence, I hold that the petitioner was aged 44 years
as on the date of accident. Appropriate multiplier for the said aged
is 14.
16. The petitioner has produced copy of RTC which is
marked as Ex.P5. The land is not standing in the name of the
petitioner, but it is in the name of father of the petitioner. Ex.R1 is
the copy of driving licence of the petitioner Nagarajaiah and it
reveals that the petitioner was holding a licence to drive a LMV, a
LMV transport and PSV bus as on the date of accident. The said
licence is produced by the respondent himself and it clearly
indicates that the petitioner Nagarajaiah was a driver by
profession. Apart from the said job, he was having land in the
name of his father. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the
contents of Ex.P5 and Ex.R1. Therefore, I hold that the petitioner
Nagarajaiah was a driver and an agriculturist as on the date of
accident. However, there is no corroboration to the evidence of
PW.1 regarding his income. In the absence of positive evidence, the
income of the petitioner shall have to be assessed notionally. I am
of the opinion that if the income of the petitioner is considered as
Rs.8,000/- p.m., it will meet the ends of justice. His annual income
comes to Rs.96,000/- and it attracts no income tax.
17. The petitioner has produced discharge summary, OPD
book, X-ray and wound certificate which are marked as Ex.P1, 4, 7
SCCH-14 12 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
and 16. PW.3:Dr.Ramachandra has support the version of PW.1
regarding the injuries caused to the petitioner. He has produced
case sheet, OPD book and X-ray pertaining to the petitioner which
marked as Ex.P19 to 21. On perusal of oral evidence of PW.1 and 3
and contents of Ex.P1, 4, 7, 16, 19 to 21, it reveals that the
petitioner Nagarajaiah has sustained Type III open fracture of both
bones of right leg. He was admitted in Victoria Hospital, Bangalore
for 18 days from 29.03.2014 to 15.04.2014 and underwent ORIF
with 'L' buttress plate. He was advised to take follow up treatment
and bed rest. The petitioner has not produced follow up records,
but looking to the injuries caused to the petitioner, I am of the
opinion that the petitioner has taken follow up treatment and rest
for a period of 3 to 3½ months. Total laid up period comes to
4 months. During the said period, the petitioner might have spent
amount for nourishment, conveyance and attendant charges apart
from incurring medical expenses. He might have lost his income
for 4 months after the accident.
18. The petitioner has produced medical bills amounting
to Rs.20,497/- which are marked as Ex.P2. Prescriptions at Ex.P3
support the medical bills. There is nothing on record to believe that
the medical bills and prescriptions are created for this case. The
medical bills are consistent with the treatment given to the
petitioner and hence, there are acceptable. I am of the opinion that
the petitioner Nagarajaiah is entitled for a compensation of
Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.21,000/- towards
medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance
SCCH-14 13 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
and attendant charges and Rs.32,000/- towards loss of income
during the laid up period.
19. PW.3:Dr.Ramachandra has deposed that the
petitioner is suffering from permanent disability to the extent of
33.3% to right lower limb which is permanent disability of 16.65%
to whole body. He has stated that fracture of shaft of right tibia
and fibula of the petitioner shows union with implants in situ, that
the petitioner is advised to undergo another operation for removal
of implants from right tibia. In cross-examination, he has admitted
that he has not treated the petitioner, that there is no shorting of
leg. He had denied that whole body disability will be 1/3rd of the
disability of particular limb. He has stated that cost of surgery for
removal of implants in Victoria Hospital is about Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.6,000/-. Looking to the admissions of PW.3, in view of reunion
of fracture and requirement of future surgery for removal of
implants, I am of the opinion that if whole body disability is
considered as 1/3rd of disability of right lower limb, it will meet the
ends of justice. Calculation of disability of right lower limb made by
PW.3 is correct. 1/3rd of 33.3% comes to 11.1%. Hence, I hold that
the petitioner Nagarajaiah is suffering from permanent disability of
11% to whole body from right lower limb. He was a driver and an
agriculturist. The disability caused to his right lower limb will
affect his working capacity resulting in loss of earning capacity.
Thus, the disability of the petitioner is physical as well as
occupational. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to assess the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner
SCCH-14 14 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
@11%. The petitioner is suffering from several difficulties which
may persist in future resulting in loss of amenities. He has to live
with disability of 11% throughout his life. He has to undergo
another surgery for removal of implants. The cost of surgery as
deposed by PW.3 is reasonable and acceptable. Hence, I award a
compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards disability, Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of amenities and Rs.5,000/- towards future medical
expenses. Loss of future income of the petitioner would be
Rs.96,000X14X11%=Rs.1,47,840/- which can be rounded to
Rs.1,48,000/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under;
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 21,000/-
3. Nourishment, Rs. 20,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4. Loss of income during Rs. 32,000/-
laid up period
5 Loss of future income Rs.1,48,000/-
6 Disability Rs. 25,000/-
7 Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
8 Future medical expenses Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.3,26,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% pa, from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
19. ISSUE NO.2 IN M.V.C.NO.3174/2014: The petitioner
Santhosh is claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the
respondent for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The
SCCH-14 15 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
respondent is the owner of KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-01-F-7954
and he has denied the claim petitions as false and contended that
the compensation claimed by the petitioners is not sustainable in
law.
20. The petitioner has pleaded that he was aged 21 years,
was a student and agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m.,
as on the date of accident, that he suffered grievous injuries
leading to permanent disability due to accident, that he has got
several difficulties and his unable to do his work as doing earlier as
become permanently disabled.
21. PW.2:Santhosh has reiterated entire averments of the
petition. Except bare denials, nothing is elicited from him to
disbelieve his evidence regarding his age, occupation and income.
Copy of ration card is at Ex.P10 in which the aged of the petitioner
is shown as 18 years as on 24.11.2012. As per said document, the
petitioner was aged 20 years on the date of accident. His age is
shown as 20 years in charge sheet. Hence, I hold that the
petitioner Santhosh Kumar was aged 20 years as on the date of
accident. Appropriate multiplier for the said aged is 18.
22. The petitioner has not produced any evidence
regarding his occupation and income. His occupation is shown as
student in charge sheet. There is nothing on record to believe that
the petitioner is an agriculturist and his having income. In the
absence of corroboration, I disbelieve the evidence of PW.2
regarding his occupation as agriculturist and income as
SCCH-14 16 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, I hold that the petitioner Santhosh
Kumar was a student at the time of accident and he has no source
of income at that time.
23. The petitioner has produced OPD book, X-rays and
wound certificate which are marked as Ex.P9, 11 and 18.
PW.3:Dr.Ramachandra has support the version of PW.2 regarding
the injuries caused to the petitioner. He has produced OPD book
and X-ray pertaining to the petitioner which marked as Ex.P22
to 23. On perusal of oral evidence of PW.2 and 3 and contents of
Ex.P9, 11, 18, 22 and 23, it reveals that the petitioner Santhosh
Kumar has sustained fracture of left clavicle, that he was admitted
in SSG Hospital and was treated conservatively. He was advised to
take follow up treatment and bed rest. The petitioner has not
produced follow up records, but looking to the injuries caused to
the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has taken
follow up treatment and rest for a period of 1½ to 2 months. Total
laid up period comes to 2 months. During the said period, the
petitioner might have spent amount for nourishment, conveyance
and attendant charges apart from incurring medical expenses. He
might have not attended his classes during the said period.
24. The petitioner has produced medical bills amounting
to Rs.1,035/- which are marked as Ex.P8. There is nothing on
record to believe that the medical bills are created for this case.
The medical bills are consistent with the treatment given to the
petitioner and hence, they are acceptable. I am of the opinion that
the petitioner Santhosh Kumar is entitled for a compensation of
SCCH-14 17 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.2,000/- towards
medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards nourishment, conveyance
and attendant charges.
25. PW.3:Dr.Ramachandra has deposed that the
petitioner is suffering from permanent disability to the extent of
4.47% to whole body. He has stated that fracture of clavicle is
united. He had admitted that whole body disability will be 1/3rd of
the disability of particular limb. Looking to the admissions of PW.3,
in view of reunion of fracture, I am of the opinion that if whole
body disability is considered as 4% to whole body, it will the meet
the ends of justice. The said disability is negligible one and it will
not come in the way of the petitioner to carry out his day today
activities. However, the petitioner is suffering from several
difficulties which may persist in future resulting in loss of
amenities. He has to live with disability of 4% throughout his life.
Hence, I award a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards disability,
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities. Since, he is a student, he
has not sustained loss of earning during laid up period. However,
he was unable to attended classes for 2 months and might have
suffered set back in studies. He might have taken tuitions to cope
with studies. Hence, I award a compensation of Rs.5,000/-
towards coaching fees. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for just and
reasonable compensation as under;
SCCH-14 18 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
1. Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/-
2 Medical expenses Rs. 2,000/-
3. Nourishment, Rs. 10,000/-
conveyance and
attendant charges
4. Disability Rs. 25,000/-
5. Loss of amenities Rs. 25,000/-
6. Coaching fees Rs. 5,000/-
Total Rs.87,000/-
The petitioner is further entitled for interest @ 9% pa, from
the date of petition till the date of payment. Liability aspect is
discussed separately. Hence, I answer the issue as above.
Liability:
26. The respondent is the owner of KSRTC bus bearing
No.KA-01-F-7954. The accident has occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. Hence, the
respondent is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the
petitioners with interest as calculated above. Consequently,
I answer the issues regarding liability as above.
27. ISSUE No.3 IN BOTH THE CASES: In view of above
discussion and findings, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
SCCH-14 19 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 The petitioner in MVC.No.3173/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.87,000/-. The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- and Rs.87,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. He is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in MVC No.3173/2014 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest of the said petitioner and entire compensation and interest of the petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
SCCH-14 20 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.3173/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3174/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and corrected by me and pronounced in the open court, on this the 15th of JUNE 2016) (Basavaraj Chengti) XVI ADDL.JUDGE., Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 21 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS:
PW.1 Nagarajaiah
PW.2 Sonthosh Kumar
PW.3 Dr.Ramachandra
Respondents
RW.1 Sidda Raju
Ex.P1 Discharge summary
Ex.P2 28 Medical bills
Ex.P3 10 prescriptions
Ex.P4 OPD book
Ex.P5 RTC
Ex.P6 Voter ID
Ex.P7 X-ray
Ex.P8 5 medical bills
Ex.P9 OPD book
Ex.P10 Ration card
Ex.P11 2 X-rays with films
Ex.P12 Copy of compliant
Ex.P13 FIR
Ex.P14 Charge sheet
Ex.P15 Panchanama
Ex.P16 Wound certificate
Ex.P17 IMV report
Ex.P18 Wound certificate of Santhosh Kumar
Ex.P19 Case sheet
Ex.P20 OPD book
Ex.P21 X-ray
Ex.P22 OPD book
Ex.P23 X-ray
SCCH-14 22 MVC No.3173/14 &
3174/14
Respondent's
Ex.R1 Copy of licence of the Nagarajaiah
Ex.R2 ID card
Ex.R3 Copy of driving licence of Siddaraju
XVI ADDL.JUDGE.,
Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 23 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 DT.15.06.2016 P-KM R-SB For Judgment Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.3173/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- and the petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.87,000/-. The petitioners are further entitled for interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- and Rs.87,000/- with interest to the said petitioners respectively. He is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
SCCH-14 24 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in MVC No.3173/2014 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest of the said petitioner and entire compensation and interest of the petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheques with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.3173/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3174/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.
Draw award accordingly.
XVI ADDL.JUDGE., Court of Small Causes & MACT, Bangalore.
SCCH-14 25 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.3173/2014 Petitioner in MVC No.3173/2014 NAGARAJAIAH @ NAGARAJ S/o Narasimaiah Aged about 43 years, R/at Chaluvayanapalya, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District.
(By pleader Sri KM) V/s Respondent in both the cases THE MANAGER K.S.R.T.C Shanthi Nagara, Double road, Bangalore-560 010.
(By pleader Sri SB) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. SCCH-14 26 MVC No.3173/14 & 3174/14 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.3173/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. He is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the petitioner in MVC No.3173/2014 in any nationalized, scheduled or co-operative bank for a period of 3 years. Balance amount with interest of the said petitioner shall be released in his favour SCCH-14 27 MVC No.3173/14 & 3174/14 through account payee cheque with proper identification.
The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.3173/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3174/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 28 MVC No.3173/14 & 3174/14 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR SCCH-14 29 MVC No.3173/14 & 3174/14 AWARD SCCH NO.14 BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL METROPOLITAN AREA : BANGALORE CITY MVC No.3174/2014 Petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 SANTOSH KUMAR S/o Nagarajaiah Aged about 21 years, R/at Chaluvayanapalya, Magadi Taluk, Ramanagar District.
(By pleader Sri KM) V/s Respondent in both the cases THE MANAGER K.S.R.T.C Shanthi Nagara, Double road, Bangalore-560 010.
(By pleader Sri SB) WHEREAS, this petition filed on by the petitioner/s above named U/sec.166 of the M.V.C. Act, praying for the compensation of Rs.
(Rupees ) for the injuries sustained by the petitioner/Death of in
a motor Accident by vehicle No. SCCH-14 30 MVC No.3173/14 & 3174/14 WHEREAS, this claim petition coming up before Sri/Smt.Basavaraj Chengti, XVI Addl.Judge, Member, Court of Small Cause, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate for petitioner/s and of Sri/Smt. Advocate for respondent.
ORDER The petitions filed U/sec.166 of M.V Act by the petitioners are hereby partly allowed with cost.
The petitioner in MVC.No.3174/2014 is entitled for a compensation of Rs.87,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of payment.
The respondent is liable to pay compensation of Rs.87,000/- with interest to the said petitioner. He is liable to deposit the said amount with interest before the court within one month from the date of order.
After deposit, entire compensation amount and interest of the petitioner in MVC No.3174/2014 shall be released in their favour through account payee cheque with proper identification.
SCCH-14 31 MVC No.3173/14 &3174/14 The original Judgment shall be kept in MVC.No.3173/2014 and copy of the same in MVC.No.3174/2014.
Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.2,500/- each.
Given under my hand and seal of the Court this day of 2016.
MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, METROPOLITAN AREA: Bangalore SCCH-14 32 MVC No.3173/14 & 3174/14 By the __________________________________ Petitioner/s Respondent No.1 No.2 __________________________________ Court fee paid on petition 10-00 Court fee paid on Powers 01-00 Court fee paid on I.A. Process Pleaders Fee _____________________________ Total Rs. ____________________________ Decree Drafted Scrutinised by MEMBER, M.A.C.T. METROPOLITAN: BANGALORE.
Decree Clerk SHERISTEDAR